Indian Military Aviation

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Aug 2010 17:36

0.5% 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.

we are not talking about Tatra in India

we are talking about BEML

However I think I have seen pictures of tatra also with RHD so maybe they have finally changed

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 24 Aug 2010 19:35

shiv wrote: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?

Well I am not a General but I think a smart thing to do is to send a fully functioning unit at a time lol! Sending one flight of Il-76 with the radar and than ask the Il-76 to return than take the T-72-Akash to the site is a bit risky. I would prefer to send one fully functioning unit all at once via 2-3 Il-76's but during such times the supply of these aircrafts will be short as IAF just has 17 Il-76's (If I am not wrong). So transporting them via road/rail is better thus smarter. May be the C-17 can solve this problem.

This also gives rise to a new discussion regarding Army Aviation, Army has to depend on the IAF for transportation for anything which weights more than "100kgs", should they go ahead and get themselves transporters ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Aug 2010 19:42

smpratik wrote: Well I am not a General but I think a smart thing to do is to send a fully functioning unit at a time lol! Sending one flight of Il-76 with the radar and than ask the Il-76 to return than take the T-72-Akash to the site is a bit risky.

May I ask what is risky about 3 flights that is not risky for any one flight? After all - if the airfield is under attack no flight is safe and if the plane is unsafe no flight is safe, or if the flight path is unsafe no flight is safe. Naturally if one is transporting anything by air one must meet basic safety norms. If those norms are met 50 flights are no more unsafe than one. That is what is called being smart.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 24 Aug 2010 19:50

So you think leaving a T-72-Akash or radar on the site where it can do nothing is safe ?? What if the airfield is bombed during the time, wouldn't you have preferred to have the whole unit to fight the attackers or not have it over there because there is no reason to believe that it won't be bombed thus lost for not no reason at all. Risk during the actual flight is a different issue and I am not talking about that.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Aug 2010 19:54

Re: Shiv
Absolutely correct, does the IAF transport everything in one go, or does it break up equipment in tranches. I would state it does both, depending on the situation and what capabilities it has.

And why should it be that "Sending one flight of Il-76 with the radar and than ask the Il-76 to return than take the T-72-Akash to the site is a bit risky." - the correct thing to do would be to dedicate several Il-76s to this important task, if possible. So that the equipment can be made available asap. We do have 20+ Il-76 and should be able to spare a flight for this, if properly planned.

The more transport the better; things should ease up even more once we have C-17s.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 24 Aug 2010 19:57

smpratik wrote:So you think leaving a T-72-Akash or radar on the site where it can do nothing is safe ?? What if the airfield is bombed during the time, wouldn't you have preferred to have the whole unit to fight the attackers or not have it over there because there is no reason to believe that it won't be bombed thus lost for not no reason at all. Risk during the actual flight is a different issue and I am not talking about that.

That is the extreme case, you are quoting. Deploying equipment to a warzone already under attack, is anyways fraught with danger.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 24 Aug 2010 20:05

yes it is the extreme case, I am not able to understand the logic behind this discussions and what we are discussing about. I basically think that transporting via air should not preferred over road/rail. Thats it nothing more.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Aug 2010 21:12

smpratik wrote:So you think leaving a T-72-Akash or radar on the site where it can do nothing is safe ?? What if the airfield is bombed during the time, wouldn't you have preferred to have the whole unit to fight the attackers or not have it over there because there is no reason to believe that it won't be bombed thus lost for not no reason at all. Risk during the actual flight is a different issue and I am not talking about that.

pratik I put it to you that you have not thought this out fully. An Akash system that is transported by an Il 76 (assuming the whole system is transportable in one go) will still take several hours to be unloaded and moved to appropriate locations and set up. If it is being transported for airfield defence that may take a day (maybe more). If it is going further by road or rail it will take even longer. During this time it will be vulnerable if there is an ongoing war and will need protection. If the IA or IAF are transporting the system under fire they have left it until too late. These systems need to be in place before those attacks occur.

If the systems need to be put into place during conflict - the transport mechanism, be it an aircraft, the airfield, roads or trains will all need protection. It is too risky to allow a transport aircraft to be lost - the aircraft will be needed to transport a thousand other things in dozens of trips. The "satisfaction" of transporting a whole Akash system in one go has to be tempered by the fact that the transportation is only one of the steps in getting it operational and dozens of those steps will be needed.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 24 Aug 2010 21:18

in 47-48 and 62 IAF transports came under fire during airfield operations in hot zones, for reasons to do with strategic unpreparedness. i don't think the IAF is intending to do the same again

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 25 Aug 2010 01:17

For Business or Leisure, Fly Light

http://www.icast.org.in/news/2010/aug10/aug09ta.pdf

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 25 Aug 2010 01:18

Fellow BRF Members....Any help regarding this

Hi....I have a request..
Does anybody have a video of National Geographic documentary on Saras ??
I have been searching very hard for this but so far to no avail...

If anybody has that video...Can you please upload it on some file sharing site ??

Thanks

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 25 Aug 2010 10:33

@Shiv
The last para of your post is what I am trying to say, its better to use the road/rail networks than the air-route because the air-route is a bit "more" risky and is used for other things. I will agree that all the routes are risky be it on air, land or water but a train or truck convoy is a bit "more" safe because of its vastness. Its practically not possible for a attacker to possible know where these convoys are during the journey and it is possible for road and rail transport (particularly road) to be "more" flexible. You can unload the system a bit away from the hot-zone and send it in active which is not possible with the air.

Use "more" as a relative/comparative term.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Aug 2010 14:22

smpratik wrote:@Shiv
The last para of your post is what I am trying to say, its better to use the road/rail networks than the air-route because the air-route is a bit "more" risky and is used for other things. I will agree that all the routes are risky be it on air, land or water but a train or truck convoy is a bit "more" safe because of its vastness. Its practically not possible for a attacker to possible know where these convoys are during the journey and it is possible for road and rail transport (particularly road) to be "more" flexible. You can unload the system a bit away from the hot-zone and send it in active which is not possible with the air.

Use "more" as a relative/comparative term.

Knocking off 2-3 bridges is all that is required to block land routes. They don't move, don't hide and your enemy has them marked.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Aug 2010 14:54

strategic preparation means sufficient depth of resource available where it will be needed, with various redundant resupply options

the nature of conventional warfare has changed in two dramatic ways
1. massive reliance on logistics
2. information exploitation
needless to say that unkil's capabilities in the above are formidable with no one else coming remotely close

and the denial of both to the enemy
its no longer about rushing troops to the border

Willy · Post by **Willy** » 25 Aug 2010 18:52

The Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IIT-K) will now help develop critical technologies for AURA, India's concept UCAV programme. Sources tell me aerospace researchers at IIT-K (some of the best in the country, incidentally), have given research work worth almost half-a-million dollars, and will soon get even more.

The above from Livefist.

They would need an engine for this to isnt it? They should first develop the engine to stop it going the LCA way.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Aug 2010 05:50

This is the first video that I saw of a plane recovery through a ballistic parachute. It is a good glimpse into what HAL wants to do with the HPT-32!

link

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 26 Aug 2010 08:49

Indranil, IIRC the Cirrus SR-22 has such a system for some time.

Also there was a aircraft mfg facility for sale in Altus, Oklahoma for $450k including all tooling, unfinished and finished inventory. The aircraft to be manufactured was the Luscombe 11E and was certified by FAA. IAF/HAL could have bought this one cheap to improve the HPT-32. There is perhaps still time as the matter is probably pending with the State of Oklahoma.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Aug 2010 08:52

a pair of the same engines used in Nirbhay could suffice for a small ucav. there were shadowy rumours that india had obtained the russian cruise missile turbofan engine design by paying a fee.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 26 Aug 2010 11:16

Will this help in logistics if a Bailey bridge can be constructed hanging off of hovering helis serving as anchors, for example couple of Mi-26's separated at 300m, can build a bridge on any terrain and at reasonable altitude, these helis can be fueled while hovering

even more complex would be daisy chaining such an arrangement

the economics plays out to be the same problem as having a gas pipeline vs. using oil tankers for a given time window or cumulative flight time

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 26 Aug 2010 23:17

Why not Kaveri Power our UCAV? Cruise missile engines cannot power a UCAV.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 26 Aug 2010 23:24

Ya We have Kaveri at advaced stage. it may not be good for lca. but why not for UCAV

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Aug 2010 23:45

Vivek K wrote:Indranil, IIRC the Cirrus SR-22 has such a system for some time.

Also there was a aircraft mfg facility for sale in Altus, Oklahoma for $450k including all tooling, unfinished and finished inventory. The aircraft to be manufactured was the Luscombe 11E and was certified by FAA. IAF/HAL could have bought this one cheap to improve the HPT-32. There is perhaps still time as the matter is probably pending with the State of Oklahoma.

You are right. I just hadn't seen a video of the same before.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Aug 2010 13:27

we should have turned the old gnats and maruts into ucavs

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Aug 2010 15:06

How about starting with HPT-32 as UCAV and then graduating to B-2 looking CHORA

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 27 Aug 2010 15:30

Lalmohan wrote:we should have turned the old gnats and maruts into ucavs

We still have the same chance with retired and about to retire migs and others. and turning old chetaks into NRUAVs and if possible NRUCAVs. Would go a loooooong way to stretch the buck.
Fatigue end of life of frames is not so accurately predictable leading to early precautionary retirement. So unmanned gear handling them would really help

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Aug 2010 16:34

Instead of UCAV's, it should be converted as one way long range artillery. The airframes don't have UCAV potential. Load a lot of gun powder with trigger, add a cheap gps, an auto pilot. Feed a paki or Chinese base co-ordinates and send it, never to return. Let the blastid thing put the base or around fire (screw accuracy). Let 200 of these tech the terrorist or commies a lesson.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 27 Aug 2010 17:40

chackojoseph wrote: Feed a paki or Chinese base co-ordinates and send it, never to return. Let the blastid thing put the base or around fire (screw accuracy). Let 200 of these tech the terrorist or commies a lesson.

Should be exclusively reserved for the dragon. Our arsenal for them is much more limited. Bakis are well within range for most of our stuff

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 27 Aug 2010 18:06

Will the option of turning old aircraft into UCAV be cost effective in the first place?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Aug 2010 18:33

as long as the mission parameters are simple, e.g. one way fidayeen mission using simple flight profiles and nav - can use the guidance systems from an older missile programme, use the autopilot where available, add in some takeoff/landing modules or remote control capabilities... sounds/feels eminently do-able

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Aug 2010 18:40

a proper GLCM will be stealthier, cheaper to maintain, in sealed container and provide a longer range vs the paltry 250km combat radius of the bisons. and they wont need a functioning runway to start off, which automatically makes dispersal and hiding very easy.

that is why the whole "use 10,000 microlight a/c to take down a CVBG in the taiwan strait" didnt work

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 28 Aug 2010 09:09

Singha wrote:that is why the whole "use 10,000 microlight a/c to take down a CVBG in the taiwan strait" didnt work

Awesome PlayStation Scenario. Total points : 10,000 yellow slimes. You just saved a United States CVBG task force. The world is safer for now.

Next level, Shoot down Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Aug 2010 12:13

X posted from the helos thread,

114+65= 179 machines combined for two services. It is a good number, add to this the tender for 22 medium attack helos, the Indian Armed forces will have at minimum of 201 attack helos by the 2025s.( I hope).

What I would like to see is a national Helo road map. for a 10 ton class helo.

This will be in the NH 90 / Bkackhawk Class. Whcih can be used as Naval helo as well as an army helo. Do this agressively, so that by 2020 ve are able to Start repalcing the older Mi8/17s. With a domestic product. This helo will also give us with the design and propulsive capabilities to design an MCH similar ti the the Mil 28 or the AH 64. Should the IA require a domestic MCH.

Also I would like to see a heavy lift helo in service with the armed forces in large nos by 2020s, in similar class as the Chinook. They need all the lift they can get.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Aug 2010 14:02

X posted from the LCA thread,

Lets look at the number of AC authorized & currently in service with the IAF. (Numbers are a guess and don't factor in attrition, so please don't shoot me down

)

SU 30 MKI 270 (Authorized)
MRCA 126 (Confirmed at the moment )
Mig 29 75 approx. (to go by 2030)
Mirage 2000, 50 approx (To go by 2030)
Mig 27 140 approx to go by 2020
Mig 21 200 approx (To go by 2015)
Jaguar 100 to 125 Approx. (To go by 2025)

Of this the 21 will gone by 2015. the 27s and Jaguars between 2020 and 2025. the M2k and the 29 by 2030.

The IAF will need to add at least 600 aircrafts between 2015 and 2030 in order to maintain the numbers and add additional sqs in service. In order to get to 60 combat squadrons as authorised for the IAF.

I for one don't foresee the IAF getting any additional foreign aircraft beyond the PAK FA. The numbers associated currently for the same are 250, the IAF will still need 350 modern combat jets. To acheave the numbers. In this scenario the only candidate will be the LCA.

So regardless of what happens we can be sure that the LCA will have an assured future with the IAF.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 28 Aug 2010 15:21

Just a small correction, the Mig 21s willl stay on beyond 2020. May be even till 2025.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Aug 2010 15:27

Surly their cant be that much life left in the 21s. As if they can remain till that long, then the MRCA all of the sudden stops being a vital stop gap measure.

LCA MK II can be perfected an brought into service in the interim period in much greater numbers.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Aug 2010 15:54

Pratyush sir,
AFAIK, The MiG 21 bison will be in service till around 2025. The whole bison program was undertaken for that reason. Although they'll probably be re-assigned to second line roles after 2020 when the LCA, the selected MRCA start coming in numbers while the FGFA and the PAK-FA start trickling in.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Aug 2010 16:29

Bala,

Google uncle seems to support you that by 2012 only the Bison will remain. For how long it dosenot say.

Yet, I stand by my asertion that the IAF will need close to 600 new build combat jets by 2030 and the Tejes will be an important part of that inventory for the IAF.

Unless the AMCA gets sanctioned and the ADA / HAL is able to diliver the aircraft for Squdern service by 2022/25.

Telang · Post by **Telang** » 28 Aug 2010 17:30

Once the full cycle of LCA development is completed (culminating is squadron service and exercising along side the present day / future front-line fighters); design, test, series production cycle will get narrowed down in terms of time for the future combat aircraft models.

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 28 Aug 2010 19:40

shiv wrote:Knocking off 2-3 bridges is all that is required to block land routes. They don't move, don't hide and your enemy has them marked.

Knocking down bridges will slow down the transportation not stop it completely.

Dmurphy wrote:Just a small correction, the Mig 21s willl stay on beyond 2020. May be even till 2025.

Its highly unlikely, all the MiG-21's will be scraped or mummified in museums before 2020.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) plans to retire between 150 and 160 of its Soviet-era MiG-21 'Fishbed' combat aircraft over the next two years. However, six squadrons of about 120 to 125 upgraded MiG-21I (MiG-21bis-UPG) aircraft, inducted into service from 2002 onwards, will remain operational until 2017-18, an IAF official told Jane's .
Link

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Aug 2010 20:25

I wouldnt bet on any bisons too beyond 2015...they are in the last leg for sure.