Indian Military Aviation

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Apr 2010 08:51

nraogaru - afterburner is not needed to reach supercruise speeds, but the ability to supercruise does not remove he need for afterburner. Subsonic acceleration, climbs and turns in combat need afterburning - to hold a tight turn or to accelerate from 400 to 600 kt in a hurry.

Vayu (back issues) have carried two very interesting reminiscences from IAF pilots. One was about a friendly (bet based) fly-off between the MiG and Mirage 2000 where the MiG 29 kicked M2K ass in every parameter including instantaneous turn rate. The pilot said that the MiG 29 could hold a 9 G turn and accelerate until the pilot was unconscious. It was always the pilot who had to pull out, not the aircraft.

In another story (another humorous fond reminiscence) - it was about the Gnat. The Gnat was a wild fighter. It would climb so fast that a new pilot would have to look out to see the ground to make sure that he was not out of control. There was one a friendly fly off between a pilot in a Gnat and some Hunters, The Gnat guy asked the Hunters to take off first and waited on standby near his aircraft until they took off. He then took off and surprised the Hunters when they found him waiting for them at 40,000 feet. And the Gnat did not even have an afterburner.

Supercruise is good for America. It may be a good add on for India but we have to think whether we will pay a price for it that we should not be paying, paying "catch up" and more tech dependence. My neighbour in Bengaluru owns a Porsche. What for? Other than for saying he has the capability. But the capability is no use.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Apr 2010 09:04

Cain Marko wrote:IOWs here is an a/c that cruises well above other fighters, is really teeny on the radar, and can suddenly swoop down after being vectored in, shoot and scoot without (possibly) ever being detected or having touched the AB. That is cool and also simply out of range for anything operational out there. Of course it also means that in case the Raptor does get bogged down in a turn/burn type situation, it has oodles of fuel to use ABs or just disengage.



No disrespect - but you should be able to design a good sales brochure to sucker Indians who are prone to suffer from brochuritis. The reason is as follows. For the plane to swoop down and shoot someone that "someone" has to be detected first. That means that there has to be a good network of radars or AWACS coverage in the area to vector the supercruising fighter towards where it is needed. And that means the AWACS have to be on air 24X7 and the air to air refuellers have to be supplying them 24x7. Any opposing aircraft that has to attack facing such odds will attack using whatever steallh is available to it (terrain, altitude, time) and will equally attempt a quick in and out. So even the combination of supercruising fighters and circling AWACS will not have all day to chase the attacking fighter.

Currently only the US and to a limited extent Israel can achieve this. My prediction is that if the US can achieve it that capability will reach Pakis and other Indian adversaries first. We should not be doing copycat supercruise. But we should be looking at shooting down AWACS and stealth fighters.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby NRao » 24 Apr 2010 09:14

If you need afterburner to accelerate quickly to supercruise levels it is a waste of fuel


True. But, just curious, did anyone claim that?

I feel that the two are great in their own right. There is a time to use AB and then there is time to use SC. Just that AB comes with most, if not all, military planes. I just checked, the first SC was in '54 (UK). However, it was only with the F-22 that they did claim to design SC into it - for whatever reason the greats in the US did not want anything to do with SC. I have to guess that there was no need that they could assign SC to. But, who knows - or at least I have not come across any narrative that explains it (guess I have not searched hard enough).

It would hurt not to have AB. Would it hurt not to have SC? Dunno. But it sure is great to have it, for there seems to be use for it.

I think it is a neat new toy that we can do with. And since it cannot be shoehorned after the plane has been designed/planned for, might as well plug it in and use it when the need arises.

David Siegel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 07:40

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby David Siegel » 24 Apr 2010 09:15

EXCLUSIVE : US Writes To South Block For Conversion Of MMRCA Into Single Vendor FMS, MoD Refuses !!!
http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2010/04/exclusive-us-writes-to-south-block-for.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Apr 2010 09:26

In the India Pakistan context - most targets in Pakistan are within 200km of the border.

How much time does it take to take an aircraft to supercruising altitude and speed? What distance will it have covered within that time?

A Jaguar at 1000 kmph (less than 500 knots) at 50 meters will cover 200 km in 12 minutes

An aircraft entering Pakistan at supecruising altitude and speed (assume 2000 kmph) will cover the distance (200 km) in 6 minutes. But how much time does it have to spend in Indian airspace accelerating and climbing to reach the required speed and altitude before entering Pakistani airspace. Because if it does the climbing and accelerating in Pakistani airspace it will take more than 6 minutes but less than 12 minutes.

Supercruise would be more useful for Pakistan than India.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 24 Apr 2010 09:38

shiv ji, 'usable supercruise' (a term I thought up in the last couple of minutes) would provide a tactical advantage to any fighter, whether of US or India.

ignoring the marketing and propaganda aspects of supercruise, it is as useful as any major improvement in speed and engine fuel efficiency would be. provided the supercruise ability is an useful one (supercuirse with useful load for substantial amount of time) and not just a token one, an aircraft with SC will have the following advantages over a non-SC'ing adversary

a) entering a dogfight with higher overall energy that translates to higher turn rates for a longer period of time, always an advantage in WVR combat. modern fighters are designed to have maneuverability at low supersonic speeds AFAIK.

b) better climb rates or speed than its non SC adversary without a need to spend a lot of fuel. height and/or speed advantage translates into longer BVR shots

c) ability to disengage from a fight if (say) outnumbered or for any other reason etc

to sum up, is it a game changer ? depends on whom you ask. personally I don't think so. is it an advantage and a good to have capability ? definitely !

useful supercruise might be called the capability that finally allows fighters to use supersonic ability in a practical way.
___________________________
@ indranilroy, there are three extant 5-gen projects, two of them have TWR above 0.8 and one has a TWR just above 0.6. I still don't understand how you can conclude from that that a TWR of 0.74 will be a generation behind.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 24 Apr 2010 09:39

some info on Mig21 plans:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 831485.cms


part:
"The MiG-21 is a very old aircraft. It is now in the process of being phased out," Defence Minister A K Antony said during question hour in the Lok Sabha.

"The normal life of an aircraft is 30-34 years," he added.

The IAF currently operates a little over 200 MiG-21s. Of these, 121 have been upgraded to the Bison version and are likely to fly till 2017, an IAF source said.

The remaining 80-90 aircraft will be phased out in the next two-three years, the source added, requesting anonymity.

The IAF first acquired MiG-21.
Between 1966 and 1984, the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) built four variants of the aircraft, initially from completely knocked down kits and eventually from Indian-made components for a total of 658 planes.

In the mid-1990s, despite a series of crashes, the IAF decided to upgrade 121 planes of the fourth variant, the MiG-21bis, to the Bison category.

The complete phase out of the MiG-21 was also linked to the acquisition of new aircraft, the IAF source pointed out.

Towards this end, the IAF will induct two squadrons - 16 aircraft each - of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft (LCA) and another six squadrons of the plane within six years.

Pratik_S
BRFite
Posts: 325
Joined: 11 Feb 2010 21:19
Location: In the Lion's Den
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Pratik_S » 24 Apr 2010 09:43

shiv wrote:In the India Pakistan context - most targets in Pakistan are within 200km of the border.

How much time does it take to take an aircraft to supercruising altitude and speed? What distance will it have covered within that time?

A Jaguar at 1000 kmph (less than 500 knots) at 50 meters will cover 200 km in 12 minutes

An aircraft entering Pakistan at supecruising altitude and speed (assume 2000 kmph) will cover the distance (200 km) in 6 minutes. But how much time does it have to spend in Indian airspace accelerating and climbing to reach the required speed and altitude before entering Pakistani airspace. Because if it does the climbing and accelerating in Pakistani airspace it will take more than 6 minutes but less than 12 minutes.

Supercruise would be more useful for Pakistan than India.


Assuming the fighter is the EF-2000 and is taking off from Jaisalmer AFS. At 300m/s it will climb to an altitude of 30000fts in 30 secs. Jaisalmer is 70 Kms from the border. So it will need 2 minutes 20 seconds to reach Pak air-space. But it should climb and move towards the border at same time so lets consider that total time needed to reach the border is 3 mins(approx). So it will need around 9 mins from take-off to reach target.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nachiket » 24 Apr 2010 09:47

Singha wrote:The remaining 80-90 aircraft will be phased out in the next two-three years, the source added, requesting anonymity.

If the numbers are accurate we'll probably be seeing a substantial dip in the IAF's squadron strength. In the next 2-3 years the IAF would be inducting HAL built MKIs at (I'm guessing) 18 aircraft a year and perhaps (considering the LCA production rate to be 8 aircraft a year), half or maybe one squadron of LCA's. Are the 40 extra MKI's contracted from Russia over and above the initial 190 to be built by HAL or in Russia? If it is a parallel acquisition it would be really helpful.
Last edited by nachiket on 24 Apr 2010 09:51, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 24 Apr 2010 09:50

I think the extra 40 MKIs are over and above the initial order. the only two major items in Tejas-2 seem to be the
new gtre-snecma engine and the aesa radar. EL2052 is mostly not in our hands and should by rights be ready by now
if the israelis can setup a manufacturing plant and obtain the necessary 'clearances' from its patron saint.

its the gtre-snecma engine which imo is a main worry - is it for Tejas-2 seriously or a uprated EJ-200 will be used?


simple question:

suppose the M2k/Jaguar can maintain a ingress speed of 900kmph to Quetta (PAF samugli) without ofcourse using afterburner.
and get back after dropping payloads and using drop tanks. if chased by interceptors, they will use AB to cross Mach1
and keep heading home.

if say new MCA can supercruise to same target at Mach 1.3 and back, would it not
- make the strike time shorter - exposure to less threat window
- make interception harder for defenders
- give less warning time for defenders if pak awacs detects it flying up from its base in india

increase the strike range from base to target and the benefits look better for me. like a 1500km radius strike on
a military facility in chengdu flying out from jorhat.
Last edited by Singha on 24 Apr 2010 09:53, edited 1 time in total.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nachiket » 24 Apr 2010 09:53

Singha wrote:I think the extra 40 MKIs are over and above the initial order.


What I meant was are they supposed to be built by HAL or the Russians?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 24 Apr 2010 09:53

IAPO I think.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nachiket » 24 Apr 2010 09:57

Singha wrote:simple question:

suppose the M2k/Jaguar can maintain a ingress speed of 900kmph to Quetta (PAF samugli) without ofcourse using afterburner.
and get back after dropping payloads and using drop tanks. if chased by interceptors, they will use AB to cross Mach1
and keep heading home.

if say new MCA can supercruise to same target at Mach 1.3 and back, would it not
- make the strike time shorter - exposure to less threat window
- make interception harder for defenders
- give less warning time for defenders if pak awacs detects it flying up from its base in india

increase the strike range from base to target and the benefits look better for me. like a 1500km radius strike on
a military facility in chengdu flying out from jorhat.


Aside from the F-22 and the Su-35BM, wouldn't any other supercruising aircraft require external fuel tanks to make the journey which in turn would mean it can't supercruise till the tanks are jettisoned?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nachiket » 24 Apr 2010 10:06

Singha wrote: the only two major items in Tejas-2 seem to be the
new gtre-snecma engine and the aesa radar. EL2052 is mostly not in our hands and should by rights be ready by now
if the israelis can setup a manufacturing plant and obtain the necessary 'clearances' from its patron saint.

its the gtre-snecma engine which imo is a main worry - is it for Tejas-2 seriously or a uprated EJ-200 will be used?


The GTRE-SNECMA engine is still on the drawing board. I guess they are looking at developing it more for the AMCA now. Otherwise the EJ-200 - GE-F414 competition was unnecessary.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 24 Apr 2010 10:16

Aside from the F-22 and the Su-35BM, wouldn't any other supercruising aircraft require external fuel tanks

not necessarily. depends on how long you want to do it. obviously fuel consumption at mach1.3 even in dry thrust will
be more than at 900kmph. Su35BM has massive internal fuel tanks, not sure about F22.

with AMCA I am sure there will be big blended wet wings and the internal bay creates a big fuselage with room for capacious
fuel tanks.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Gaur » 24 Apr 2010 10:21

Rahul M wrote:a) entering a dogfight with higher overall energy that translates to higher turn rates for a longer period of time, always an advantage in WVR combat. modern fighters are designed to have maneuverability at low supersonic speeds AFAIK.

I had raised the same point in favor of supercruise but Shiv ji pointed out that any sharp turn at supersonic speeds would exceed 9g limit. If that is true then regardless of the capability of the a/c to maneuver at supersonic speeds, the pilot would not be able to take sharp turns at supersonic speeds. Or is Shiv saar's original assumption that sharp turns at supersonic speeds would exceed 9g is wrong?
As I stated before, I always thought that dog fights take place at sub sonic speeds more because of handling and control issues than g limits.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Apr 2010 10:30

As far as a defender is concerned, there are two separate phases in an attack
1) before the attack
2) After the attack


An intruder has to be brought down before the attack. In the case of Pakistan 80% or more of the targets can be hit with less than 15 minutes overfilght of Pakistan even without supercruise. Shooting down an attacking aircraft after it has dropped its load on target is only a consolation prize. You have already lost your target. Supercruising fighters are much bigger given that they need to carry more internally, and even then they cannot carry as much as even an F-16.

A supercruising attack aircraft trying to hit a Paki target will shave only 3-4 minutes flying time over Pakistan. On what basis can it be calculated that saving 3-4 minutes flying time over Pakistan will lead to less combat attrition and justifies 3x the cost per fighter? Over Pakistan, can 3 Jaguars not do better than 1 supercruising attack aircraft carrying one Jaguar worth of bomb load?
Last edited by shiv on 24 Apr 2010 10:44, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Apr 2010 10:42

On the topic of entering a dogfight with more energy a supercruising aircraft would have to keep on supercruising while waiting for dogfights to come to it in order to achieve the ideal of having more energy at the start of the dogfight. Technically a well designed but non supercruising, gas guzzling afterburning fighter could achieve those energy levels as and when needed.

If a plane is going to shoot down an intruder at BVR, it hardly matters if it is supercruising or not. If it is going to have to maneuver in a dogfight to get into position we are talking about a close range battle where the ability to supercruise may be of no use.

Supercruise is good for going long distances fast. Supercruise per se is not necessary for dogfights and is unnecessary for BVR missile phyrring.

A Supercruisng fighter in a dogfight would lose energy depending on the maneuvers and its ability to retain/regain energy would be important. If it has an internal missile bay, that bay would require to be opened in combat for launch. And the supercruising fighter in close combat would be a big target for the other plane (or swarm of cheap Chinese planes). The F 35 is apparently as big as a Canberra.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nachiket » 24 Apr 2010 10:47

shiv wrote: Supercruise per se is not necessary for dogfights and is unnecessary for BVR missile phyrring.

That is not entirely true. Firing a BVR missile at faster speeds will enhance the range allowing you to make longer ranged BVR kills.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 24 Apr 2010 10:54

why are you considering only pakistan? what about china - tibet itself presents a depth of 1000+ km. most good targets in eastern china are 1000km+ from eastern india and 1500km+ from central india. unless we are prepared to the scared loser
we need to reach out and strike juicy targets even 2000km from base. we dont have luxuries vs PRC.

why should AMCA be designed or thought of only in a pak specific context ?


its good to play devils advocate but I think you are attacking a strawman here. if AMCA is designed with the new powerful
snecma engine, has a internal bay and no external pylons and shit to slow to it down, it will supercruise whether we like it
or not :oops:

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4433
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Cain Marko » 24 Apr 2010 10:56

shiv wrote:No disrespect - but you should be able to design a good sales brochure to sucker Indians who are prone to suffer from brochuritis.


:mrgreen: No offence taken although there was little o marketing in what I said simply because I have never been a fan of using US - tactics/strategies and the hardware that goes with it for a country like India. Apples and Oranges imho.

The reason is as follows. For the plane to swoop down and shoot someone that "someone" has to be detected first. That means that there has to be a good network of radars or AWACS coverage in the area to vector the supercruising fighter towards where it is needed. And that means the AWACS have to be on air 24X7 and the air to air refuellers have to be supplying them 24x7.

No doubt, which is precisely why I said "vectored in" either GCI or AWACS would be necessary although there are other noises perhaps symptomatic of "brochuritis" that suggest the F-22 has enough sensors to do some detecting on its own. However, the swooping down case that I painted did use the canvas of circling AWACs et al.

Any opposing aircraft that has to attack facing such odds will attack using whatever steallh is available to it (terrain, altitude, time) and will equally attempt a quick in and out. So even the combination of supercruising fighters and circling AWACS will not have all day to chase the attacking fighter.

THere is wonlee won raptor and there is wonlee won country that can use it to its potential. Under those very especial circumstances it is a very hard combination to beat. When facing the United States, the odds are quite likely to be overwhelming.

Currently only the US and to a limited extent Israel can achieve this. My prediction is that if the US can achieve it that capability will reach Pakis and other Indian adversaries first. We should not be doing copycat supercruise. But we should be looking at shooting down AWACS and stealth fighters.

I did not say that India should mimick the US - whatever gave you the idea! For similar reasons I have often argued against the Shornet as well - such things require an uber level of support that India does not have. I'd rather see India invest in KS-172 type game changers, and yes the Pakfa too.

In any case the point of my previous post was simply that as far as I can tell only the F-22 has supercruise that truly adds a distinctive edge in combat since it does this at very high levels of speed, altitude and ahem, invisibility. The rest of the supercruising family can perhaps do the deed, however, how well that translates into combat is another story.

As far as TSP getting Raptors goes, I just don't see it happening anytime soon - next 2-3 decades anyway. Sheesh I doubt TSP will make it past 2020!

CM

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Apr 2010 11:05

nachiket wrote:
shiv wrote: Supercruise per se is not necessary for dogfights and is unnecessary for BVR missile phyrring.

That is not entirely true. Firing a BVR missile at faster speeds will enhance the range allowing you to make longer ranged BVR kills.


Yes. Under certain specific circumstances when the target aircraft is at some distance and is moving in a favorable direction. The advantage, in my view is hardly sufficient to justify all the other disadvantages that accrue if India tries to copycat America. Supercrusie may be good for America and the way it likes to fight its wars. Trying to copycat that is a bad baaad idea for India and indicates that those who are chasing America have still not figured out that the US does things that are to its advantage based on tech that it already has and is already ahead of others. Every technology involved in Supercruise has been developed or mastered by the US years (if not decades) ago. They will apply it with ease and can afford it even if i fails to work. Neither holds true for us.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby D Roy » 24 Apr 2010 11:23

supercruise translates into lower IR signature even as you get better BVR weapon effects . this is actually the primary reason why this is a sought after capability.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17016
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Rahul M » 24 Apr 2010 12:10

Gaur wrote:
Rahul M wrote:a) entering a dogfight with higher overall energy that translates to higher turn rates for a longer period of time, always an advantage in WVR combat. modern fighters are designed to have maneuverability at low supersonic speeds AFAIK.

I had raised the same point in favor of supercruise but Shiv ji pointed out that any sharp turn at supersonic speeds would exceed 9g limit. If that is true then regardless of the capability of the a/c to maneuver at supersonic speeds, the pilot would not be able to take sharp turns at supersonic speeds. Or is Shiv saar's original assumption that sharp turns at supersonic speeds would exceed 9g is wrong?
As I stated before, I always thought that dog fights take place at sub sonic speeds more because of handling and control issues than g limits.

not true, while a dogfight at supersonic speeds is not envisaged, mostly because fighter aircrafts achieve their corner speed well within the subsonic envelope, maneuvering at supersonic speeds is no longer considered impossible. of course this will be within the 9G limit and hence less 'sharp' than in subsonic regime but at the end of it, a SC'ing fighter will still have a higher amount of energy which he can choose to use as he feels right.
it is likely that future fighters will even have much higher corner speeds which will give them a distinct advantage over a lower corner speed fighter in terms of recovering from an energy expending maneuver. AFAIK, till now, losing energy is a far larger problem in WVR combat than having too much energy.

to take a page out of history, a similar attitude of disdain was displayed by top RAF officers in the 30's, coming from their experience in WW1, they were convinced that high-speed monoplanes were worthless and the biplanes with good slow speed handling will wipe the floor with the high speed fighters. they talked about how monoplanes would simply overshoot and biplanes would twist and turn and shoot them down like flies. the brits must have thanked their stars at the start of WW2 when they had just completed replacing their biplanes with monoplanes due to a last minute decision, which ironically had to do with the number of guns a monoplane could carry(4 to 8, biplanes carried 1 or 2) rather than the aerodynamic qualities of these planes. credit is also due to the desingers of these aircrafts who ignored official RAF directives and developed these fighter of their own accord, RAF at least had a choice when it changed its mind.
_____________________
what I do not understand is why we are convinced that any action by IAF in the future can only involve fighters flying from forward airbases in a perfect straight line towards targets across the border, why does IAF have air bases all over the country and aircraft with ranges in 100's of km in that case ?
if that's the case we can as well shut down all those airbases, sell the su's and mirages, cancel LCA and MRCA(and of course PAKFA) and replace them with modernised mig-21's.

long ranges and the ability to cover distance quickly without burning up loads of fuel alongwith a huge IR signature provides tremendous flexibility to IAF planners.
in any future conflict it is most likely that IAF would launch its fighters from bases beyond PAF's radar coverage and then follow unconventional ingress routes into pakistan. it is a matter of time before chinese S-300 clones become available to pakistan and IAF would try utmost to avoid these and plan its routes accordingly.
keeping all this in mind, I really don't see how SC is not an advantage.

arguing that just because USAF uses something(US is not even the first country to demonstrate SC AFAIK) it is not useful for us is too simplistic a logic. by that token fighter planes or transport aircrafts too should not be used by IAF. I hope shiv ji is not playing piskological games with us. :mrgreen:

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shukla » 24 Apr 2010 12:59

UK to send EF's for war games with India....

Come October and the skies over Jangalmahal will resonate to the sound of powerful jet engines. Pilots of the Royal Air Force (RAF) in Eurofighter Typhoons will match their skills against the IAF's flying aces in Indradhanush 2010 the third in a series of joint air exercises between India and the UK.

This is the first time that the RAF would be participating in war games at Air Force Station Kalaikunda. "The IAF will fly Sukhois, Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s. Till now, the RAF has maintained that Typhoons and Tornados would participate. They are looking forward to their visit as Kalaikunda offers a lot," an IAF officer said.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 850788.cms

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Apr 2010 16:20

Singha wrote:why are you considering only pakistan? what about china - tibet itself presents a depth of 1000+ km. most good targets in eastern china are 1000km+ from eastern india and 1500km+ from central india. unless we are prepared to the scared loser
we need to reach out and strike juicy targets even 2000km from base. we dont have luxuries vs PRC.

why should AMCA be designed or thought of only in a pak specific context ?


its good to play devils advocate but I think you are attacking a strawman here. if AMCA is designed with the new powerful
snecma engine, has a internal bay and no external pylons and shit to slow to it down, it will supercruise whether we like it
or not :oops:


From the first post I made on the subject
If we are looking to attack mainland China targets in aircraft it makes some sense.


The US has researched supersonic non afterburning flight in the 60s. It was defeated only by environmental concerns. The US has the necessary engine and materials tech. Supercruise aircraft do not have things slung on external pylons. The weapons are internal and hence the carrying capacity is smaller so the weapons must be PGMs. The US is onto its third generation in steatlh tech and have mastered the aerodynamic designs of aircraft with internal weapons only. The US has been using PGMs for 4 decades and the GPS system has been in operation for 30 plus years to help guide those PGMs.

India has none of these things within our technological reach and you believe that I am creating a strawman to knock down? What you are asking is for India to import and use everyone else's technology for the next 50 years. If that is your intent, my dissing supercruise is a strawman.

If India tries to implement an idea that is already reality for the US in 2010 and develop the technology in house - we will have to wait 30 years to get anywhere near the US. In the meantime, guess what people who desire supercruise will do? they will import and make 30 - 40 year deals. Guess when we inducted MiG 21s? Guess when we inducted Jaguars? Guess how soon we will retire a supercruising vehicle that we import. We need to be able to admit it when our balls are in a karmic vise. We use one forum where we whine at our powerlessness and we use the other forum to design ways of screwing ourselves by desiring iffy stuff that others have but we want. I hope our aircraft designers and defence planners are not doing similar stuff.

It is high time India based its military doctrines on what is available to India rather than what is available in the US but available for sale to India at the price of independence, or as a gift to Pakistan again at the cost of India's independence. China gets targeted by Indian missiles. Not men in planes.

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 699
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby karan_mc » 24 Apr 2010 16:43

guys you are forgetting it is a Advance Medium Combat aircraft ,so stop comparing its engine Thrust with Heavy Aircraft's , in 5th Gen fighters F-22/Pak-Fa are both in Heavy class because of high 35-38 ton MTOW ,only other 5th gen aircraft is single engined F-35 which has 190kn thrust for 32 ton MTOW ,so with only 10kn extra thrust F-35 will be able to carry 7 ton extra , so how is 25 ton AMCA with 180kn thrust underpowered ?

sunilpatel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 27 Mar 2010 17:11

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sunilpatel » 24 Apr 2010 17:43

Why we are crying sooooooooooo much on Engine Thrust....
even with 180 KN, its T/W ratio is good...and we will definately see some improvement in future..till AMCA comes out...
Joint Venture, EJ-200/GE-414 experience... etc..

and for Any plane,...Aerodynamic characteristics are even more important then T/W...both plane having same T/W will have diff. agility....isn't it? SO, IMO, better...discuss this things after we see some Test Bed of AMCA...

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Apr 2010 18:33

While I am pleased to see the beautiful MCA model and read about what appears to be a new model of international cooperation (India-Russia FGFA), there is no guarantee that MCA will actually see the light of day without heavy commitment from the Air Force as well as hard nosed realism from ADA/DRDO/HAL about what is achievable using existing Indian tech in a realistic timeframe. On the general topic of supercruise - even HF 24 could reach mach 1 plus in level flight. Eventually.

We need something in large numbers that will deliver BVRAAM and PGM reliably, having an indigenous engine/s and respectable stealth, respectable range, easy maintainability and upgradability, along with low maintenance, high operational availability and long MTBF of major components. If we can achieve that much without supercruise we are on our way to becoming a serious world power.

Supercruise is yet another example of a US set standard with a propaganda apparatus that makes it seem that everyone needs it desperately. As long as we latch on to standards set by others we are always following. we have to learn to set our standards for ourselves.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nrshah » 24 Apr 2010 19:22

shiv wrote:Supercruise is yet another example of a US set standard with a propaganda apparatus that makes it seem that everyone needs it desperately. As long as we latch on to standards set by others we are always following. we have to learn to set our standards for ourselves.


While the advantage/disadvantage of super cruising is under debate, i agree with you that a lot of things are not crucial as they are made out to be by attractive brouchers and all... We need to analyse what we require and should work on them... Take example of Russies / French... French feels it does not need a 5th gen aircraft for next 2 decades and accordingly it is contended with rafale which is 4.5 gen... Similarly Russians with multilayered ADS opted for frontal stealth rather than overall and designed pak fa with increased emphasis to maneuverability as they thought it to be more appropriate. Even in AMCA, i hope iaf/drdo goes only for that much stealth which is required considering out threat for next 2/3 decades...trying to compete raptor/f35 might not be advisable

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby shiv » 24 Apr 2010 20:10

nrshah wrote:While the advantage/disadvantage of super cruising is under debate, i agree with you that a lot of things are not crucial as they are made out to be by attractive brouchers and all... We need to analyse what we require and should work on them... Take example of Russies / French... French feels it does not need a 5th gen aircraft for next 2 decades and accordingly it is contended with rafale which is 4.5 gen... Similarly Russians with multilayered ADS opted for frontal stealth rather than overall and designed pak fa with increased emphasis to maneuverability as they thought it to be more appropriate. Even in AMCA, i hope iaf/drdo goes only for that much stealth which is required considering out threat for next 2/3 decades...trying to compete raptor/f35 might not be advisable


Absolutely.

Another thing I worry about is thrust vectoring. I have nothing against TV. After all we have a superlative TV aircraft in the MKI. But I don't think India should be furking around with TV until we have a slew of engines and a way to test them. Jigs, test beds the lot.

Otherwise we are going to be importing importing importing. And we will be neither here nor there. As we have been for 50 years.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10045
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby sum » 24 Apr 2010 20:32

This is the first time that the RAF would be participating in war games at Air Force Station Kalaikunda. "The IAF will fly Sukhois, Mig-29s and Mirage-2000s. Till now, the RAF has maintained that Typhoons and Tornados would participate. They are looking forward to their visit as Kalaikunda offers a lot," an IAF officer said.

One doubt onlee..

Since Kalaikunda AFB is supposed to be hosting the Singapore AF permanently, where do the SiAF guys go when these exercises are on? Do they also join in or vacate the base till the exercises are done?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Singha » 24 Apr 2010 20:35

are you sure Singapore has a permanent detachment there or seasonal. singapore and germany do have permanent outfits in nellis iirc.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3012
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Kanson » 24 Apr 2010 20:42

shiv wrote:While I am pleased to see the beautiful MCA model and read about what appears to be a new model of international cooperation (India-Russia FGFA), there is no guarantee that MCA will actually see the light of day without heavy commitment from the Air Force as well as hard nosed realism from ADA/DRDO/HAL about what is achievable using existing Indian tech in a realistic timeframe. On the general topic of supercruise - even HF 24 could reach mach 1 plus in level flight. Eventually.

We need something in large numbers that will deliver BVRAAM and PGM reliably, having an indigenous engine/s and respectable stealth, respectable range, easy maintainability and upgradability, along with low maintenance, high operational availability and long MTBF of major components. If we can achieve that much without supercruise we are on our way to becoming a serious world power.

Supercruise is yet another example of a US set standard with a propaganda apparatus that makes it seem that everyone needs it desperately. As long as we latch on to standards set by others we are always following. we have to learn to set our standards for ourselves.
Agree with your last statement. Regarding stealth, *as per recent reports*, IAF has asked for real Stealth plane and not for some low-observable one. Supercruise is part of the stealth. Once you turn on the A/B with the proliferation of IR sensor in every god damn plane, you are only announcing your arrival. Anway i dont still whether IAF specifically asked for supercruise...But the ADA info board on MCA says Supercruise as one of the features.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Austin » 24 Apr 2010 20:47

shiv wrote:While I am pleased to see the beautiful MCA model and read about what appears to be a new model of international cooperation (India-Russia FGFA), there is no guarantee that MCA will actually see the light of day without heavy commitment from the Air Force as well as hard nosed realism from ADA/DRDO/HAL about what is achievable using existing Indian tech in a realistic timeframe.


While it is a good idea to fund and develop a 5th Gen Fighter apart from FGFA both as a hedge and to develop in house capability and industry , it would be more appropriate to co-opt a Western partner from design to production stage of AMCA ( EADS or Dassult ) to offset and minimise the risk associated in developing an advanced fighter. Similarly IAF commitment is a absolute must from ground up if this project has to succeed in any way. Left alone to ADA/DRDO/HAL they will create another mess as they did with LCA.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 577
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby nrshah » 24 Apr 2010 21:07

^^^While the idea of co development is welcome, I doubt Dassault/EADS will invest...France is very contended with Rafale and sees no real threat to develop a 5th gen a/c. Members of EADS are already parting in JSF and will accordingly not diverse funds...

Besides, ADA/DRDO has lot of expertise now which was not available when Tejas was started...There was no infra, no experience, neither they knew what has to go into it.. They even need Dassault for Project defination.. Things are different today.. We have infra, knowledge and expertise... We have a designing team and we also learnt system integration... Last but not the least, there has been a vast change in IAF attitude towards the domestic project..

Also, i dont understand how LCA was messed up... Numerous time Rahul has taken pain to explain time line for tejas is comparable as that for Gripen / Rafale / Typhoon... This is without discounting tonnes of experience they had to back the mentioned projects....None suffered from Sanctions...Not to mention shifting goal posts although it is proving a boon now as the project which started as 3rd gen aircraft to replace fishbeds in now 4.5 gen aircraft with Fully digital 4 channel FBW, Glass cockpit, Composites, cost effective aircraft which is comparable to Mirage 2000/Mig 29. All the avionics are contemporary and some of its feature are still not available to IAF in any other aircraft including MKI..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Austin » 24 Apr 2010 22:37

nrshah wrote:^^^While the idea of co development is welcome, I doubt Dassault/EADS will invest...France is very contended with Rafale and sees no real threat to develop a 5th gen a/c. Members of EADS are already parting in JSF and will accordingly not diverse funds...


I mean hire them as consultant , Not sure US would be keen to help if they are they would be best bet.

Besides, ADA/DRDO has lot of expertise now which was not available when Tejas was started...There was no infra, no experience, neither they knew what has to go into it.. They even need Dassault for Project defination.. Things are different today.. We have infra, knowledge and expertise... We have a designing team and we also learnt system integration... Last but not the least, there has been a vast change in IAF attitude towards the domestic project..


Still developing a 4th gen and 5th gen are different ball game , if IAF want AMCA to be a true 5th gen fighter then we need expertise and we should mitigate risk as early as possible at the design stage itself by involving an experienced foreign partner.

Also, i dont understand how LCA was messed up... Numerous time Rahul has taken pain to explain time line for tejas is comparable as that for Gripen / Rafale / Typhoon....


LCA is a fine fighter and no body disputes it , but we have a long way to go before it proves its squadron worthiness , the Mk2 as now we are told will enter in service by 2018. The recent statement of IAF Chief unhappiness of LCA is something to think about.

So we need the AMCA and we need that to be delivered on time and under budget.

Venu
BRFite
Posts: 158
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 17:23
Location: rimbola..rimbola

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Venu » 24 Apr 2010 22:58

Austin wrote:While it is a good idea to fund and develop a 5th Gen Fighter apart from FGFA both as a hedge and to develop in house capability and industry , it would be more appropriate to co-opt a Western partner from design to production stage of AMCA ( EADS or Dassult ) to offset and minimise the risk associated in developing an advanced fighter. Similarly IAF commitment is a absolute must from ground up if this project has to succeed in any way. Left alone to ADA/DRDO/HAL they will create another mess as they did with LCA.


Since, you are talking abt 'co-opt', how about joining hands with Saab? I heard someone saying that Soko is already considering developing its futuristic fighter with Saab.Not sure abt the veracity of that statement though.

May I also say,MiG can also be considered as another option, if only it doesn't hurt the sentiments of few natasha-phobia members here.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Austin » 24 Apr 2010 23:11

Any partner who has experience and ADA/IAF thinks its the best to go with should be fine , does not matter if its SAAB,Dassult ,EADS or LM.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4662
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Postby Manish_Sharma » 24 Apr 2010 23:27

I think due to LCA experience our agencies are fully capable of designing AMCA, the only area where they can be in trouble would be Radar, Avionics, RWR, IRST + Engine. So better to join the radar program where some experienced company is beginning a new one for itself, like EADS working on GaN based AESA for EF. If we join now and work on it then use it for AMCA while for IRST russians are best then we can keep same one for AMCA as FGFA. And while designing we can take help of western comanies in making low weight landing gear to keep the weight down. Then for the radar also GTRE should tie up with west to produce world class engine in time for AMCA. Kaveri isn't so bad, is it? I mean dry thrust is 51kn that is more then m88. Only in AB it is failing + 100kg extra weight. I have a feeling that it may turn out to be Fighter Jet of the century.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests