Indian Military Aviation

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 22 Aug 2010 10:44

^^
Thanks a lot. As always, your scans are most appreciated.

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 22 Aug 2010 11:06

Can Akash Surface to Air Missile and its needed Radar and accessories can be transported on IL-76 of IAF?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2010 16:32

I kind of doubt that...esp the launcher vehicle.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2010 17:23

Bihanga wrote:Can Akash Surface to Air Missile and its needed Radar and accessories can be transported on IL-76 of IAF?

The IAF variants, probably.

The trailer/s with the radar/missiles is detachable and can be transported separately from the main truck.

The Army versions are on T-72 chassis. They will have tough time fitting into and be deployable from IL-76, even if it can be done (putting T-72s in LEH)

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 22 Aug 2010 18:08

HAL Light Utility Helicopter Schematics

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 22 Aug 2010 18:14

Il-76 probably won't be able to carry it, that why the C-17 !

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2010 18:22

Sorry, with an IL76 payload of 40 odd tons and with the trailer being the width of a truck, why cant an IL-76 carry a bunch of IAF Akash trailers & associated equipment. The missiles can come separately on other IL-76.

A few Il-76 flights should definitely be able to transport the IAF version of the Akash anyplace where the Il-76 can go.

This settles it - just checked notes for Akash.

"Rail, road, air transportability when mounted on a trailer"

The BMP based original Army units for Akash should also be air transportable, but they are unlikely to have gone into series production, though there should be a handful of prototypes.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 22 Aug 2010 18:41

Karan M wrote:Sorry, with an IL76 payload of 40 odd tons and with the trailer being the width of a truck, why cant an IL-76 carry a bunch of IAF Akash trailers & associated equipment. The missiles can come separately on other IL-76.

A few Il-76 flights should definitely be able to transport the IAF version of the Akash anyplace where the Il-76 can go.

This settles it - just checked notes for Akash.

"Rail, road, air transportability when mounted on a trailer"

The BMP based original Army units for Akash should also be air transportable, but they are unlikely to have gone into series production, though there should be a handful of prototypes.

The IAF version will face no problem but Army launcher will be too heavy for transportation via Il-76. The weight of a T-72 tank is about 46-47 tonnes so the weight of the Akash launcher should be round about the same.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2010 18:57

smpratik wrote: The IAF version will face no problem but Army launcher will be too heavy for transportation via Il-76. The weight of a T-72 tank is about 46-47 tonnes so the weight of the Akash launcher should be round about the same.

Have you read this?
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html

It wont be easy, at best, but it can be done if the weight is at that of the T-72.

Having said that, why would the Army want to air transport Akash around anyways. The T-72 means its clearly meant to accompany armor formations, and may replace SA-6 units in that role.

The Army if it had to airlift SAMs quickly to any battle zone, well it has SA-8B/SA-13, Tunguska.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... llery.html

Plus there is SpyDer.
http://aerospacediary.blogspot.com/2010 ... fense.html
The latter are TATRA truck based and quickly transportable.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 22 Aug 2010 19:06

Karan M wrote:
Have you read this?
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Histo ... ewoor.html

It wont be easy, at best, but it can be done if the weight is at that of the T-72.

Having said that, why would the Army want to air transport Akash around anyways. The T-72 means its clearly meant to accompany armor formations, and may replace SA-6 units in that role.

The Army if it had to airlift SAMs quickly to any battle zone, well it has SA-8B/SA-13, Tunguska.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... llery.html

Plus there is SpyDer.
http://aerospacediary.blogspot.com/2010 ... fense.html
The latter are TATRA truck based and quickly transportable.

Very good article, I am actually surprised to learn that IAF has transported the T-72 in past. But I still remain a bit unconvinced considering that the T-72 has a very low height but the Akash launcher doesn't and that could cause some trouble while loading and unloading.

Plus you have a valid point that IA would prefer it to travel via road or rail.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 22 Aug 2010 20:48

Akash launchers height is usually observed with the launcher angled up, and the missiles on it.

Without, it should not be such an issue.

http://img100.exs.cx/img100/6523/16pi7ih.jpg
Those hydraulic hinges on the back allow it to rotate downwards and that support in the front is only for supporting missile when static deployed.

You got the point right, as what I meant was that Akash is unlikely to be marked for quick deployment by Il-76 by Army for NE etc as it was meant for armor formations, and will most likely move on rail, road TATRA transporter like the rest of the tanks/BMP.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 22 Aug 2010 21:04

Newbie pooch. There was a discussion on the AC-130J etc. But won't a big huge slowly moving plane like the AC-130 be very vulnerable to enemy air support? It think that the only place it might be useful would be where there are no enemy air forces like Afg/Iraq. For our situation where we do face hostile air forces, shouldn't the focus be on faster moving strike aircraft?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Aug 2010 21:11

yes the ac130 would be sitting duck for any enemy air superiority fighter even at night, using radar guided missiles.

the US has found a role for it. using it against soviet aviation over eastern germany or poland would get it torn apart in 10 mins.

for India, I think gunship helicopters able to operate at night and networked with other units presents a more suitable soln.

...unless we want to use it on naxal camps...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Aug 2010 21:20

The T 72 weighs 42 tons
A BMP ICV weighs 19 tons and is the basis of the Akash missile launcher carrier.
3 Akash missiles weigh about 2 tons totally

So why can't an Il 76 transport a BMP ICV chassis with launcher and Akash missiles?

I mean we all know on BRF that indian designers are stupid, and all foreign designers are clever - but are we all agreed that they are so stupid that they design these things to be non transportable by the primary heavy transport aircraft of the IAF. the mind boggles.

Has nobody seen the video of a BMP being para dropped from an Il 76?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 22 Aug 2010 21:31

yes on DD in the late 80s. we discussed it also.

But the IA Akash is now based on the '72 hull.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Aug 2010 21:32

vayushakti-99.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Aug 2010 22:26

shiv wrote:
I mean we all know on BRF that indian designers are stupid, and all foreign designers are clever - but are we all agreed that they are so stupid that they design these things to be non transportable by the primary heavy transport aircraft of the IAF. the mind boggles.

The Arjun MBT, as designed, was not transportable by Indian Railways to quote just one example. It simply shows that some one was asleep at the wheel.

For a tank, movement by train is sometimes even more important than movement on its own tracks and is a primary and vital design parameter.

Indian jugad solved that problem in a somewhat inelegant way.

There are many examples of callous design which we could do without publicizing.

At the end of the day, designers need to be clued up.
Crying over spilled milk is a peculiarly Indian trait.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Aug 2010 22:33

Karan M wrote: The latter are TATRA truck based and quickly transportable.

Entirely as an aside, why are the made in India TATRAs still left hand Drive only, after so many years?

Is it so very difficult to convert to RH drive?

It sure would make life just a bit easier for their drivers while negotiating Indian roads.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Aug 2010 22:37

chetak

someone tells me its because we onlee assemble them from CKDs

not sure if its true or not

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Aug 2010 10:29

Well, when we say air-transportable, what do we mean by it? That the Chassis+3 Akash on top of it will be one system? If yes, then weight is least of your concerns. Why? Because, the bulk of the weight of T-72 (or any tank) is going to be in that turret. Now, if the chassis even weighs 50%-60% of total weight of T-72 (~25 tonnes), then with 3 additional missiles+hydraulic arm, max weight will be what? 28 tonnes on higher side? That is well with-in the airlift capacity of a IL-76.

The more pertinent question is the dimesions of chassis+missiles (and here I'm talking about height with missiles in horizontal position) and their compatibility with Cargo hold dimensions of IL-76. We have carried T-72 before on IL-76 and so, this should not be an issue per se.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Aug 2010 10:35

Karan M wrote: <SNIP> You got the point right, as what I meant was that Akash is unlikely to be marked for quick deployment by Il-76 by Army for NE etc as it was meant for armor formations, and will most likely move on rail, road TATRA transporter like the rest of the tanks/BMP.

The most likely customers of first few Akash Regiments in the IA are the SA-6 equipped AD Groups with Strike Corps. AFAIK, there are two of them and IA has also placed orders for two regiment worth of sytems.

As for the movement of Akash to NE to some other place - well, one never knows when the emergency arises. It is always better to have this sort of option available. That aside, IAF will sooner than later deploy Akash to its airbases in NE - Chabua and Tejpur. How do you think these movements happen? Move the whole sytem by rail and then road or transport them piece-meal by air?

Thanx.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Aug 2010 11:17

there is MG railway to tezpur and BG railway to dibrugarh. they can be sent by rail to nearest point and then drive to airbases.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 23 Aug 2010 11:21

just for reference and refreshment,

I regiment = 16 launchers.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 23 Aug 2010 11:38

Surya;
You are of course right about the CKD Tatras. Yet another example of PSU passing off assembly as manufacture.

Chetak;
Quite incorrect to say that Arjun was not designed for Indian railways. Indeed the railways regularly carry larger loads than Arjun tanks (such as boilers). It would be more accurate to say that they didn't fit the existing BFATs. Also there is nothing 'jugaad' about the Arjun transporters. These are purpose designed BFAT wagons with 61 ton carrying capacity.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 24 Aug 2010 09:27

Even if the Il-76 can carry the T-72-Akash still I won't think its a smart thing to do, cuz one 1 Il-76 could carry only 1 T-72-Akash which doesn't make any sense, they will obvious need more than that do anything meaningful. Second thing is the radar which is also based on the T-72(for army) will be needed to be transported by another Il-76. Rail/Road is better option.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 24 Aug 2010 10:30

I Agree to the fact that roads and rails are better. But its always necessary to have a airlift option for the country's critical military hardware. The Chinese has mas load of cruise missiles which they will use in abundance in case of a war to neutralize the road and rail networks.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 24 Aug 2010 12:10

vishnu.nv wrote:I Agree to the fact that roads and rails are better. But its always necessary to have a airlift option for the country's critical military hardware. The Chinese has mas load of cruise missiles which they will use in abundance in case of a war to neutralize the road and rail networks.

If speaking specifically of China, then our strategy seems to differ from them - theirs is based on rapid mobilization via developed rail /road network and we basing our troops and airfields closer to the potential area of action.

The infrastructure for Akash is already expected to be present in the NE in terms of back up radar etc , what will be airlifted in large number is the missiles as they would have to be reloaded.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Aug 2010 12:20

Found this on Military Photos forum

The Kamov Effect

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 24 Aug 2010 12:34

^^^ Well sure does knock the wind out of the skirt... And also the hair...

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Aug 2010 12:55

Huge amount of activity in HAL today...

Loads of helos flying around, some UAVs loitering around, saw a fighter ( couldnt see clearly which) take off from a distance, a An-32 came and went etc etc.

Wonder whats cooking?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Aug 2010 13:51

smpratik wrote:Even if the Il-76 can carry the T-72-Akash still I won't think its a smart thing to do, cuz one 1 Il-76 could carry only 1 T-72-Akash which doesn't make any sense, they will obvious need more than that do anything meaningful. Second thing is the radar which is also based on the T-72(for army) will be needed to be transported by another Il-76. Rail/Road is better option.

How about 2 or 3 flights to carry all the stuff? After all carrying one tank is also equally useless and if we wanted to carry 20 tanks we could choose 20 Il-76s making one flight each or 4 Il-76s making five flights each.

The same argument can be made for transporting iron ore or crude oil or even troops. Just because one shipload or one trainload is not enough we cannot declare it as not being smart. Being smart means sending in 25 trainloads or shiploads one after another. No?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 24 Aug 2010 15:24

well if you want to be totally 'optima' then it is best to design a linear programming problem for this classic "transportation" problem and solve it using the Simplex method onree

R Nathan · Post by **R Nathan** » 24 Aug 2010 15:51

80.5% of TATRA is owned by British NRI via Vectra Ltd. & consortium partners.

Tatra Vectra Motors Limited was established in June 1998 as a manufacturing base in India. Its is unlikely they would be putting together knock down kits when India is a major Automobile manufacturing center.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 24 Aug 2010 15:54

Question folks: are all the army Akashs ordered on T-72 based launchers, I can understand the ones which are suppossed to move along with Armour, wouldnt the army for cost effectiveness want a few truck mounted Akashs for protecting bases, at high altitudes areas where Tanks cannot be used?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Aug 2010 16:12

R Nathan wrote:80.5% of TATRA is owned by British NRI via Vectra Ltd. & consortium partners.

Tatra Vectra Motors Limited was established in June 1998 as a manufacturing base in India. Its is unlikely they would be putting together knock down kits when India is a major Automobile manufacturing center.

I don't know - but if it is not mere assembly the left hand drive (LHD) story may be more esoteric. Perhaps there is something about loading bays or something else used by the IA or IAF that were all designed for LHD vehicles and the need to maintain that persists. Just a wild guess - I don't know. Just curious. Sometimes one hears funny reasons for odd features.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Aug 2010 16:14

Aditya_V wrote:Question folks: are all the army Akashs ordered on T-72 based launchers, I can understand the ones which are suppossed to move along with Armour, wouldnt the army for cost effectiveness want a few truck mounted Akashs for protecting bases, at high altitudes areas where Tanks cannot be used?

All display Akash's that I saw at Aero India maybe 6-7 years ago were BMP mounted - there are photos somewhere. Will try and dig up.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Aug 2010 16:21

chetak wrote:
Karan M wrote: The latter are TATRA truck based and quickly transportable.

Entirely as an aside, why are the made in India TATRAs still left hand Drive only, after so many years?

Is it so very difficult to convert to RH drive?

It sure would make life just a bit easier for their drivers while negotiating Indian roads.

Could be because the BEML contract with TATRA implies importing that entire assembly. Even so, it is bizarre that after so many years in Indian service, we have not moved on this aspect, even if it has to be via the OEM ie TATRA.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Aug 2010 16:22

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote: <SNIP> You got the point right, as what I meant was that Akash is unlikely to be marked for quick deployment by Il-76 by Army for NE etc as it was meant for armor formations, and will most likely move on rail, road TATRA transporter like the rest of the tanks/BMP.
The most likely customers of first few Akash Regiments in the IA are the SA-6 equipped AD Groups with Strike Corps. AFAIK, there are two of them and IA has also placed orders for two regiment worth of sytems.

As for the movement of Akash to NE to some other place - well, one never knows when the emergency arises. It is always better to have this sort of option available. That aside, IAF will sooner than later deploy Akash to its airbases in NE - Chabua and Tejpur. How do you think these movements happen? Move the whole sytem by rail and then road or transport them piece-meal by air?

Thanx.

You missed the context - being emergency deployments via air, if we have enough time, then of course, rail/road are better.

R Nathan · Post by **R Nathan** » 24 Aug 2010 16:23

I don't know - but if it is not mere assembly the left hand drive (LHD) story may be more esoteric. Perhaps there is something about loading bays or something else used by the IA or IAF that were all designed for LHD vehicles and the need to maintain that persists. Just a wild guess - I don't know. Just curious. Sometimes one hears funny reasons for odd features.

If the customer has no complaints (probably used to left hand drive by now) why would any manufacturer spend millions redesigning a perfectly fine truck? Murphys law - if its not broken, dont fix it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Aug 2010 16:26

shiv wrote:The T 72 weighs 42 tons
A BMP ICV weighs 19 tons and is the basis of the Akash missile launcher carrier.
3 Akash missiles weigh about 2 tons totally

So why can't an Il 76 transport a BMP ICV chassis with launcher and Akash missiles?

I mean we all know on BRF that indian designers are stupid, and all foreign designers are clever - but are we all agreed that they are so stupid that they design these things to be non transportable by the primary heavy transport aircraft of the IAF. the mind boggles.

Has nobody seen the video of a BMP being para dropped from an Il 76?

Good points sir.

To add - the Army's new standard Akash are all on T-72. The BMP was rejected because it could not keep pace with armor columns in sand.

I dont know the weight of the overall Akash + T-72 chassis, I had notes but lost them when a third rate OS met with a fourth rate HD and lost them.

But the weights (going by memory here) of the Akash trailer for IAF were something like 30 odd tons. Comparing that to T-72 turret weight may give some idea, for at least, the radar. I think radar vehicle will be heavier than the launcher.