Indian Military Aviation

[shiv]

2) China is much more of a direct threat to India than the U.S. is. Most Indians don't like the U.S. giving weapons to Pakistan, but China's transfer of weapons to Pakistan is (and certainly will be in the future) far more of a threat to India than America's donations. The primary question we should ask ourselves is not, "How do we counter the U.S.?" but rather, "How do we counter China?" And Rahul M already laid out why we need an LO aircraft regarding China. The Chinese are building (and will probably soon give Pakistan) sophisticated SAM networks. We need an aircraft to replace our medium-weight planes (Mirages, Mig-29's, Jag's) that will have a decent chance to survive an encounter with sophisticated surface-to-air defenses.

I think we are going around in circles. This discussion came up about 5 pages ago when I started my current bout of rabble rousing. I was talking specifically about the so called "5th gen" technologies - specifically supercruise. My argument is basically that China (AND Pakistan) would be able to use supercruise more effectively against India than Indian against either of them.

I am going to ignore Pakistan - don't want to repeat. But against China supercruise is useless because no Indian aircraft can reach any major industrial targets in Eastern China without refuelling, supercruise or no supercruise. The point I am making is that insisting that supercruise must be a requirement against Pakistan or China is unnecessary. That removes one of the pre-defined "5th gen" characteristics.

We need to be able to beat supercruising attacking aircraft even before we demand supercruise as a requirement.

[shiv]

Getting back to supercruise! Supercruise gives you a way of reaching an arena much faster! It is not for cruising over long distances. Supercruise takes up more fuel than subsonic flight! Imagine your opponent launches a air attack which your AEWAC picks up! The planes at the border are not enough, or not of the kind required. You now have to send reinforcements. You can't send the planes fast enough, what will be the use of that reinforcement!

In world war 2 movies aircraft would linger over targets long enough to "send in reinforcements". In modern day combat aircraft can circle a target reqion only in the presence of absolute air superiority (US over Iraq/Afghanistan). In all other cases an "attack" is a quick in and quick out that does no allow interceptors to sit and think "Let's send in reinfocrements"/ If a CAP force is not good enough how many supercruising interceptors is anyone going to send in 5 minutes and how far away must they be to reach interception distance in 5 minutes? Interception after an attack has taken place is consolation prize. You have failed to protect your target.

For a 25 ton fighter TV is a game changer in WVR!
<snip>
Forget my story and go read about TV! If there is WVR between otherwise comparable planes/pilots, one would defintely like to be in a plane with TV!

In other words India needs to import a TV engine and then mate it with an Indian design. What was that about "foreign" again? I

Realistically speaking if the Kaveri takes to the air tomorrow (3rd May 2010) and all goes well - it can become a "reliable engine" in 2015 and a proven engine by 2020. Theer is no question of testing thrust vectoring on it until it is at least known to be reliable - maybe we stare testing TV on Kaveri by 2015. We have no flying test bed, so we need to send it abroad, or create a test bed in India (Add 10-15 years for that).

But wait - if we are talking of a medium or heavy fighter we need a twin engine. So we need to design a fighter first. But how do you design a fighter without having an engine in mind? A thrust vectoring kaveri is 20-25 years away IMO - OK let it be 15 years. So we can only design a non TV version of our fighter to take to the air experimentally after 15 years - i.e 2025 and maybe upgrade that to TV by 2030.

In the meantime we have internal pressure in india to buy all the foreign goodies that already have twin engine and TV and are already flying today.

All I am saying is, if we insist on TV we are inadvertently insisting on foreign dependence for 3-4 more decades.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[shiv]

Even if enemy defenses could be evaded going in, their defense could all be active and engaging on the way back. Supercruise would surely be valuable here!

Most significant targets in Pakistan are less than 200 km away. (400 km up and down) Use afterburner

Most significant Chinese targets are 2500 km away (or more) (5000 km up and down). Who would refuel our supercruisng aircraft?

Remember Agni of 2500 km range is still not enough for China and that is a one way trip to delivel flied lice and frowels

[Suresh S]

Many on the board are simply missing the forest for the trees. What shiv is trying to say and I fully agree is that we must make these planes/tanks/ships on our own and not try to copy the westerners.
Even if our planes are initially not as cool as the american maal it would get better with time and patience and hard work.
I just want to give the jingoes on the board a not so hypothetical scenario . Lets suppose a war with china drags on for more than a few months and all your cool mkis/pak fa/t90 tanks/artillary pieces are either destroyed or damaged what are you going to fight the chinese with ? your bare hands. On the other hand if you had the capability to make weapons on your own ( even if not so cool ) you could keep making new weapons and keep in the fight.
Remember the second world war both the soviets and germans were making and replenishing their destroyed arms through out the war. In the greatest battle in the history of the modern world "in the battle of stalingrad" while the city was under attack from every direction the soviets were making tanks in that factory in stalingrad ( while the factory itself was under attack ).
I do understand that things have changed since WW II with the introduction of nuclear weapons or have they ?. In one of our medical books the opening line begins thus " more things change more they are the same "

[shiv]

Even so, let me for a moment agree that we would be able to conjure up some way to counter stealth. In fact, there are even presently many ways being looked into in that direction (long wavelength radars, multistatic radars, passive radars\ systems etc to name a few). So, let us consider for a moment that India would be able to somehow develop ground based radars able to defeat stealth. All right. What about offensive into enemy territory? What about CAS? Would you send 4.5 gen acs against 5th gen for that role? Even let us believe that even our 4th gen a/cs would be able to mount counter stealth (a more daunting task than developing a 5th gen a/c IMO). Even then, we would need to neutralize ground based and airbourne targets in enemy territory. Tell me this. Consider how much a 4th gen a/c light would light up on future radars. Would you not have 5th gen a/cs for that role? Or would you have missiles do even that. All our defence budget will be spent and we would not be able to afford enough missiles for that.

There are two aspects here
1) Stealth in the hands of our adversaries
2) stealth in our hands (in the IAF)

Leave alone stealthy aircraft, we currently have no way of countering subsonic Pakistani painted Babar cruise missiles, which are stealthy Kamikaze aircraft.

My only point is as follows. We can clamor and drool for 5th gen technology (of which we will have to import if we want TV or Suprecruise soon). If we want to develop it in India it will take 20 plus years. Either way 5th generation tech will be sold to our enemies and they will use it against us and we have no counter for that. Period. If a SAM cannot find a stealthy a/c or cruise missile how will a 5th gen aircraft find it?

For that reason we need to develop technologies to try and detect and counter stealth. Whatever we do in this area will benefit us.

Acquiring stealth is always useful for us. Again to make a point that I have stressed and will keep on stressing:

If India wants to develop a stealthy aircraft, I am sure we already have the technology to deliver fairly soon provided we do not insist on 5th gentech like "supercruise" and "thrust vectoring". The minute we demand supercuise and thrust vectoring - we find that Indian technology in engines is just not there yet and we will be dependent on foreign suppliers for 30-40 years.

Lesson:

If an Indian drools after an American definition of "5th generation" which includes "Stealth + supercruise+thrust vectoring + sensors" he is asking for another half century of dependence on phoren.

If an Indian can accept a stealthy aircraft + sensors that may or may not supercruise and has no thrust vectoring - Indian technology today can get there soon and reduce phoren dependence.

[Karan M]

The "Indian" on the board may accept it. The "Indian" in charge of the IAF may not. There lies the difference in perception.

[NRao]

Then why is Gripen allowed in MRCA or SH for the matter.

Because we have a "LCA" and a "MRCA" thread?

I am not sure where the confusion is. The LCA has nothing to do with the MRCA and the MRCA has nothing to do with the LCA. The LCA is mature enough not to be "killed". IS it mature enough to survive a long term solution? Do not know, although I personally thing it will.

[ldev]

Googling turned up Carlo Kopp and the rationale for wanting a supercruising aircraft from the standpoint of an airforce:

Other than maintainability, the key attribute of the F119-PW-100 is that it is capable of sustained supersonic cruise by use of a different operating cycle, advanced materials technology such as diffusion bonded titanium, and a significantly more effective internal cooling system in comparison with current engines. Genuine supercruising engines can maintain high dry thrust output at higher altitudes and Mach numbers, where conventional engines cannot deliver the needed dry thrust to sustain supersonic flight. Current technology demonstrations of the JSF119 using supercooling techniques have seen turbines operated at temperatures 200 to 250 deg C higher than the F100 turbine.

The value of sustained or long duration supercruise in combat operations cannot be understated. It not only provides aircraft with a significant energy advantage over hostile fighters, but effectively doubles productivity and operational tempo in long range bomb trucking operations - a major force structure issue with the new White Paper capability goals. Supercruise is a roughly twofold force multiplier in its own right, a fact reflected in the USAF push to field its new GSTF expeditionary strike force built around two squadrons of supercruising F-22s, two thirds or less the size of a reinforced conventional expeditionary fighter wing..

I presume the benefit of energy advantage is translated both in terms of evading SAMs as well as BVR air to air combat and as such it is no surprise that air force chiefs will want a supercruising aircraft.

Even the Chinese Navy wants supercruising aircraft.

[Indranil]

In world war 2 movies aircraft would linger over targets long enough to "send in reinforcements". In modern day combat aircraft can circle a target reqion only in the presence of absolute air superiority (US over Iraq/Afghanistan). In all other cases an "attack" is a quick in and quick out that does no allow interceptors to sit and think "Let's send in reinfocrements"/ If a CAP force is not good enough how many supercruising interceptors is anyone going to send in 5 minutes and how far away must they be to reach interception distance in 5 minutes? Interception after an attack has taken place is consolation prize. You have failed to protect your target.

First of all I would put a disclaimer that I dont know how the next A2A amongst latest fighters would pan out. All of us outside the airforces wouldnt know of the strategies that AF are conjuring up. But still I feel that you cant take down a the air defense of a respectful airforce by shoot and scoot! With todays fighters the fight will be more informed than impromptu like the fights in WWII. The scenario would be different radars would pick up enemy fighters at much longer distances. Our fighters will be scrambled up to stop the attack. During that time the faster you get to the scene, the earlier can you preempt the attack!
Coming back to the point where reinforcements is a thing of the past. Let me lay down a scenario for you. Suppose you were loitering and picked up enemy fighters at a range of say 100 kms. If you find that you are thoroughly out numbered, what will you do? You will either go ahead with engaging them with defensive A2A and try to buy time for the country to send enough fighters to counter this threat! It is albeit be a suicide mission for the country! Otherwise you would try to evade the fighters, alert for reinforcements, and go for it when the reinforcements arrive!

Suppose the contrary is true. That it is a very short tussle and god forbid if the enemy fighters come up triumphs. What would you do to stop these fighters! Send more planes to tackle them as soon as your lead in flights alerts you of danger! The need to reach the scene as fast as possible is a constant requirement!

Shiv, I am all with you when you say, please don’t stall programs just for the want of technology which is far beyond us! I would be up in arms with you if MCA is ready with the Kaveri engine and is not flown because TV is not ready (I have question though does TV require change to the basic engine other than being able to channel the engine exhaust. AFAIK it is an appendage to the back of the engine, correct me if I am wrong)!

But to say TV and supercruise are just Bandar tech and relates to our poodle mentality. That is something which I find very very difficult to understand. Hence, I would never be sad that our researchers and IAF want to have such capabilities! I don’t find it poodle like at all!

With this I rest my case!

[shiv]

But to say TV and supercruise are just Bandar tech and relates to our poodle mentality. That is something which I find very very difficult to understand. Hence, I would never be sad that our researchers and IAF want to have such capabilities! I don’t find it poodle like at all!

Indranil Roy that is a very reasonable argument and I will post my reply to you and ldev's post bringing up an issue that may go slightly OT for this thread. But not too far..

Quoting Carlo Kopp
"Other than maintainability, the key attribute of the F119-PW-100 is that it is capable of sustained supersonic cruise by use of a different operating cycle, advanced materials technology such as diffusion bonded titanium, and a significantly more effective internal cooling system in comparison with current engines."

Both supercruise and thrust vectoring are about engines. India is currently way way behind in engines.

Now if I put myself in the place of a technology creator and world dominator such as the US what would I desire?

1) I would want to continue to dominate
2) I would not want anyone to catch up

The US (and Europe, even Russia) actually act along both these routes. Two well known routes that have been discussed here time and again are to offer a piece of technology for sale as "The latest and greatest" - at a high price. The second is exactly teh opposite - i.e to refuse the sale of the "latest and greatest" technology until another country (such as India) is close to developing that tech and then sell that same tech at discounted prices to kill local industry.


Both these methods rely on creating a demand for that technology. An artifical demand would do nicely. If the demand is to buy the finished product, charge a bomb. If the demand is for knowhow, refuse to give it. if the knowhow is getting develped - kill the competitor by undercutting.

Now if I put myself inthe position of an Indian who is aware of the above facts and has been suckered over the years by just these tactics, I find that I have to be suspicious of both the sellers of the technology and fellow Indians who are eager to buy that technology in a hurry (as opposed to developing it in India which takes time).

On the face of it, any Indian who is an an desperate hurry to buy what is advertised as the latest and greatest on sale from the West could well be recommending the buying of Bandar tech because of his poodle mentality. Until I am clear that the Indian who is urging India to buy what it cannot develop has to demonstrate that he is not advocating buying bandar tech with poodle mentality. We have enough poodles in India to buy bandar tech and the West knows that well.

In due course I will scan or manually type in whatever refs I can find at home about what our Air Chiefs are saying about the future

[Indranil]

Shiv, thanks for quoting ldev. Though I am not completely surprised, I really learnt something new. I will follow up on learning about the same!

I understand and share your concern in general. But let our engineers/scientists at least try to crack those technologies! At least there is a hope that we will get there some day. How else can we stop this importing business!

I feel optimistic with our scientists. LCA has been a huge step forward! MCA to me seems like the next step! I just want to stand by them!

[uddu]

Shivji, there is nothing wrong in attempting something. Whether we will be able to succeed or not is different, but we must try it with all sincerity. Not that just because the Amrikhans have it. They will have many things, but acquiring technology is not a bad thing. Also who knows that we have to cross the Pacific or Atlantic to intervene somewhere in Latin America or somewhere else. The future India is not going to be restricted to Asia. Think abt it. The Indian Thaad {Thaad deliberately choosen.Now Shiv you should feel uneasy about it or should Mr.Obama should feel uneasy abt it.}:twisted: is going to be tested within a few years.

Look at this
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 860084.cms
Now look at the pessimistic headline
India long way off from 20-km per day road target

Now what's really happening.
India is likely to build only 12-13 kilometers of road a day in the current fiscal year to end-March 2011 against a 20 km per day target, Transport Minister Kamal Nath said on Monday.

So what's the achievement from the earlier 2-3 km to 12-13 km. Slowly and steadily the 20km mark will also be met.

“Dreams float on an impatient wind,
A wind that wants to create a new order,
An order of strength and thundering of fire.”

Dr.Kalam

So Please don't be pessimistic. If DRDO scientists can achieve it they will tell the air force. Let them design it for supercruise. Now from the Airforce point of view must be take it whether it has supercruise or not and later improve on it but never reject it but be part of the project and get what the IAF wants without any delays. Full cooperation must come from the IAF as well to make the project a success.

[Gaur]

If India wants to develop a stealthy aircraft, I am sure we already have the technology to deliver fairly soon provided we do not insist on 5th gentech like "supercruise" and "thrust vectoring". ......
If an Indian drools after an American definition of "5th generation" which includes "Stealth + supercruise+thrust vectoring + sensors" he is asking for another half century of dependence on phoren.

If an Indian can accept a stealthy aircraft + sensors that may or may not supercruise and has no thrust vectoring - Indian technology today can get there soon and reduce phoren dependence. [/i][/b]

My dear Sir, IDK know what made you think that supercruise and TVC are essential to the defination of 5th gen. Th truth is that they have nothing to do with the term "5gen". MKI has TVC. Eurofighter and Gripen have supercrusie (Eurofighter may have both supercruise and TVC in the near future). Can one even remotely call them 5 gen fighters? 5gen purely means stealth and nothing else. No one in the world (Americans and Europeans included) say otherwise. Case in point is F-35 which has half the world as partners in one form or other. It has neither supercruise nor TVC.

[Kersi D]

The second is exactly the opposite - i.e to refuse the sale of the "latest and greatest" technology until another country (such as India) is close to developing that tech and then sell that same tech at discounted prices to kill local industry.

Both these methods rely on creating a demand for that technology. An artifical demand would do nicely. If the demand is to buy the finished product, charge a bomb. If the demand is for knowhow, refuse to give it. if the knowhow is getting develped - kill the competitor by undercutting.

Almost everybody has succesfully used this technique against India.

Way back in 1980s/90s IA / IAF was longingly eyeing the Iskander surface-to-surface missiles but Russians refused to sell it. As soon as Prithvi was on the way to be inducted, Russians were willing to give it to us.

There must be endless such cases.

We must thank MTCR. Our IGMDP has succeeded due to MTCR. Remember that for over 20+ years the only success of IGMDP was Prithivi and Agni. Not because of any great reason but simply because nobody could sell it due to IGMDP.

Even till today NONE of the systems have been inducted in the armed forces. Akash is now getting into IAF and hopefully Nag will soon don IA colours. All the other systems have been almost "successfully neutralised" by imports

K

[Gaur]

Also, LCA is a light aircraft. While its payload is amazing for its weight and size, it still cannot be compared to a medium weight a/c like Rafale. Every AF needs medium wight fighters.

Then why is Gripen allowed in MRCA or SH for the matter.

Frankly, I do not know why we even have MRCA. But this is not the topic for this thread.

[Kersi D]

Gaur - i just want to point out that "light" and "small" are themselves stealth features. Both the MiG 21 and the LCA have the "stealth" that is conferred by smallness. Add to that the composites that the LCA has which I believe will give it "decent" stealth capability. Don't ask me what decent is - but I would say "Better stealth than MKI"

The MiG 21 got better of F 15 in soem of the exercises. I believe the pilot said that "he could not see the ac"

THAT IS STEALTH.

I had mentioned earlier that one of the greatest advantages of Tejas is its small size.

K

[Samay]

Shiv sir, dont we have sufficient R&D infra and number of researchers to carry out our own 'latest and greatest' development that the west haven't thought about?

IMHO thats the way to come out of this spiral

[Gaur]

Gaur - i just want to point out that "light" and "small" are themselves stealth features. Both the MiG 21 and the LCA have the "stealth" that is conferred by smallness. Add to that the composites that the LCA has which I believe will give it "decent" stealth capability. Don't ask me what decent is - but I would say "Better stealth than MKI"

The MiG 21 got better of F 15 in soem of the exercises. I believe the pilot said that "he could not see the ac"

THAT IS STEALTH.

I had mentioned earlier that one of the greatest advantages of Tejas is its small size.

K

You are referring to the statement made by Col Fornof. However, you are confused. Mig-21 were not invisible due to any small rcs. If so, they would have been invisible at longer ranges. However, Mig-21 were invisible to the radar at very short ranges due to the jammer present in them. It had nothing to do with rcs. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, the size of an a/c is a very insignificant factor among all the parameters that are considered for a stealth design.

[Virupaksha]

Shiv sir, dont we have sufficient R&D infra and number of researchers to carry out our own 'latest and greatest' development that the west haven't thought about?

to put it sweet and short, nope we dont.

[Rahul M]

gaur sahab, size may not be the only factor but it is by no means an insignificant factor.

[shiv]

The MiG 21 got better of F 15 in soem of the exercises. I believe the pilot said that "he could not see the ac"

THAT IS STEALTH.

I had mentioned earlier that one of the greatest advantages of Tejas is its small size.

K

Kersi smaller size does matter. In the absence of any specific stealth measures as was the case in earlier gen aircraft, it was smaller size that was stealthy Indians are saying it but nobody will believe it until the Americans say it It only proves my point. But nobody will believe me either

In the case of the MiG 21s that pranged the F 15s - they were hidden among MiG 27s. It was certainly Chankianness. But we could not believe it until Col. Flintoff or someone with a suitable name said it.

But there is another side to that story. The Americans were forbidden from using BVR in that engagement and could have taken a shot at BVR ranges. But that fact only brings me back to an original point. If stealth and BVR allow adversaries to be shot down at long ranges what is the used of thrust vectoring for dogfights? No dogfight after you have been shot down at BVR range no?

[Prasad]

BVR isn't like sniping where you shoot from a mile away and take headshots. If the opponent also has a potent platform which is also bvr capable and both are able to stay at max range of each others' missiles, then if you exhaust your long range missiles, you can choose to engage the opponent in wvr. In that case, tvc might help. Saying oh we have bvr, why do you need the archer onlee, doesn't make sense. Why not do away with the canons too while we're at it?

[shiv]

BVR isn't like sniping where you shoot from a mile away and take headshots. If the opponent also has a potent platform which is also bvr capable and both are able to stay at max range of each others' missiles, then if you exhaust your long range missiles, you can choose to engage the opponent in wvr. In that case, tvc might help. Saying oh we have bvr, why do you need the archer onlee, doesn't make sense. Why not do away with the canons too while we're at it?

No dispute with this. But the theory says otherwise as also the experience of the last few wars where air power was used (last decade)

The theory is that the stealthy fighter initially knocks out all enemy radars. All enemy aircraft are shot down from BVR ranges. This tactic worked perfectly against the Iraqi Air Force.

As you rightly point out, the reason for retaining agility and cannons is that nobody is sure that stealth + BVR are going to work. If my "reasoning" was correct then one really should get rid of both TV and cannon. It is obviously not accepted as correct and there is an expected role for close in combat.

Now once you get into close in combat the game changes radically. A swarm of 3 gen fighters could overwhelm a flight of highly advanced fighters. For a MIg 21 with a cannon a JSF is a huge Canberra sized target with the maneuverability of an F 16. What kind of battle would you get with 6 MiG 21s and 2 JSFs?

I did post an article about this, scanned from Vayu - I will repost. Some did read it and comment - but let me repost in the light of the last few pages of intense discussion.


The Case for Simpler Fighters 1940 kb

Added Later: ..nobody needs to agree with the author, but he certainly brings out a lot of points to think about

[Singha]

swarming tactics might work in the day only. most Mig21 types are useless at night without a good radar, lantirn pod and HMS and other bells and whistles. once you add the bells and whistles to make them effective in bad weather and at night, the simple fighter is gone and one ends up with a block30+ F16.

its ok so long as the enemy attacks only in the day in good weather.

[shiv]

Shiv sir, dont we have sufficient R&D infra and number of researchers to carry out our own 'latest and greatest' development that the west haven't thought about?

to put it sweet and short, nope we dont.

The biggest complaint I have about my country is that we do not ape the US where we should be aping the US, but we want only cosmetic aping.

The US is serious about knowledge. They appoint the best and brightest, often from India as university professors and those universities get the funds to follow and develop any gyan. And when you have 100 universities churning out gyan, at least 20 will have cutting edge gyan. And that cutting edge gyan translates into technology that the US applies to its industry to make super weapons, concepts or products for hi tech export.

In India we appoint professors on age and service, caste and community, influence and bribery. Naturally nobody is actually going to sink money into these universities because they are not even considered repositories of gyan. They are looked at as schools where my son will become daktar or inginiyar and make money in Yamerika.

Unless India changes at a very fundamental level we are going to have more of same. My father's generation thought up the system. My generation thrived on the system. Hopefully a younger crowd will actually see and do what is right.

Sorry. OT.

[shiv]

swarming tactics might work in the day only. most Mig21 types are useless at night without a good radar, lantirn pod and HMS and other bells and whistles. once you add the bells and whistles to make them effective in bad weather and at night, the simple fighter is gone and one ends up with a block30+ F16.

its ok so long as the enemy attacks only in the day in good weather.

GD - make a list of attacks carried out by jet aircraft in the last 50 years of warfare and check what percentage were carried out at night in bad weather. Accurate and effective night attack capability has become reality only in the last 15-20 years and it still requires good weather. Daylight still occupies about half of a 24 hour day and in war that half cannot be left quiet without air activity. If you don't attack in daytime, the other guy will.

[Gaur]

gaur sahab, size may not be the only factor but it is by no means an insignificant factor.

Perhaps the use of the word "insignificant" was wrong. However, IMO, size is at least not a big factor. My reason for this is the following. Consider 2 planes of same shape, materials and finishing. Lets the surface area of one plane be 60% to that of other (which will never be. It will always be larger that that, specially the front SA). Let us also assume that the 40% lower SA of smaller plane will result in 40% reduction in rcs (again, according to some knowledgeable friends of mine, this will never be the case as the surfaces will not act as one plane mirror facing perpendicular to the radar waves. There will be multiple reflections specially in the wing, cockpit and vertical stabilizer area. So the resultant rcs will be much higher.). Now the radar detection range is proportional to the fourth root of rcs. This means that for a 40% reduction in SA, the detection range will only decrease by approx 12%. And note that we arrive at this figure by taking the most far fetched values. The actual reduction in detection range will be far less.
Consider this. For a tactically significant reduction in detection range, we will need to decrease the rcs by factors of thousands ( eg: if we decrease the rcs by 1/1000, the rcs will decrease by 82%). Now think for such large reduction in rcs, how much size of a/c will need to be decreased. This is why I say that size is not a big factor wrt rcs.

[Gaur]

The MiG 21 got better of F 15 in soem of the exercises. I believe the pilot said that "he could not see the ac"

THAT IS STEALTH.

I had mentioned earlier that one of the greatest advantages of Tejas is its small size.

K

Kersi smaller size does matter. In the absence of any specific stealth measures as was the case in earlier gen aircraft, it was smaller size that was stealthy Indians are saying it but nobody will believe it until the Americans say it It only proves my point. But nobody will believe me either

In the case of the MiG 21s that pranged the F 15s - they were hidden among MiG 27s. It was certainly Chankianness. But we could not believe it until Col. Flintoff or someone with a suitable name said it.

But there is another side to that story. The Americans were forbidden from using BVR in that engagement and could have taken a shot at BVR ranges. But that fact only brings me back to an original point. If stealth and BVR allow adversaries to be shot down at long ranges what is the used of thrust vectoring for dogfights? No dogfight after you have been shot down at BVR range no?

Did you even bother to read my reply to this post? I clearly stated that the invisibility of Mig-21 had nothing to do with its size. No Indian or American or Somalian a/c designer has ever claimed otherwise.

As for your weird reasoning against TVC. TVC increases maneuverability which is not only needed in dogfights but is a highly valuable factor while evading BVR missiles. Also, to think that just because you have BVR capability, the showdown will never come to a dogfight is totally wrong reasoning to say the least.

[shiv]

Perhaps the use of the word "insignificant" was wrong. However, IMO, size is at least not a big factor. My reason for this is the following. Consider 2 planes of same shape, materials and finishing. Lets the surface area of one plane be 60% to that of other (which will never be. It will always be larger that that, specially the front SA). Let us also assume that the 40% lower SA of smaller plane will result in 40% reduction in rcs (again, according to some knowledgeable friends of mine, this will never be the case as the surfaces will not act as one plane mirror facing perpendicular to the radar waves. There will be multiple reflections specially in the wing, cockpit and vertical stabilizer area. So the resultant rcs will be much higher.). Now the radar detection range is proportional to the fourth root of rcs. This means that for a 40% reduction in SA, the detection range will only decrease by approx 12%. And note that we arrive at this figure by taking the most far fetched values. The actual reduction in detection range will be far less.
Consider this. For a tactically significant reduction in detection range, we will need to decrease the rcs by factors of thousands ( eg: if we decrease the rcs by 1/1000, the rcs will decrease by 82%). Now think for such large reduction in rcs, how much size of a/c will need to be decreased. This is why I say that size is not a big factor wrt rcs.

Gaur let me ask you a couple of serious questions for which I do not know the answer and have no clever answer to give you

1) If shape is all that matters, how is it that the US will be supplying two versions of JSF - a more stealthy version for the US and a less stealthy version for export. They are the same aircraft. No variation in shape or sze.

2) The JSF is a big aircraft. What would be the radar signature of a fighter that is exactly the same shape as the JSF, made from the same materials but only 50% of its size? The only answer that I am looking for is whether the smaller aircraft will have a smaller or bigger signature or the same.

[shiv]

TVC increases maneuverability which is not only needed in dogfights but is a highly valuable factor while evading BVR missiles.

Gaurji - You can rest assured that I am reading your posts with great enthusiasm. So you are saying that thrust vectoring is required to dodge BVR missiles? You are speaking of a scenario when two stealthy aircraft approach each other and fire off BVR missiles at each other and then each does a fancy dance to dodge the missile, and then they get up close and personal where they further use their thrust vectoring capability to do the dogfight dance?

But sir, what if 4 MiG 21s approach a stealthy 7th gen fighter (5th gen is stealth no - you said so. 7th gen is stealth+TV+ supercruise). The 7 th gen fighter then fires off all its missiles to hit one MiG 21. Three are left. Then the stealthy fighter which is huge approaches for a dogfight with 3 Mig 21s. Will the advanced fighter then use its thrust vectoring to dodge bullets?

[JimmyJ]

Just two points

1. Stealth is a relative term.

Today it is relative to the capability of radar and IRST.
What we call a stealth aircraft may become non stealthy for tomorrows radars and IRST.

2. Super cruise is an attribute of engine power and aircraft design, these need not be a main design criteria, but may be attained as a byproduct.

Claiming that Super cruise would make us dependent on foreign maal is absurd, but inability to develop an engine with higher thrust will always make as keep the 'buyer' tag. Without a higher thrust engines we may fail to even add better sensors in the future. India has an design capability as far as the airframe is concerned.

[shiv]

Claiming that Super cruise would make us dependent on foreign maal is absurd, but inability to develop an engine with higher thrust will always make as keep the 'buyer' tag.

And an inability to develop an engine with higher thrust will ensure that we do not develop supercruise unless we buy engines with higher thrust.

And if we are buyers with a "buyer tag", we are necessarily dependent on foreign maal.

The conclusions are perfectly valid and logical. Do you have any other method of getting a supercruising aircraft into the Indian Air Force in less than 25 years without getting a buyer tag?

So why is it absurd to claim that wanting supercruise will make us dependent on foreign maal?

[JimmyJ]

Claiming that Super cruise would make us dependent on foreign maal is absurd, but inability to develop an engine with higher thrust will always make as keep the 'buyer' tag.

And an inability to develop an engine with higher thrust will ensure that we do not develop supercruise unless we buy engines with higher thrust.

And if we are buyers with a "buyer tag", we are necessarily dependent on foreign maal.

The conclusions are perfectly valid and logical. Do you have any other method of getting a supercruising aircraft into the Indian Air Force in less than 25 years without getting a buyer tag?

So why is it absurd to claim that wanting supercruise will make us dependent on foreign maal?

It is absurd because a higher thrust engine is not just required for super cruise alone. Is Tejas mk2 going for a higher thrust engine because we need super cruise? When we buy the Ej 200 or 414 we will have the buyer tag again, is it do to super cruise?

[shiv]

It is absurd because a higher thrust engine is not just required for super cruise alone. Is Tejas mk2 going for a higher thrust engine because we need super cruise? When we buy the Ej 200 or 414 we will have the buyer tag again, is it do to super cruise?

Agreed. So we are getting "buyer tag" and still not getting supercruise. And even if India wants a supercruising aircraft, there is no way India can get it without the buyer tag.

That is all that I have been trying to say. If any Indian, be it a jingo or the Chief of Air staff demands "supercruise" as a requirement for Indian aircraft, it will not come without a "buyer tag" and foreign dependence until we are able to develop a suitable engine on our own, in India. And we have not done that yet.

[nrshah]

I have been going through never ending debate
My views on the subject are we cannot be on one side in these matters... Both the stand has its own pros and cons and neither of them give a COMPLETE AND PERFECT SOLUTION

Some questions to think
1. With all the hard work, we have been able to develop infra in aeronautical industry by LCA. Should it be wasted by not going for AMCA?
2. When we try to produce a AC with out existing technology, is it development or mere integration?
3. Doesn't development necessarily mean trying that did not exist?
4. Does the race (with American as leader) that we are talking of have a regulated area (Laws of Physics and others) where you can run? If yes, can you run on a different area defying the rules of the game (avoiding restrictions of laws of physics)?
5. Is development of UCAV with in our existing techno capabilities? If no, aren't we contradicting our basic stand (Develop product that is within reach)?
6. Are the TV and the SC only technologies out of reach in the entire AC? Going by the definition of 5th Gen, do we have stealth or Electronic attack or even engine ready? I am sure there will be 10 more things we don’t have.. Should that culminate in not opting for the programme?
7. How will we learn technology which we do not have, without trying?
8. We complain that tech we developed for LCA were developed 20 years earlier by Americans. Won’t we increase the GAP if we don’t opt for AMCA today? We started LCA when f 16/ f 18/ M2K/ Tornado etc were already operational.. In case of AMCA, we are starting it even before F 35 gets its IOC or any European programme is yet thought of. Will not it decrease the gap in our technological base and Mil-Ind base?
9. Is technology a game of snakes and ladders, where you need to caste the right number and a ladder will get you on the top by passing all the sequence?
10. Are LCA / Arjun delayed only because they did not fit the requirements? Are respective users not reason for the delay? Look at the difference between the state of Gripen during IOC as compared to LCA... Even after convincingly proven better than Bhisma, why Arjun cannot be inducted in increasing numbers?
11. Was stealth warship within our reach? Did Navy withdraw its support because of delay of shivalik? Does example given by Kesri D during BR MEET in 2001 speaks of something for delays? Compare it with NAVY going gung ho with shivalik .If it had IAF/IA attitude, can any body stop it from saying it is not as stealthier as Sweden's Visby or French La fayette and will it be wrong to say so?
12. We are talking of increased numbers of LCA (Mk 1, MK2... MKn) to replace the ACs that are set to retire. We also talk of countering Americans or their weapons in hands of our enemy.. Logically, we are saying to defeat F22/35 using LCA... Are we realistic?
13. We talk of better radar to counter stealth as a logical solution...While we are shouting that we don’t have this and that, how conveniently we tend to forget we even don’t have a Mechanically scanned array radar as of now when people have already shifted for PESA and in transition for AESA?


However, i firmly believe we should not look to americans to give us way ahead.. There should be some original thinking that we should work on... I appreciate VKS when he says that they are trying to create RV that will have different thermal signatures... I am sure this has not been thought of by any one earlier and people would have made joke of him on a different thermal signature for Mach 8-10 object.. We had our original idea when OSA Class boats did on Karachi what CBG of Americans failed to do in 1971...We need more of such ideas in the future to work upon.. The first one I wish to submit is counseling of our forces (specifically IA/IAF) to have better attitude towards domestic R & D....

In the end, i am happy all this different thoughts and views points are for a common destination... a powerful, high tech, and prosperous India... Jai Hind

[shiv]

^^
good post nrshah

This is an excerpt from the CAS's speech as reported in in VAYU (latest Issue) in a seminar entitled "The Future of Air Power", VAYU II, 2010, page 35

The CAS Air Chief Marshal PV Naik delivered the inaugural address on the future of aerospace power. "The path we have to tread is influenced by emerging technologies and the circumstances which prevail in one's own neighborhood, " said Naik. "There is a need to look at full spectrum dominance. With challenges there will also be opportunities. One one end there are fifth generation fighters like the F-35 and Raptor and on the other hand the increasingly capable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are knocking for their share of space. There is a need for specialization, greater networking and assimilation of space assets for any air force", opined Naik.

The CAS looked at a number of aspects which will have a role in future aerospace power. "UAVs will continue to make revolutionary advances. The precision weapons which have proven their value in the last few decades and have been deciding factors in all recent large scale military operations may create a different future. They may not carry traditional kinetic energy warheads, but directed energy weapons. Both laser and high power microwaves are emerging as future options for military commanders," felt Naik.

The CAS also dwelt on the increased use of 'space', which gives some nations an "upper hand". Space superiority is emerging as an important element of military battlefield success in future warfare. Still, a vital element are human resources. "People will remain at the heart of warfare. Technology is no an end in itself, human resources need to be trained and adapted to new technologies"

[nrshah]

Thanks shiv,

We are infact already developing blocks on the all the technologies spoken by CAS...

On 5G, there is pak fa and AMCA (Of course foreign dependence is there in Pak fa, but after 50 years of dependence, it cannot be avoided on one fine day. On AMCA, IAF has already made it clear it has to have max indigenous components)

On UAV/UCAV, we are already there... Nishant has recently finished its comfirmatory trials sucessfully (Shiv arror), A wheeled version called GAGAN is under development, so it Rustom (MALE) - BEL/HAL has been selected as DP and Manufacturing units..Tentative plans speak of converting LCA into UCAV however it is sometime in future... however, we should also develop payload for such UAV/UCAV (Ofcourse one is underdevelopment - HELINA)

On directed energy weapons, we were working on KALI and DURGA... Still not feasible to deploy it operationally, but work is already going on

In space, we are putting IRNSS, Dedicated satellites for navy and airforce, one report also called for plans of comtel satellites.. our Earth observation satellites are already capable of dual use especially TES and subsequent Cartosat..

I am sure future looks brighter but some structural change in MOD/ GOI/ Forces /DRDO has to be made and that is the biggest challenge as i see..

[Rahul M]

AFAIK we have moved beyond KALI and DURGA.

[JimmyJ]

The trouble we have is that the User community [IA/IAF/In/GoI/Me] sometimes can't wait for the R&D community and without the R&D community leading the technological curve, the User community would always tend to look at brochures to see what is future.

When Abdul Kalam said that we need to make reusable satellite launch vehicle, I for the first time thought "old mans dream". He even talked about reusable weapon delivery system. Pardon me for that, my ignorance, till I found US doing the same[See the me culprit ].

So in one sense yes slowly but steadily we will soon have a R&D community that would soon help our User community see the future and then we will see a reduced brochure based requirement coming.

[Gaur]

Perhaps the use of the word "insignificant" was wrong. However, IMO, size is at least not a big factor. My reason for this is the following. Consider 2 planes of same shape, materials and finishing. Lets the surface area of one plane be 60% to that of other (which will never be. It will always be larger that that, specially the front SA). Let us also assume that the 40% lower SA of smaller plane will result in 40% reduction in rcs (again, according to some knowledgeable friends of mine, this will never be the case as the surfaces will not act as one plane mirror facing perpendicular to the radar waves. There will be multiple reflections specially in the wing, cockpit and vertical stabilizer area. So the resultant rcs will be much higher.). Now the radar detection range is proportional to the fourth root of rcs. This means that for a 40% reduction in SA, the detection range will only decrease by approx 12%. And note that we arrive at this figure by taking the most far fetched values. The actual reduction in detection range will be far less.
Consider this. For a tactically significant reduction in detection range, we will need to decrease the rcs by factors of thousands ( eg: if we decrease the rcs by 1/1000, the rcs will decrease by 82%). Now think for such large reduction in rcs, how much size of a/c will need to be decreased. This is why I say that size is not a big factor wrt rcs.

Gaur let me ask you a couple of serious questions for which I do not know the answer and have no clever answer to give you

1) If shape is all that matters, how is it that the US will be supplying two versions of JSF - a more stealthy version for the US and a less stealthy version for export. They are the same aircraft. No variation in shape or sze.

2) The JSF is a big aircraft. What would be the radar signature of a fighter that is exactly the same shape as the JSF, made from the same materials but only 50% of its size? The only answer that I am looking for is whether the smaller aircraft will have a smaller or bigger signature or the same.

Shiv ji..let me explain the importance of shape to the best of my limited ability. Shape is to stealth what wings are to aircraft. An aircraft cannot fly without wings but that does not mean that only wings will make the aircraft fly. Obviously, other aircraft components will be needed to make an a/c fly but whatever one does, one cannot make a true aircraft without giving it wings. Similarly, one cannot design a "true" stealth a/c without right shape. But that does not mean that the shape alone will make an a/c stealthy. Some other importance factors (apart from shape) that contribute to stealth are airframe materials, weapons bay, cockpit design and materials, stealth coating, engines with IR suppression, precision engineering during manufacturing and maintenance etc.
However, no amount of above mentioned features will make an a/c a true stealth platform if it does not have the right shape.

The above para, I hope, will answer your first question regarding JSF. No one knows how exactly the export JSF will get decreased stealth but my guess is that the export version will not have the same radar absorbing coating that they will use on their version of JSF.

As for your second question. No, JSF is a small fighter. You will struggle to make a fighter even 80% its size (IMO, JSF is nearly of the min size required to make a stealth fighter. Reduce its size by 20% and "perhaps" one would be able to make a UCAV. But there is no way to go below that). But even then, let us assume that through some magical situation such a fighter is being made (which is 50% the size of JSF). And let us also assume we engineer not only liliput ammunition and avionics for this fighter but also accomplish to train a midget to fly it. Sure, its rcs will be relatively lower. However, it will not be so low to make a substantial difference (especially considering the massive reduction of capability due to reduction in its size). Again, I am somewhat confused as to the reason you asked this question because the very post of mine that you quoted contained as much description as I could provide regarding this topic.