Indian Military Aviation

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Jan 2010 19:48

No I dont think you can do such large scale mods by IAI. converting a old civilian plane to a cargo hauler which israelis do is a much simpler job.

the maker would have to be involved. afaik Bereiv already had the A50 test data so they could certify that the radome and supports would work.

IAI has no qualification or permission to add huge radomes to airbus who'd need to depute people or have IAI fly in to france. else airbus would surely start voiding warranties.

the digital FCS would probably need some changes to account for the different
weight distribution even if the radome is designed to 'lift' its own weight when in the air.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Jan 2010 20:26

Singha,

I just wanted to point out that size and payload matters. Clearly a lightly loaded plane can remain in air for long but the sensor fit may not work for us, point in case : Gulfstream vs A-50.

Given our unique use case and that we will really be fighting a battle close to our home territory, A-50 works great for us.

negi · Post by **negi** » 19 Jan 2010 20:52

It is in fact desirable to have our key assets outside of EUMA and other similar shenanigans , RU in this regards is a very good and reliable supplier once the stuff is sold to us they don't have sleepless nights thinking what evil we are up to. So the MKI and AWACS model is a very good jugaad from the Indian pov hence I can live with slight range disadvantage which IL-76 might have when compared to tfta Unkil/EU aircraft , also we should be content with Trenton,C-130s.C-17s being awarded to Unkil to keep it at bay. Yes P-81 LRMP deal went to Unkil but I guess it was a case of a lone contender and in absence of similar platform from other vendors there was no choice (I presume RU versions were already evaluated or at least considered gievn the way Sea Dragon turned out) .

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Jan 2010 20:58

Hopefully the new 50 MKIs yet to be purchased will be earmarked for strategic air command. The requirement of 7 squadrons of M2k among other reasons was also for this. You need about 1 squadron earmarked for Air Support for every two AWACS in air. And MKI has a healthy legs that can remain in air for long durations.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 19 Jan 2010 20:59

Delhi fog may force IAF to cancel R-Day flypast

"Fog is a recurrent feature in this season. So, if the weather is bad, there are certain limitations clearly laid down. If it is below the minimum mast, obviously the flying won't happen," IAF's Vice Chief (Space) Air Vice Marshal M Matheswaran told reporters here today.

However, he said flight safety would not be compromised. "So, only if the weather permits, everything will go as planned. In different weather patterns, some formations will be watered down," Matheswaran said, to a specific query in this regard.

IAF officers said the Phalcon Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) built on an IL-76 platform, called the 'eye in the sky', would be participating in the flypast during Republic Day for the first time.

The IAF would also bring in its Sukhoi, MiG-29, Jaguar and IL-78 tanker, AN-32 and Dornier transport aircraft to the flypast this year, besides four Advanced Light Helicopter Dhruvs of the Army Aviation Corps.

The first of the three AWACS, procured from Israel, was delivered to India early last year and it was inducted into the air force to provide the air warriors and fighter aircraft advance information on an incoming enemy missile or fighter jet taking off from an enemy base.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 19 Jan 2010 22:44

Cybaru wrote:
Kanson wrote:^^ minor nitpick sir,

It has nothing to do with larger or smaller country. No. of stations gives you that many options to deal with various activities in AEW.
The sensor fit on a smaller platform can be only so much. Infact it can be argued that had we pushed for an airbus based A-330 platform for AEW, we would have seen more sensors and possibly more stations and better crew comfort than on A-50.

Ofcourse, bigger planes can carry more equipments. IAI offered the same Phalcon with Gulfstream, intially. So one wonder what difference it could have made with IL-76.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 19 Jan 2010 23:13

Anantz wrote: Don't just go by the numbers alone, elsewhere in the forum, there has been a detailed discussion on the same. For instance, the C-17 can haul an Arjun MBT all the way to Leh which cannot be achieved by even the IL 76MF, not just because of the payload restrictions, but because of the fuselage size of the IL 76 platform. These and many other such type of benefits are present in the C-17 that rate it above the IL 76, but again like I said you can continue that discussion on the C17 for the IAF thread.

Ya, We should not go merely by numbers.

But than why do we need to transport Arjun MBT to Leh thru Air? There are roads available which are cheaper. And why such need did not existed prior? All of sudden we want to haul Arjun or any other MBT to Leh.. only because uncle has permitted sale of C 17? Are we going on a war far away from our main land? In near future we will be fighting against TSP /PRC at the max. We need to develop road infrastructure which is lacking behind. And still if we want to haul arjun, how about An 125 which has capacity of 125 tones and perhaps one Arjun and a dozen or so IFV can be hauled together still cheaper than C 17.

A cost of 250Mn usd per c 17 is very high. Compare it with cost of IL 76 MF which is even less than 100mn. At a similar cost we will be getting 25 IL 76 MF. For a country like India, Dont you think it is better to go for more platform of 60 tonnes rather than fewer platform of 72Tonnes.

See if one has nothing to eat, first priority is availability of adequate amount of bread. Whether they have adequate butter or not is secondary.

25 IL 76 MF can operate at multiple fronts simultaneously. Think the amount of task it can do at a time specially when we are preparing for war on two front.

I dont mind going for C 17. But my idea is to get more birds. 10 Will not be adequate. ALso lifting MBT thru Air is luxury of rich who have got such c 17 / Galaxy / others in hundreds. They can lift divisions of armor simultaneously. What we will be able to do with 10 c17? 10 Arjun at a time provided C 17 is not used at any other front.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 19 Jan 2010 23:24

For 2.2 billion dollars, we can transport bits and pieces for 500 arjun's dedicated to that region, assemble on site and leave them there as dedicated units.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 20 Jan 2010 05:09

Sorry if posted before..
Boeing Gets Initial India Request For 6 Refueling Planes

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Jan 2010 06:15

nrshah wrote:But than why do we need to transport Arjun MBT to Leh thru Air? There are roads available which are cheaper. And why such need did not existed prior? All of sudden we want to haul Arjun or any other MBT to Leh.. only because uncle has permitted sale of C 17? Are we going on a war far away from our main land? In near future we will be fighting against TSP /PRC at the max. We need to develop road infrastructure which is lacking behind. And still if we want to haul arjun, how about An 125 which has capacity of 125 tones and perhaps one Arjun and a dozen or so IFV can be hauled together still cheaper than C 17.

We don’t know for sure that we do need to transport the Arjuns to Leh. It could just be the T-72/T-90S. We know that its an operational requirement for the IA. However, if you’ve read the article on BRF about the airlift to Leh, by Gp. Cpt Anant Bewoor, you’d have read that it took immense skill and too much time to even load one T-72 into the Il-76. In a war situation, if you take so much time to even load/unload 1 T-72, it’s basically as good as useless to have such a capability, since getting even one regiment of tanks would take up all your Il-76 fleet and they’d still need to do multiple sorties and even that was restricted to certain hours of the day.

The C-17 is more powerful than the Il-76 and has displayed that it can easily transport even the M-1 Abrams which is more heavy and wider. You never know which sector may require urgent armour induction and having such a capability is a big plus.

A cost of 250Mn usd per c 17 is very high. Compare it with cost of IL 76 MF which is even less than 100mn. At a similar cost we will be getting 25 IL 76 MF. For a country like India, Dont you think it is better to go for more platform of 60 tonnes rather than fewer platform of 72Tonnes.

It’s a specific capability that is lacking. There may be other benefits known to those who evaluated/flew the C-17, which are not discussed in the public domain such as better performance in key areas. For one, the crew requirements are much lower for the C-17 than the Il-76. It may not save you big bucks, but operationally it helps.

See if one has nothing to eat, first priority is availability of adequate amount of bread. Whether they have adequate butter or not is secondary.

But this is not a case of simple taste. Such examples don’t serve any purpose. Next someone will say the same and ask the IAF to cancel the MRCA and induct the LCA in the medium-weight category or even MiG-27 in the role of the MRCA. They’ll say “arre itne saal MiG-23 aur MiG-27 udaaya, ab kya takleef hain?”

Unless you know what the specific performance benefits were that made the IAF choose the C-17, making such simplistic statements won’t help. India is not the bhikhaari nation across the border who’ll take whatever they get as long as its free/subsidized just because they cannot afford anything better.

25 IL 76 MF can operate at multiple fronts simultaneously. Think the amount of task it can do at a time specially when we are preparing for war on two front.

More crews/more operating costs/more maintenance costs/. And do you know what the turn-around times are for the C-17/Il-76? Do you know how many maintenance man-hours go into each Il-76 after a sortie? If you have these figures and used them to compare the two, and then said that the C-17 is not better, then yes you have an argument about why the Il-76 is a better option.

I dont mind going for C 17. But my idea is to get more birds. 10 Will not be adequate. ALso lifting MBT thru Air is luxury of rich who have got such c 17 / Galaxy / others in hundreds. They can lift divisions of armor simultaneously. What we will be able to do with 10 c17? 10 Arjun at a time provided C 17 is not used at any other front.

Your minding or not makes no difference. The IAF and IA have a particular mission in mind and the Il-76 doesn’t suit that. It’s not a luxury, it’s an operational requirement based on previous experiences. Given that in the past we didn’t really have to face-off against the Chinese, this glaring lack of real capability to induct armour and artillery at short notice was ok. Inducting T-72s or Bofors guns one by one over a fortnight is ok when you have prior threat perceptions building up and adequate time to build up defences. If it’s an urgent requirement, it just won’t do. I suggest you read Gp Cpt Anant Bewoor’s article on the induction of the T-72 into Leh to get some idea on how difficult it was to do this with the Il-76. the C-17 has much more modern avionics, is fairly maneuverable in tight spaces (and this matters in a place like Thoise), and has a good turnaround time.

You might want to read this report prepared for the US Congress

You can see how good its reliability rate was during combat operations and how it carried the bulk of the cargo that was transported during the Balkans conflict. Also go to page 5 to read about how the C-17s helped air drop 1100 paratroopers and then brought in an additional million lbs of equipment, M-1 Abrams tanks and additional 1000 soldiers.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 20 Jan 2010 06:21

Cybaru wrote:For 2.2 billion dollars, we can transport bits and pieces for 500 arjun's dedicated to that region, assemble on site and leave them there as dedicated units.

And what do we do when we need those Arjun’s in a different place? Disassemble those 500, put them on trucks and wait for another 2 months before it reaches the next place and again assemble them?

You’re not seriously suggesting that the IA permanently deploy 10 regiments of Arjun tanks (which are not actually too suitable for mountainous terrain due to their width) as an alternative to have the capability to airlift them where and when required?

The flexibility that an inter-theater strategic airlifter offers cannot be matched by building roads or assembling knocked down armour/artillery. They cannot be para-dropped along with para-troopers who then have to sit and assemble them back into one piece. What do you do if tomorrow for some reason, we need to land troops in SL and provide them armour firepower and artillery cover? It’s the flexibility and the options it offers that matter.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Jan 2010 07:30

100s of stealth helos that can do the mountain warfare, and smoke out caves is what we want.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2010 08:05

for people who have been there.

what is the prospect we can find new sites in ladakh and construct 16,000ft long runways
by leveling the place and bulldozing a few hills ?

we always talk of the limitations of leh/thoise/AGLs....if the chinese are able to find sites
in tibet to build uber-runways, do we have such areas in ladakh?

Amit J · Post by **Amit J** » 20 Jan 2010 16:42

Singha wrote:No I dont think you can do such large scale mods by IAI. converting a old civilian plane to a cargo hauler which israelis do is a much simpler job.

the maker would have to be involved. afaik Bereiv already had the A50 test data so they could certify that the radome and supports would work.

IAI has no qualification or permission to add huge radomes to airbus who'd need to depute people or have IAI fly in to france. else airbus would surely start voiding warranties.

the digital FCS would probably need some changes to account for the different
weight distribution even if the radome is designed to 'lift' its own weight when in the air.

Hmmm Guess you are right the structural modifications cannot be done without the original manufufacturers assitance, however i still feel the modifications would have to be done in Israel

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 20 Jan 2010 16:51

but the OEM would have to depute a strong n fair team and provide the structural and design drawings.

I think they would have to build a aerodynamic scale model and test it in wind tunnel and computer simulations first though.

Amit J · Post by **Amit J** » 20 Jan 2010 16:54

Kanson wrote:
Cybaru wrote: The sensor fit on a smaller platform can be only so much. Infact it can be argued that had we pushed for an airbus based A-330 platform for AEW, we would have seen more sensors and possibly more stations and better crew comfort than on A-50.
Ofcourse, bigger planes can carry more equipments. IAI offered the same Phalcon with Gulfstream, intially. So one wonder what difference it could have made with IL-76.

The Phalcon that IAF has got has a better endurance in the air and also has better range and the radar system also has a better range and has a much more power output beacuse of the platform

Amit J · Post by **Amit J** » 20 Jan 2010 17:04

Singha wrote:but the OEM would have to depute a strong n fair team and provide the structural and design drawings.

I think they would have to build a aerodynamic scale model and test it in wind tunnel and computer simulations first though.

Am sure the contract India signs with Airbus would include those services and any compensation thereof would be configured into it. IAI did the work on the Chilean Phalcon on a Boeing 707 IIRC and the experience will help

Riza Zaman · Post by **Riza Zaman** » 20 Jan 2010 21:05

quick question reg. the IN's plan for the E-2D - will it be carrier based?

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 20 Jan 2010 22:45

Riza Zaman wrote:quick question reg. the IN's plan for the E-2D - will it be carrier based?

IIRC both Gorky and IAC can't handle the E-2D. There just don't have enough space. IN would probably operate it as a shore-based system until something big enough to be able to carry is set afloat. So if the deal goes through they will probably be used for off-shore patrol operations until IAC-2 comes around.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jan 2010 11:59

operating from trivandrum, bhuj and car nicobar they could provide plenty of
dedicated cover to IN units at sea - lot more than ka31. ka31 is early warning, but E2 can manage the airborne battle from onboard consoles and
immune to any form of jamming/glitch on the downlink to ship

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 21 Jan 2010 22:41

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/jan/ ... sfully.htm
India tests laser guided bombs successfully

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jan 2010 22:45

http://frontierindia.net/india-tests-10 ... d-bomb-kit

India tests 1000 lb laser guided bomb kit

“ADE, Bangalore has developed a guidance kit for 1000 lb, laser guided bombs. These guidance kits are designed to improve accuracy of air-to-ground bombing by Indian Air Force. A number of tests have been performed both through simulation and flight tests over the last few years to reach the required performance levels. The bomb, once released, by the mother aircraft at appropriate range, will seek the target and home on to it very accurately and with high reliability. All the necessary on-board components are sourced from Indian industry.

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 21 Jan 2010 23:04

I think this was the one which was tested

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 21 Jan 2010 23:16

Didn't we do Live fire exercise with LGB's in kargil war?,resulting in Roasted pork.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 21 Jan 2010 23:21

narayana wrote:Didn't we do Live fire exercise with LGB's in kargil war?,resulting in Roasted pork.

Those were not the ADE ones. Those were Paveways we got for our Mirages.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 22 Jan 2010 02:00

India-US ink agreement on security procedures

An agreement to standardise various security procedures between India [ Images ] and the United States was signed on Thursday, which will, among other things, lay down parameters for deployment of sky marshals in flights between the two countries.

Issues relating to transfer of technology, including full body scanners and X-ray systems, and training were also discussed at a two-day meeting of a Joint Working Group of officials of the US Transportation Security Administration and the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security in New Delhi [ Images ].

The Indian side requested that dual screening of baggage on US-bound flights be dispensed with, an official spokesperson said.

This would involve the US side surveying the security operations at the originating airports, she said, adding that India would facilitate an early visit by the TSA to enable this process.

Two Memoranda of Understanding were signed -- one on the deployment of sky marshals and the other for cooperation in airport technical visits, marking the beginning of continued cooperation on security issues.
...
The concept of an Aviation Security Force and adoption of best practices in security with cooperation of both sides came up during discussions. Indian side sought American cooperation on source identification of human body scanners as well as X-ray baggage systems.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 22 Jan 2010 02:58

Rahul M wrote:http://frontierindia.net/india-tests-10 ... d-bomb-kit

India tests 1000 lb laser guided bomb kit
“ADE, Bangalore has developed a guidance kit for 1000 lb, laser guided bombs. These guidance kits are designed to improve accuracy of air-to-ground bombing by Indian Air Force. A number of tests have been performed both through simulation and flight tests over the last few years to reach the required performance levels. The bomb, once released, by the mother aircraft at appropriate range, will seek the target and home on to it very accurately and with high reliability. All the necessary on-board components are sourced from Indian industry.

In Rediff's image below, I dont see a Litening pod (the 2 big things underwing look like bombs, unless I am mistaken). Does it mean the LGB was tested with a ground based designator? Or is the pod hidden in the angle of the picture.

Also, can someone shed light on what exactly "Sudarshan" is? Is it a laser designator or is it the name of the LGB kit strapped to the bomb or is it a system that has both? The reports I read about it are so confusing.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 22 Jan 2010 03:16

Prem Kumar wrote:In Rediff's image below, I dont see a Litening pod (the 2 big things underwing look like bombs, unless I am mistaken). Does it mean the LGB was tested with a ground based designator? Or is the pod hidden in the angle of the picture.

The 2 big things are underwing drop tanks. The problem with that pic is that it is a French Mirage 2000 dropping a Paveway LGB and has nothing to do with our test. AFAIR The French use the ALTIS II laser designator on their Mirages.

So it is not possible to say what we used for our test.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 22 Jan 2010 03:19

^^^ I believe thats a Mirage 2000 of the French Air Force testing the AASM

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Jan 2010 04:03

Also, can someone shed light on what exactly "Sudarshan" is? Is it a laser designator or is it the name of the LGB kit strapped to the bomb or is it a system that has both? The reports I read about it are so confusing.

till date most LGBs in service all over the world are kits attached to dumb bombs. same for other types of precision guided unpowered bombs. sudarshan will also be of this category that includes bombs like JDAM etc. it's a cheap way (relatively speaking) of increasing your accuracy of ordinance delivery by a big margin and using up your old dumb free fall bombs.
only a few designed from scratch PGMs are being tested now in US, like the JSOW and they are years from service.

these images will give you some idea :

A 1000 pound 'dumb' bomb.

A Paveway LGB kit on a 1000lb bomb. Nine of these bombs were used during the Kargil War.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jan 2010 04:34

so, there is no guidance thrusters for LGBs? That means they can only correct a little margin of errors within the fall trajectory.

sourab_c · Post by **sourab_c** » 22 Jan 2010 05:59

SaiK wrote:so, there is no guidance thrusters for LGBs? That means they can only correct a little margin of errors within the fall trajectory.

No thrusters but they have other features that "help" the bomb home in on its target once they are released within a certain range.

There was actually a documentary on the development on such kits since WW2 on Discovery, can't seem to locate it at this point.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 22 Jan 2010 06:00

SaiK wrote:so, there is no guidance thrusters for LGBs? That means they can only correct a little margin of errors within the fall trajectory.

Other than the AASM there was some amrikhan bums that used rakits up their backside and were a crossover between a tactical AG missle and a PGM.

IIRC even without ze guidance thrusters the LGBs are able to correct to quite a respectable degree their trajectory as long as they can sniff ze laser...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 22 Jan 2010 06:20

is this a ddm booger?

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... ehHe7IsSU=

They changed the LBS to KM, and BOMB->Missile?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jan 2010 08:53

everyone is also loading up on range extention folding wing kits which permit delivery from high altitude to reach out to 40km.

search for diamondback range extention kit.

thats the next step in evolution of LGBs...keeps shooter well out of range from
smaller SAMs like humraam, vl mica , spyder , sa-15. the defenders problem increases manifold, having to target 4 times the number of much smaller, RAM coated bomb objects .

swedish also have mjoelnir wing kit that permits low level delivery from gripen
who can fly at treetop level to evade radars and manpads and mjoenir after
release will fly few kms laterally and fwd to hit the target...guess it needs GPS guidance though.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 23 Jan 2010 02:43

IAF worried about safety of satellites

Bangalore: Defending space-based assets will assume vital importance for the Indian Air Force (IAF) in the 21st century when satellites are likely to become vulnerable to attacks, said Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, Chief of the Air Staff.
...
...
Hence, Air Chief Marshal pointed out that the vulnerability of satellites to anti-satellite weapons had become an issue and more so when the development of anti-satellite technologies was taking place in our neighbourhood.

“Networking and assimilation of space, both inter-dependent, are way forward. A quiet space race and even weaponisation to some extent, is becoming a reality. Perhaps more than others, it is air power that is more significantly enhanced by the integration of space enabled capabilities,” he said.
...
...
Making it clear that the IAF supported the national quest for indigenisation, he said: “There are a number of areas wherein we lack industrial base and simply do not possess the requisite capabilities. We have to accept that we cannot develop capabilities in each and every field.”

“We must therefore identify core technologies which have a promise of maximum potential in indigenisation and pursue them vigorously. Some of these areas, in my view, are critical areas like avionics, simulation, electronic warfare, communication and so on. It is imperative that we identify emerging technologies and concentrate on developing them. We should develop niche capabilities in specific spheres,” Air Chief Marshal said.
...
...

sankum · Post by **sankum** » 23 Jan 2010 05:26

HAL to flight test LCH prototype next month

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a function, he said the first flight test was likely to take place on February two, when Defence Minister A K Antony visits the city.

Dhanush · Post by **Dhanush** » 23 Jan 2010 21:43

sankum wrote:HAL to flight test LCH prototype next month
Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a function, he said the first flight test was likely to take place on February two, when Defence Minister A K Antony visits the city.

Another point to note from the new source!

Code: Select all

Apart from LCH, HAL had lined up a number of launches which includes, the Light Utility Helicopter, [b]Turboprop Trainer[/b], Multi-role-Transport Aircraft, Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft and the Indian Multi-role helicopter, Mr Nayak added.

I thought HAL had scrapped its turboprop trainer HTT40. Is it making a comeback now??

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 23 Jan 2010 21:43

Admitting that there was a technology gap in the IAF, he said the technology would be core, and assimilating and operationalising the technology was a primary challenge for the IAF.

“Future wars are likely to be short, crisp and intense. Hence logistics and inventory management become crucial as well as critical,” the Air Chief Marshal pointed out.

He said that it was imperative that military and civil aviation integrate, for better efficiency, cost-effectiveness and for offering more options to the leadership.

Looks like IAF is seriously considering the use of civilian air lines for Cargo transport to the nearest hub... it would definitely help both parties as the extra revenue no matter how subsidized would help the civil airlines stay afloat... JMHO..

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 23 Jan 2010 21:44

Defence min scrambles to ink deal on VVIP helicopter purchase as Budget draws closer

Defence ministry is scrambling to sign a deal to purchase Italian Augusta Westland VVIP helicopter before the Budget is presented. According to sources, “It is keen to utilise the Budget allocation rather than surrender it.”
....