Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

munna · Post by **munna** » 26 Aug 2010 10:27

Folks please consider this seriously, I propose that IAF/HAL continues the celestial naming line for our chopppers. After "Dhruv" the pole star we name its warlike cousin as "Mangal" or the god of war. This name not only continues the celestial name line it also pays a tribute to our resurgence from 1857 onwards symbolized by Mangal Pandey!!

The Sanskrit alternates of Mangal are Bhaum and Angaraka.

Also, Mangal carries a mace, spear and trident while riding a ram. Perfect name and attitude onlee.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 26 Aug 2010 18:46

uddu wrote:The only criteria must be that name must not be a fancy name but must really create fear in the minds of the enemy during war.

Saar apart from this, while naming LCH we should consider the non Hindi/Sanskrit speaking audience as well. After all, none will like some firangi pronouncing "Vyaghra" as "v*i*a*g*r*a" though it's a very good name. JMT.

Cheers....

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 28 Aug 2010 00:39

The LCH will be
*light
*pack hunter
*stealthy/sneaky
I'm afraid most of the suggestions hear (tiger, leopard,bird of prey) don't reflect one or all of these qualities. So I suggest considering
>Dhole (Indian wild dog)- known to even attack and kill tigers
>Indian Wolf
(Resident experts please give the Indian names for the above.)
Now I know these aren't the most "respectable" or "desirable" animals but these are quite feisty creatures and sinister in their own way.
Just feel that with an increasing number of indigenous weapons we should also broaden our naming scheme. At one extreme calling it Bharmastra/'god of war' is akin to calling your bike the "Sher-e-Punjab".
IMHO.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Aug 2010 07:01

Now there's a thought..
(from the LCH dhaaga)

Narayana Rao wrote:looks like a camachi to me

Maybe we could call it Kamakshi - to make up a gaggle of giggling girls of Rambhas and Kamakshis?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 28 Aug 2010 08:53

Muhammad Ali - It floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee!
Krait - Small but deadly
Danda - For obvious reasons.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Aug 2010 08:53

I finally choose three names. 1 Yama. it's a name that's not only popular within the Indian subcontinent but also in our eastern neighbourhood. Not necessary that Yama has to come directly to get the enemies but he can also send Yama kingara. Like Vajpayee named LCA as Tejas LCH may endup with a name like Jyoti or something.

2. Agnivarsha or Agniprahar after seeing this Video and this one

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 28 Aug 2010 09:02

not Yama....Yamadoot.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 28 Aug 2010 10:16

I'm sticking to bird names:
Chidiya - going by the size
Kauwwa - going the colour
Kabutar - going by the IAF's smoked grey colour.
Mynah - For the sweet noise it makes
Popat - for what it will make the enemies into.
Koyal - Again, going by the colour, sweet noise.
Jheel - oh yes!

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 28 Aug 2010 12:04

You forgot to add ullu. Ullus and cobras are best friends.

Janamejaya, the present one is also a good name if it means taking on the cobras or massacre of the cobras (and all paki snakes)

. But it seems more Paki specific The Chinese don't have anything like cobra attack helis or cobra tanks (or named after snakes). May be let's consider the Chinese dragon as a snake as well. If Menaka gandhi don't have any objections (cruelty against snakes) we can continue with this name.

I want to know whether the real meaning of the term (not the action of the person which is slaying of snakes

) Janamejaya? Born to be victorious. Is that true?
The meaning of Janamejaya is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janmejay
The meaning of janmejay is "he who uplifts the people" or "he who makes people tremble". The derivation is from the noun "jan" (meaning people like in Janata) and the "ij" verb which gets converted into "ejay".

Literally speaking, in Hindi, Janmejay gets translated as a compound word, with 'Janm' meaning 'birth', and 'Ajay' meaning 'invincible'. Thus, the word translates to 'invincible from birth' or the 'one who cannot be conquered since birth'.

Gaurav_S · Post by **Gaurav_S** » 28 Aug 2010 16:19

Bhai log, I have been wondering about purpose of built but non-operational airbase of IAF in Ayni, Tajikistan for sometime.

Does someone know what India is trying to achieve in long term as there are no choppers or aircrafts deployed?

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 28 Aug 2010 20:38

Gandeev - after Arjun's bow for LCH, for it too will lauch a flurry of fire in quick succession like his arrows.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 30 Aug 2010 10:19

Why the canopy of English Electric Canberra offset to the port side?

Cheers....

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 30 Aug 2010 13:58

Got the answer after some googling :

I do have an answer about the port offset canopy. The first Canberras were built with the "goldfish bowl" canopy. The pilot sat to the left and there was a walkway to his right that the navigator used to walk to the nose bomb aimer position. While not over the target the navigator sat in the seat behind the pilot.
Then the Canberra was modified for the low level attack role - this was the major variant that the IAF ordered (the B.58)
The British wanted to make it a "minimum change" variant and needed better visibility for the pilot. So they left the pilot position where it was (ie. on the left when looking out from the aircraft) and put a bubble canopy over it. That resulted in the lopsided offset canopy look. The Brits also did this for the Sea Vixen aircraft.
This resulted in the navigator not having an ejection seat in the B.58 variant. The US modified their Canberras with a proper front and back seat, not taking short cuts.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2007/05/ca ... -more.html

Cheers....

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Sep 2010 09:13

From Bharat Karnad's book "India's Nuclear Policy"

Page 119

The fact that India cannot fight wars lasting more than 10-15 days is not an accident, but a deliberate policy choice which, incidentally, is mirrored on the Pakistani side as well. The Indian armed forces can use their budgetary allocations to build up their capacity to fight long duration wars by filling what are called "voids" -- the unmet requirements of war material -- the maintenance spares and stores, ammunition and shells and reserves of petroleum, oil, lubricants (POL). Instead, they choose to invest in new weapons platforms -- tanks, guns, aircraft, and ships-- to keep the Indian military technologically up to date. Further, the largest quantum of capital defense spending (26 to 32%) continues to be on armor, a combat arm with a great history but dim future, with a good part of these funds tasked for replacing a good main battle tank (T-72S) in service with a still newer MBT (T-90), with other mission capabilities suffering neglect. However, there is no matching concern for augmenting stocks of spares and shells for tank guns, etc. In 1993-94, the "voids" requirements of spares , POL, and ammunition and shells for armor and artillery for the army amounted to some $100 billion (Rs 42,000 crore), which figure currently has, perhaps, crossed the $300 billion (Rs 120,000 crore) mark. Because newer MBTs are more and more expensive, progressively fewer of the latest tanks are inducted into the armored formations, and even larger numbers of the older tanks are decommissioned or mothballed. Unbalanced defense expenditure means there is, for instance, no worthwhile capability for offensive actions on the Tibetan plateau against China and considering, its prime maritime location, relatively meager sea denial and sea-control assets (both these missions now consume only around 15% of the defense budget.). Similar strategic myopia has has eventuated in the Indian Air Force's having great aerospace pretensions but, owing to its preference for short-to-medium range fighter aircraft that fills its inventory, no strategic reach.

...

Where Cold Start is concerned, there may be three strike corps available for offensive operations. In reality, there is combat hardware and spare sufficiency to equip and operate only one strike corps at full tilt at any given time -- the showpiece II Corps.

...

For rapid advance of armor, Cold Start relies on combat aircraft to clear the path. ... However, close air support is a role the Indian Air Force is not enthused about and does not plan or train its pilots for.

These criticisms are pretty harsh. Are they accurate?

The book is relatively new (published in 2008).

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 02 Sep 2010 21:47

Guys, a newbie question.

How feasible is it to make a BVR ATG guided missile/bomb? I have never heard of any such thing before.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 02 Sep 2010 23:35

Mayuresh wrote:Guys, a newbie question.

How feasible is it to make a BVR ATG guided missile/bomb? I have never heard of any such thing before.

I didn't get you. ALCMs like the Kh-59, JSOW et al are technically BVR ATG missiles.

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 02 Sep 2010 23:55

nachiket wrote:I didn't get you. ALCMs like the Kh-59, JSOW et al are technically BVR ATG missiles.

I think you are right. I was thinking more on the lines of a typical A2A BVR missile where the a/c locks on to a target and then guides the missile to it. Cruise missiles (say a BrahMos launched from our Rambha) would probably still be guided by GPS or some other means and would have its target pre-decided and co-ordinates fed even before the missile is loaded.

I was thinking of a scenario where we perform SEAD operations at BVR range or drop precision guided bombs on the enemy at BVR range. The pilot would "lock on" to the target with the onboard radar and guide the missile to it. I guess we would need more powerful radars for that, probably something not yet developed

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Sep 2010 07:52

nachiket wrote:
Mayuresh wrote:Guys, a newbie question.

How feasible is it to make a BVR ATG guided missile/bomb? I have never heard of any such thing before.
I didn't get you. ALCMs like the Kh-59, JSOW et al are technically BVR ATG missiles.

A standard Paveway type LGB is exactly such a munition. In Kargil they were released at 8.5 km away from the target - which is, strictly speaking, BVR.

Brahmos is an out and out BVR guided missile.

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 03 Sep 2010 17:54

Can someone enlighten me on how joint operations are conducted? For e.g. RR and J&K police SOG frequently conduct such ops with Army. Though it was formed to conduct combat terrorism, I am sure the tactics of a special police force and the Army differ. How then, is it possible to smoothly conduct such ops? Are they delegated roles, like SOG creates a cordon, while RR hunts for the pigs? Or do they rub shoulders with each other?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 03 Sep 2010 20:43

Group Captain Sachin Tendulkar!

[youtube]G4Yu4Bxop_Y&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 07 Sep 2010 14:28

RBI-81

This first ever fixed wing aircraft landing at Nyoma, the army’s newest Advanced Landing Ground (ALG), close to the frontline with China, was made possible by a new “miracle compound” called RBI-81

The 2.7-kilometre airstrip was built in just 90 days by jawans who had never worked with RBI-81. All they had to do was to mix RBI-81 with local mud, sprinkle water over the surface and then run a road roller over the mixture. Hardening instantly, the surface easily withstands repeated landings by the 20-tonne An-32.

We need this is huge quantities...

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 12 Sep 2010 04:34

can someone throw more light
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/wh ... icans.html

During Kargil, the IAF reportedly did things to some of its Mirage-2000s that would have amounted to serious violations of the Indian government's contract with Dassault. It is understood, but not confirmed, that the French government was quietly engaged after the war and the two sides were able to agree that it was not a problem, and that no penalties would be slapped on the Indian government for what were, in reality, war exegencies, even though it was clear that there had been serious breaches of the technology agreement.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 13 Sep 2010 07:38

AdityaM wrote:can someone throw more light
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/wh ... icans.html
During Kargil, the IAF reportedly did things to some of its Mirage-2000s that would have amounted to serious violations of the Indian government's contract with Dassault. It is understood, but not confirmed, that the French government was quietly engaged after the war and the two sides were able to agree that it was not a problem, and that no penalties would be slapped on the Indian government for what were, in reality, war exegencies, even though it was clear that there had been serious breaches of the technology agreement.

I believe what the article is referring to is what we did with the Mirages, integration of Litening LDPs and the employemnt of LGBs to hit the high altitude targets. The Yehudis helped out in this regard and the Litenings were wired up very quickly. Thats all I know.

Vril · Post by **Vril** » 13 Sep 2010 12:03

Do the armed forces have to take permission from some authority before launching tactical missiles like brahmos.

under what scenarios can such missiles be used? necessarily only during full fledged war or retaliation against terror strike as well?

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 14 Sep 2010 13:47

Didn't know there were twin prop in subs.

Came across this one in a borei class launch video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukv1bwn6 ... re=related

neilmurali · Post by **neilmurali** » 14 Sep 2010 16:14

Can Anybody discuss about the F-INSAS Project
Its current situation or when its getting launched?

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 14 Sep 2010 17:36

Apologies if this question sounds silly. Do the strategic command have a provision to have large naval assets of their own, something like a a couple of destroyers and attack submarines all for its own purposes?

Also, while the strategic command is at it, why doesnt it go and make a separate order for the PAK-FA? Does anyone here have any knowledge whether any official from the strat command has evaluated the PAK-FA, or are they taking the IAF's and HAL's word for it?

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 14 Sep 2010 22:09

Another newbie question.

Is a Stobar configuration difficult to build on land? I am wondering if we could build STOBAR configuration forward airbases in the mountaineous regions (say Ladakh / Himachal / Sikkim / Arunachal) to operate fighter squadrons (I understand we won't be able to land transport planes there) ? I am assuming that it would be difficult to build complete airstrips in the mountains due to lack of such a huge continuous piece of land.
Would building a STOBAR configuration air-base be significantly costlier / comparable / significantly cheaper than a conventional air-base when built in the mountains? - My guess is that the STOBAR would be costlier in the plains but cheaper in the mountains as compared to a conventional airbase with a huge runway.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 14 Sep 2010 22:19

^^
That would mean that only non heavy Naval fighters with very good t/w ratio (or the likes of sea harriers) can be operated. Also, the IAF pilots would have to given specific training regarding that.

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 14 Sep 2010 22:35

Gaur wrote:^^
That would mean that only non heavy Naval fighters with very good t/w ratio (or the likes of sea harriers) can be operated. Also, the IAF pilots would have to given specific training regarding that.

Won't any Naval fighter (heavy or non heavy) that operates from STOBAR aircraft carriers be able to operate from such a facility? The Su-33 uses a ski-jump to operate from Admiral Kuznetsov, so I don't see any problems why they would not be able to operate in the mountainous regions. I am guessing the concern would be around the air density in the mountains being lower than that at sea-level, so a larger STOBAR setting required than on a carrier, but then that would be true for conventional airfields too.
The advantages that such a concept would offer are many -
1. Cost savings
2. Presence at forward areas where we usually may not have a conventional air-field,
3. Having multiple STOBARs in an area where we would have just 1 conventional airstrip, thus having redundancies in case of an air-attack on one of the STOBARs

I think training could be taken care of - if the IN pilots can be trained, I see no reason why the IAF pilots cannot be.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 14 Sep 2010 23:32

^^
Well,
Su-33's ability to take off using sky jump with significant loads has been a matter of debate for long. Note that according to news reports, Russian Navy is going for Mig-29ks as replacement for old Su-33s.
Also, your point regarding air density is valid. However, it may also be considered that the runway length available on mountains may be more than than on an aircraft carrier. But if the available area is big enough, why build a runway for a few a/cs rather than for all?
Also, you seem to underestimate the difficulty of constructing stobar runways. Consider how we are needing Russian help in that regard for creating IAC1 stobar replica . Also, IAF would need to buy Naval fighters specifically for those airstrips while the Majority of its aircrafts (including fighters) would be useless there.
So it all comes down to the following points:
1> Is there so acute shortage of space near border (or in mountains for that matter) that we need to resort to build specialized runways. If so, I have not heard of such. However, more knowledgeable members can contribute more in this matter. Also, how many airbases are required right on top of high mountains?
2> Would the stobar runways cost more or less? More is my guess.

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 14 Sep 2010 23:56

^^ I agree with most of your points.
Some points to consider are:
1. We are anyways facing a shortage of fighters and are on the brink of making major purchases soon, so procuring naval variants of the MRCS & LCA are options that we can consider
2. I am probably being naive here, but I am guessing the major challenges in a STOBAR config for a carrier would be weight constraints, which obviously shall not hold in our case (don't know if we have availed Russian help for the IAC1 STOBAR itself or a STOBAR on land (I think in Goa)). Just wondering how difficult it would be to build a ski-jump on land. The problem I see is with the arrested recovery - we would need similar mechanisms to pull the arrestor wires tightly - so housing the equipment etc. would have challenges.

Finally, as you rightly pointed out, it would all boil down to the need for such bases ah such heights and the costs associated in building and operating them!

koti · Post by **koti** » 15 Sep 2010 20:14

Is there so acute shortage of space near border (or in mountains for that matter) that we need to resort to build specialized runways. If so, I have not heard of such. However, more knowledgeable members can contribute more in this matter. Also, how many airbases are required right on top of high mountains?

Well, having four or five STOBAR runways each on airfields near the border would definitely benefit the resistance to Cruise missiles and other likelihoods.
Also, they could be useful for transport aircraft(lighter ones). This is nothing new, many transport aircraft would generally undertake rocket assisted takeoff during emergencies. But Arrested recovery option if implemented successfully would be a divine boon.

Would the STOBAR runways cost more or less? More is my guess.

Even though they might cost more, if we have the air platforms capable of using them in place, the benefit they offer during emergencies even for a short period could be valuable.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 16 Sep 2010 05:15

On one thread where an interview with IA soldier was posted, I read that the Insas wasn't "lethal" enough and they desired I think a rifle with a bigger caliber. Question though - don't most ARs use pretty standard cartridges?

Thanks in advance.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 16 Sep 2010 19:36

X-posted from LCA thread

Gaur wrote:I do not mean to sound condescending but I am seriously finding it difficult how one can suggest these ideas? Was this supposed to be a joke?

Ok I will take it that I goofed up on Test-pilot ejection at extremes of envelope part and my apologies to all pilots. But how technically challenging it is to program an auto-pilot into doing the same, that is - repeating a specific manouever with incrementally increased aggressiveness ? And doing this over an uninhabited area like the ocean airspace.

Gaur wrote:If ADA were to announce that they were doing an intentional "destructive testing", what will ADA do if all goes well during the tests and the a/c does not suffer any malfunctions? Crash the aircraft anyways? Do you have any idea regarding the time and effort to build a new prototype?

That would still be positive news isn’t it?

Gaur wrote:The aircraft is over engineered because it has to withstand the stress of being flown for thousands of hrs over the period of 30-40 years. Sure, you can shave of 1000kgs and flow it for number of tests and maybe nothing would go wrong. But what guarantee would you have that the aircraft would be able to withstand the stress after even one decade.

Nope, referring to the overengineering bit that comes from a greater engineering factor of safety. There is a material thickness that is determined by engineering to withstand all the stresses you mention but there is extra material provided due to higher than usual factor of safety. An established aerospace major would need to use a lower factor of safety. Accelerated fatigue testing on ground till actual failure of shaved prototypes could be conducted.

Gaur wrote:And you want to use parachute on a 5700 kg aircraft nosediving at supersonic speeds or perhaps facing a spin? Well, good luck with that.

The soviets dropped tanks with parachute didn’t they? But I take it I messed up on that part. But the idea was not to save the prototype intact since it is a destructive test but to retain specimen with ONLY the fractures that happened due to extreme manouevers for subsequent study. Not to have new fractures and breakages from crashed landing of the specimen.

Gaur wrote: Do you have any idea regarding the time and effort to build a new prototype?

8 planes / year and start counting the time we spent testing Tejas(since first prototype) and intend to continue spending
Relatively cheaper than cost of imports OR cost of delays in induction in significant numbers OR cost of substitutes due to lack of confidence.
Simulation and FEM can only take us so far. Practical experimentation even if destructive is a possible way for the rest of the unknowns.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 16 Sep 2010 23:07

Carl_T wrote:On one thread where an interview with IA soldier was posted, I read that the Insas wasn't "lethal" enough and they desired I think a rifle with a bigger caliber. Question though - don't most ARs use pretty standard cartridges?

Thanks in advance.

INSAS AR uses NATO standard 5.56x45 mm. cartridges, as do most western ARs. Complaints about the 5.56x45 mm. caliber's lethality are nothing new. There is a tradeoff that designers must make between caliber and weight of each bullet vs. how much ammo a soldier can carry and controllability of the weapon.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 17 Sep 2010 15:10

Arya Sumantra,
What you are talking about is opening the flight envelope of the a/c little by little. The aircraft is first flown with the safest mission objectives and the parameters are gradually made more complex. So, this is already how it is done although with a pilot.

Why do they not make this process pilotless? I can only make a guess that with so many thousands of parameters to test, the automation of the process may not be feasible.

As for the weight increase due to over engineering, I do not understand what you are talking about? Are you suggesting that ground tests be done to determine the strength of the material? That is also already done.

As for the parachute bit, I have already given my answer. So, I do not know what you are still confused about.

8 planes per year is for producing a/cs whose manufacturing process is fairly well established and the possible difficulties are identified. Also, all the 8 a/cs would be exactly like each other. What is the rate of rolling our prototypes? This is because of changes done per prototype and the induction of new technologies. Also, even if the prototypes could have been produced at high rate, they cost of destroying them should also be considered.

Also, Shiv made a good point in LCA thread.

Shiv wrote:After a crash it is impossible to tell exactly which part of which component failed - i.e to reconstruct the cause of the crash So a destructive test may fail to give any info.

If you have further queries, I suggest you ask Kartik. Unlike me, has the expertise in this area. So, he will be able to provide better answers. I have written all that I know regarding the subject and find myself repeating the same things I said in my earlier post.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 21 Sep 2010 00:47

^^^^ Added to this, making a plane crash in the process of knowing what would hold and what would not is a very wasteful way of learning. For example you would lose an airframe, an engine, and all of the avionics, ejection seat because an actuator or join buckled out/in.

I build RC planes and we often end up crashing the plane in an effort to try out something new. That is because, we can reuse most of the parts of a crashed RC plane. Unfortunately that cannot be done with an actual fighter plane.

You see there is a reason why NOBODY tests planes like that!

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 22 Sep 2010 13:12

Dont know which thread to post hence posting it here. Of late, there are rumors(?) flaoting around saying that Chinese troops has silently occupied a hill station 32 km inside the Indian border and still holding it and 13 chinese satellites have focussed all activities on Indian army movements.
Also that, on 6th sep 2009, Srilanka officially gave its 2 army airports to china.

How true could these be? Will there be smoke without fire? Should we be preparing for a 3 front war instead of a 2 front one?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 24 Sep 2010 03:45

Received this by email:

Radial engines are used in aircrafts having propeller connected to the shaft delivering power in order to produce thrust its basic mechanism is as follows

Torpedo-Boat destroyer System