Indian Military Aviation

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 15 May 2010 19:41

I guess they could order 20-30 more LCA Mk-1's considering the fact the Mk-2's won't enter production before 2015. So if the Mk-1 enters production from next year (which looks likely) with a order of only 40, they will produce them at a slower pace. So if the order for more Mk-1 has to come than it definitely has to come soon(May be before 2013).

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 15 May 2010 19:47

If i am not wrong first batch may be 12 Tejas will be ready by end of 2011 or mid 2012 , 10 or 20 extra can be ordered and by 2015 ,Tejas MK-II will take time to hit production for sure likely period should be 2016-17 so extra Tejas MK-I can be squeezed in

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 15 May 2010 19:52

I am not sure but AK Antony said that the first LCA mk-1 will enter service from March 2011. If we assume that they can produce 12 aircraft in a year than they can produce around 60 LCA's by 2015-16.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 15 May 2010 20:17

work on first Tejas batch is underway and may be four plus some LSP (6/7/8) will join air force in march and by year end five more may join in , so the figure of 12 ,later numbers will be around 8 so next 30 aircraft's by 2015 if there is delay of 2 years for Tejas MK-2 then may be 10 or 20 extra will be ordered

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 15 May 2010 20:20

Question to guru log here

if 8 LSP and 20 Tejas and another 20 will make it 48 aircraft's or only few LSP will be inducted in iaf ?

IAF ordering Trainer Tejas in second batch of 20 aircraft's are they true ?

Santosh · Post by **Santosh** » 15 May 2010 22:06

What will be the likely role of Tejas MK1 in IAF? Point defence? Air Superiority seems to be unlikely since we have the big daddy. Is Tejas MK1 good enough for ground attack role so it could sub Mig27? TIA.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 May 2010 22:32

Craig Alpert wrote:
Call it a blessing in disguise! But if the above is indeed true, then ALL YELL SEE YAY!!!

I THINK that is coming from IDRW and not from the IAF or some one who knows more than IDRW. I would not quote them (IDRW) as yet. This seems to me as speculation.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 May 2010 22:33

AFA I remember the plan all along was to retire all but the 40 mig-27upg within the next decade.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 15 May 2010 23:12

Why can't we upgrade some more floggers?? I mean we are talking about retiring more than 60% of the type's strength... And at a time our squadron strength is low...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 May 2010 02:49

Rahul M wrote:AFA I remember the plan all along was to retire all but the 40 mig-27upg within the next decade.

The 40 are receiving the brand new RWJ

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 May 2010 02:55

R-118 ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 May 2010 02:56

Wot about the AL-31s? India already has the engine mfg capability, the AL-31 might resolve the engine issues, esp. for the 40 upgraded birds.

CM

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 May 2010 03:03

Rahul M wrote:R-118 ?

No, brand new - combines RWR and jammer into one and testing and integration are complete, with kits handed to HAL for inclusion. Modified version of this will go on the LCA.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 May 2010 03:16

Bala Vignesh wrote:Why can't we upgrade some more floggers?? I mean we are talking about retiring more than 60% of the type's strength... And at a time our squadron strength is low...

If there really is a problem with the R-29 engine, the upgraded ones won't be immune to it, unless the IAF decides to fit the AL-31 on them. But since those plans appear to have been shelved, we can conclude that the IAF doesn't seem to be interested in spending any more money on the Mig-27. I really hope this translates into more orders for the LCA Mk1. The Mk1 has a similar payload, better range and can perform every task that the Mig-27 can and more. And it does this with a much smaller and more efficient engine than the 123kN turbojet on the 27.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 May 2010 05:54

Bala Vignesh wrote:Why can't we upgrade some more floggers?? I mean we are talking about retiring more than 60% of the type's strength... And at a time our squadron strength is low...

Airframe life I think.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 16 May 2010 11:15

Light Helicopter Race Heats Up, Augusta Out
The Indian Express

anirban_aim · Post by **anirban_aim** » 16 May 2010 14:27

Something to chew on a Sunday Morning:

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 431223.ece

The Indian Air Force, which lacks a basic aircraft trainer to train its flying cadets, has given clearance for a parachute recovery system (PRS) to be fitted on the Hindustan Piston Trainer-32 (HPT-32). The PRS, it is hoped, will improve the confidence of HPT-32 pilots, enhance survivability during an emergency in the air and prevent the trainer from dropping out of the sky like a stone.

I was waiting for this to happen, with the currently grounded HPTs, I don't know how are the rookies managing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 May 2010 15:27

looks at the specs of western and russian gunship helis, both carry mostly 30mm single barrel cannon (but light ones like LCH and rooivalk do 20mm).

but one clear area of superiority is both Mi28N and Ka50 have same cannon with 250 rounds only. its fed from two external drums mounted beside the barrel and HE and AP can be loaded on one each if desired (dual feed cannon).

in contrast the western ones carry minimum 500 rounds, most have 750 and the apache a huge 1200 rounds which guarantees more staying
power and liberal use of ammo.

even the M1 tank carries a massive 10,000 rds for its coax HMG while Leo2 does 4000 rounds iirc.

the americans sure like carrying a lot of ammo around.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 May 2010 21:23

Singha wrote: in contrast the western ones carry minimum 500 rounds, most have 750 and the apache a huge 1200 rounds which guarantees more staying power and liberal use of ammo.

This is a debatable point. The well trained pilot who knows he has less ammo will use it judiciously. A pilot with much more ammunition is allowed to panic and fire off a lot more ineffective rounds.

I am not making a personal remark here - but I believe that video games that allow "multiple lives" and "unlimited ammo" give the impression to most amateurs that this is a desirable advantage. It is definitely an advantage - but one that can be frittered away too easily.

For example, what does your training demand? If you are training on a helo with only 250 rounds - good training will demand that you use it judiciously. But if you are training in a helo with 1000 rounds a lot will depend on the standard of training. If the guy uses it as judiciously as the well trained 250 round pilot - then he will be 4 times as effective. But if he is firing off 1 to 2 second bursts as opposed to 0.5 second carefully aimed bursts then the difference is less significant. This would be the difference between brochure and practice.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 16 May 2010 22:40

^^^what relation does training has with ammunition on a chopper. Are Apache pilots are pampered with extra bullets and not trained well with less ammo?

What Singha pointed to was "time on station". If you have enough ammunition, time on station increases considerably. Higher caliber weapons, like 30mm on Apache, provide suppressive fire from a long distance usually a mile away. Hence they have less accuracy.

So if in the heat of battle chopper pilot forgets to correctly set azimuth of gun (or set it to auto) and pulls hard on trigger, training or no-training, you are going home empty handed with all your slugs landing in some farmers home.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 May 2010 22:52

Shiv ji, which defense organization will train its pilots to be less careful about the ammunition just because they have more at hand. It is all too common knowledge that shooting continuously deteriorates the accuracy of the shots considerably, more so from an attack heli! I can't imagine any force in the world not training their pilots/WSO against such loss of accuracy.

Isn't caliber defined more by the role, based on the envisioned accuracy, distance, penetration, rate of fire, recoil handling etc etc etc? AFAIK the gun is chosen based on the balance one wants to achieve in the roles that one foresees!

PS. Sid beat me to it!

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 16 May 2010 23:01

on the roles subject will the NRUAV guided by the naval ship be able to fire its guns against a approaching torpedo substituting as a CIWS?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 17 May 2010 00:15

shiv wrote: Airframe life I think.

Shiv sir, IIRC, the floggers still have quite a punch left in them considering that they were inducted around the same time as Mirages in our forces and that we manufactred most of them..

nachiket wrote: If there really is a problem with the R-29 engine, the upgraded ones won't be immune to it, unless the IAF decides to fit the AL-31 on them. But since those plans appear to have been shelved, we can conclude that the IAF doesn't seem to be interested in spending any more money on the Mig-27. I really hope this translates into more orders for the LCA Mk1. The Mk1 has a similar payload, better range and can perform every task that the Mig-27 can and more. And it does this with a much smaller and more efficient engine than the 123kN turbojet on the 27.

I sincerely doubt that it can perform the task of the Bhadur with the same effect as it is basically a multi role aircraft designed to replace the MiG 21 not the Mig 27 IIRC... And even if it is we can number plate them when we have achieved the minimum squadron strength.. Cause we are losing years of training and the tactics developed specifically for that aircraft when we don't have any other aircraft to take up that mantle effectively...
JMVHO

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 17 May 2010 00:36

bala, IIRC we produced the mig-27 from mid 80's to late 90's. depending on how much they were 'flogged' (pun intended !) many would be near their end of airframe life.

consider two factors, russian fighters usually had around half of the airframe life of a corresponding western fighter. this is one of the main reasons why those were cheaper. the philosophy was that you could build a somewhat coarse aircraft that didn't need to be kept covered in velvet. due to the simpler building procedures it would last half the time of the corresponding western fighters but also cost a third of them. by the time a western fighter would need MLU, russia would simply replace the corresponding fighter which had expended its life with a brand new and in most cases modernised variants of the fighter. this is also why there are a mind-numbingly large list of variants of 60's and 70's soviet fighters.
secondly, a swing-wing fighter is always more maintenance intensive, perhaps that also adds to lower design life(not sure about the later). may be IAF doesn't want that much effort to keep it in the air ?
while capable aircrafts, the floggers also have a reputation for poor safety. at one time in the 90's they had a higher attrition rate than the mig-21, which is one full generation behind it !

Gilles · Post by **Gilles** » 17 May 2010 05:55

Reference IAF IL-76MD. I read this article http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html and read there:

Now came the matter of flying the IL-76 from Agra to Leh, keeping the outer engines running, and then returning to Chandigarh with back load of passengers, parachutes, and a variety of material which was reusable. There was a catch, as there always is in these things. It was the max AUW for landing at 140 tons. The basic weight of 90 tons, added to the 43 tons of the T-72 brought us to 133 tons. That left only 7 tons of fuel at landing

It says that the IL-76 AUW for landing is 140 tons.

Every source I find on the Internet states for the IL-76TD (the civilian version) a maximum Landing weight of 151.5 tonne, 11.5 tonnes more than what is stated in the article for the Il-76MD.

Can anyone explain the discrepancy ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 May 2010 07:41

Sid wrote:^^^what relation does training has with ammunition on a chopper. .

Famous last words.

The training makes one heck of a lot of difference. But it's not going to make a difference to either you or me. Most people do not believe anything, especially from an armchair jingo unless the US says it. One time when the US spoke of training making a difference was Cope India. Now we believe it. The same things holds true in this case, but cannot prove anything until the US says it.

Please allow me to hold on to my views, mistaken as they might seem to you. Thanks.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 May 2010 08:10

indranilroy wrote:Shiv ji, which defense organization will train its pilots to be less careful about the ammunition just because they have more at hand. It is all too common knowledge that shooting continuously deteriorates the accuracy of the shots considerably, more so from an attack heli! I can't imagine any force in the world not training their pilots/WSO against such loss of accuracy.

This is the theory. What happens in battle can be different and may depend on the assumptions made in training.

It is possible for both you and me to come up with an infinite numbers of hypothetical examples to illustrate our respective points, but look at it this way: (only assumptions follow)

Assume exactly the same gun on two similar helos. One with 250 rounds and another with 750

Assume a 50 round burst.

Assume that a target (armored personnel carrier) has
1) A 20% probability of being taken out from 1000 meters with a 50 round burst
2) A 40 % probability of being taken out from 750 meters with a 50 round burst
3) A 75 % probability of being taken out from 500 meters with a 50 round burst

Also assume that the closer a helo gets to ts target, the greater the chance of the helo taking serious hits from anti-aircraft fire, despite IR flares for manpads

Assume that if the pilot fires a 100 round burst rather than a 50 round burst, his chances of taking out the target at any range are doubled.

Now what training do you give your pilot?

Do you train him to fire a 200 round burst from from 1000 meters for an 80% kill probability and very low chances of him being hit?
Do you train him to fire a 100 round burst from 750 meters for an 80% kill probability with some risk of being hit?
Do you train him to fire a 50 round burst from 500 meters for a 75% kill probability with increased risk to himself?
If he has 750 rounds, how do you guarantee that he does not fire off 4 x 200 round bursts from 1000 meters, ensuring that he is personally safe, but since he has fired 4 times the probability of his having disabled it from 1000 meters is now guaranteed?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 May 2010 08:47

apache pilots probably have the best training ranges and simulators. they also have the best natgeo/discovery videos

and they have had live combat practice in iraq and afghanistan for years now...sneaking around and shooting things up.
I am sure they can shoot straight as anyone.

ammo is good to have for extended battles where resupply points are not available. the "modern" MBTs having 40-45 rounds
aint that good too. Centurion tanks carried 65 rounds of 105mm, the Sherman had 97 rounds of 75mm,
the Merkava can store extra ammo in the infantry squads place and allegedly tops off at 82 rounds. so a single surviving tank
can carry on a hard fought battle for longer.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 May 2010 09:20

It's not as though more ammo is not good. But imagining that more ammo is always and invariably an advantage is an assumption that fails under some circumstances. It is important to actually look at those circumstances because that could be a clincher in battle.

The pilot has a difficult choice, Either he goes closer to guarantee serious damage at the risk of being hit, or he plays it safe and stays far away. Every armed force makes the rules depending on what they have.

But this offers a choice for a trainer. Should he train a pilot to remain safe, but expend more ammo from far away. Or should he train the pilot to take the risk and go closer and be more effective. What does your political establishment feel about risk taking and decreased pilot safety. But what if pilot safety considerations are making attacks ineffective and allowing the enemy to survive? Some armed forces demand heroism and increased personal risk because there is no other go. Other armed forces maintain a philosophy of hitting from far away to reduce personnel losses. Both these factors are in turn depend on the resources you have, logistics to resupply men and material and the time available to take out an enemy before he eats you up.

Clearly an Indian doctrine cannot be the same as a US doctrine, and a US doctrine will be dependent upon logistics. More ammo means more load and therefore more fuel and therefore more trucks through Pakistan carrying ammo and fuel.

In Vietnam what happened was that soldiers on patrol were heavily armed but in addition had a helmet and a water bottle to carry. As the patrols got longer and hotter, the soldiers tended to discard the helmet and later the water bottle - holding on to the gun as personal safety. Surely it is not as if these men were not trained to shoot straight. They had M 16s (with lighter 5.56 mm ammo) and more ammo to boot. But they made the wrong choices in the thick of battle. They could have thrown away their ammo and have survived with that bottle of water.

Secondly it is only in computer games that the helo takes off with a full load of ammo and fuel. The hard disk serves up unlimited ammo and fuel on demand. In battle, the ammo load may be reduced for increased range or loiter time, or there may be full ammo for decreased range/loiter time. Without taking these factors into consideration the the sales brochure figure of 1000 or 1500 rounds becomes moot

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 May 2010 09:41

http://mdswebmaster.com/UK/MDS2008/cms/ ... ineNEW.pdf

so they stuff two of these huge boxes into the conformal fairings of the AH64D for the ammo. the front part of the conformal fairings
look like avionics bays.

the pdf mentions they have option to reduce rounds from 600 to 300 and fit a fuel tank of 100 gals into the remaining space
for a "combi pack" .... that way I think 600 rounds would be carried but additional 200 gals of fuel.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 May 2010 10:41

Two Nishant UAVs Crash-Landed in Jaisalmer village

According to sources, on April 28 Nishant was launched from mobile hydro-pneumatic launcher, but in a matter of a few minutes, it deviated from the set path and landed in Chacha village near firing range. Similar incident happened a day after on April 30, when the UAV lost the track and landed merely 200 metres from Lathi police station. Cops at the PS confirmed the crash landing.

While the UAV was damaged by the crash landing, on both the occasions, before air force personnel could reach the site, villagers managed to break into the aircraft and took away quite a few equipment.

Confirming the news, a DRDO official said, "The user trials were going on and during the flight there were some technical snags owing to which the craft was landed using parachutes." He said, "But the landing was done safely and no one was hurt in the process. Though before our officials could reach to get the craft back, villagers damaged the aircraft and took away some equipment."

The official maintained that it wasn't a crash landing and that they were in control of the vehicle. "The wind direction and minor technical snag did us in, but we at no moment lost control of the UAV," the officer asserted. The technical team working on UAVs says that the vehicles will fly after repair

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 May 2010 11:05

the Kamov LOH contender seems to have cut things down to the bare bone! nice verandah back there for camera persons.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QKkSf03VuFY/S ... v+226T.jpg

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 17 May 2010 11:17

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=12885

Augusta out. I don't understand why they bring their civilian versions, when the deal is for the military. Do they expect to hoodwink the officials concerned, or is it plain I-don't-care-I'll-bring-what-I-want attitude?
And an ironic thing is that Bell had protested that the earlier Eurocopter deal was unfair, whilst it chose to opt out of the subsequent re-trials! Was it simply to spoil the deal, or was there any genuine concern? If there was, they would have aggressively bid in the re-trial! Seems like the childish attitude- it's OK if I don't get the toffee, but then neither should he!!

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 May 2010 12:12

Shiv, I think we are not discussing the same things here. All I am saying is that having more rounds doesn't mean that the soldiers are trained more lavishly or that a US soldier is more reckless or can't differentiate between a video game and a real war. You and me know that in a 100 round burst, the last 50 will absolutely do zero damage. IF you and me can see this, a training personal and a trained personal can see it too! They train their minds and use of those equipments day in and day out on that. Their first real encounter is generally after lots of tales that they would have heard and seen. They are hardened individuals. They might be from the US with lot more at hand to play with, but even then they are soldiers!

I am all with you when you say that countries develop doctrines based on what they have and sometimes they develop something based on the doctrine that they have. There is no contradiction there. Infact some of the posters including me said the same.

P.S. I am not a US-fanboy! I am just stating what I feel about ANY defense force in the world. I CAN'T believe that the people who train for this life and death situations would be more reckless than us discussing here! JMHO

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 17 May 2010 12:36

Singha wrote:the Kamov LOH contender seems to have cut things down to the bare bone! nice verandah back there for camera persons.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QKkSf03VuFY/S ... v+226T.jpg

Very interesting concept akin to the sirkosky skycrane. The US armed forces use the skycrane.

The back end can carry a few different customized options.
If this can fly to 21,000 ft with reasonable cargo, that'll be great.

Another indication that IA is planning to stay put in Siachen? Or are these the building blocks to take things ahead across the saltoro range?

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 17 May 2010 15:39

shiv wrote:It's not as though more ammo is not good. But imagining that more ammo is always and invariably an advantage is an assumption that fails under some circumstances. It is important to actually look at those circumstances because that could be a clincher in battle.

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

You are clearly assuming a lot of stuff here.

1> A better trained pilot with 250 ammo is as good as any other pilot with 1200 ammo.
2> That we see the world through the prism of US military.
3> That we link up logic based on our past, so called video games experiences.

What you fail to see is -

More ammo presents you with more time in battlefield meaning more time on station. That directly translate to more targets of opportunity.

Also, why are you assuming that if you have less ammo pilots are willing to take risk and go into close range, at a risk of being hit, just because they can make accurate fire with less ammo?

Don't know about yanks, but if you read performance of Japanese troops in Burma campaign they did quite well under similar circumstances due to their phenomenal marching pace and mobility.

War is never fair. Why fight in a way to make it easy for enemy? or do you think we learned this from US as well

?

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 17 May 2010 16:44

Should we not try to match?

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/china ... no_cache=1

China Leading the Rebirth of Asia's Commercial Aircraft Industry? China Brief Volume: 10 Issue: 9 April 29, 2010 By: Richard A. Bitzinger

China may, by the end of the year, start deliveries of the ARJ-21 Xiangfeng (Soaring Phoneix), its first indigenously designed and developed commercial regional jet. …
Although the project itself is relatively modest in ambition and scope, the significance of the ARJ-21's deliverance is that it could be the precursor to the development of an entirely new industrial sector in Asia.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 17 May 2010 17:18

All this Apache talk reminds me... what news on the 24 attack helo thing?
Also, considering we'll have Mi-35s, LCHs and (speculation, but seems the most likely option) Apaches, how do the gurus think they'll be deployed? Together, performing different tasks, or in separate areas entirely?

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 17 May 2010 17:49

vardhank wrote:All this Apache talk reminds me... what news on the 24 attack helo thing?

I guess its 22 attack helicopters. The evaluation trial shall be commencing shortly.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 17 May 2010 18:02

22 haan?
Which ones are in the race?