Indian Military Aviation

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 16 Sep 2009 07:47

IAF plane almost bombs Indira Gandhi Canal

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 16 Sep 2009 21:09

More updates on LCH by Ajai Shukla:

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... r-lch.html

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Sep 2009 22:08

There is 30% growth margins in the shakti engine. It will take time to get there and I think that option should be explored to allow a nicely armored heavily weaponised system to be created.

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 17 Sep 2009 06:51

This weight problem with the LCH is in fact substantial as Ajai Shukla has pointed out. Attached below is a chart that predicts the performance problem for this particular helicopter.

Basically speaking, a NAG missile weighs around 50 Kg. 500 rounds of ammo weighs around 85 Kg. Four rounds of HELINA and 500 rounds of ammo amounts to around 285 Kg. A mean value of ROC (refer chart) for combat is around 5.0m/sec. Now see the chart to find the altitude that this corresponds to.

Seshadri’s statement is quite clear. He indicates that the total payload at 20,000 feet will be some 350-500 kg. The cannon and its turret are not payload. They are a part of the helicopter fitment. Their ammunition, however, is payload. As are the missiles, rockets (the pods are not payload, they are fitment), etc

The above chart verifies the highlighted part in the above quote.

Now here's the fun part:

I had created the above chart for a baseline LCH whose weight was 2.5 tonnes. If the weight problem persists, subtract that extra weight from the above payload values and you see what the problem is.

-Vivek

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 18 Sep 2009 14:54

MiG-29 16 As and 2 UMs 28, 47, 223 3 48 6
Mirage 2000H 16 Hs and 2 THs
6 THs and 4 Hs 1, 7
9 3 36 10
MiG-21 Bison 16 Bison and 2 U 3, 4,21, 23, 32, 35'B', 51 6.5 104 13
Sukhoi-30 MKI 16 MKI 2, 8, 20, 24, 30, 31 6 98
MiG-21Bis 16 + 2 Us 15, 26 2 48 8
Total for Air Superiority and Multi Role 334 37

Do all the aircraft that are manufactured serve as active units??? If so, what about the attrition reserve for emergencies???

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 18 Sep 2009 15:08

Cross posting from MRCA discussion thread...

Ajatshatru wrote:
btw...why does IAF doesn't have Strategic bombers...like B1, B2 or Tu-160...
Not sure if TU-160 Blackjack was ever seriously offered to India.

Four Tu-22M may have been leased to India in 2001 for maritime reconnaissance and strike purposes.

Anyway, now back to MRCA discussion.

Is it true???
I just remember that there were some negotiations going on about it.. Never knew what happened to it later on...

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 18 Sep 2009 18:30

FIRST IMAGES: IAF An-32 Lands At Nyoma, Ladakh - Livefist

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Sep 2009 18:55

The runway looks like it is road rolled into place. If war breaks out, this runway will be pounded heavily.
But with a crew of bulldozers and road rollers, and aircraft like the An-32 and choppers around, this airfield should be active throughout any war in south J&K.

SanjibGhosh · Post by **SanjibGhosh** » 20 Sep 2009 18:49

Russia will complete MiG-29 upgradation by 2013

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 034219.cms

The upgrade MiG-29s will be fitted with advanced avionics, new multi-functional Zhuk-ME radars, a new weapon control system, as well as modernised RD-33 engines.

"new multi-functional Zhuk-ME" is this the new AESA ....

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 20 Sep 2009 18:58

SanjibGhosh wrote:
The upgrade MiG-29s will be fitted with advanced avionics, new multi-functional Zhuk-ME radars, a new weapon control system, as well as modernised RD-33 engines.
"new multi-functional Zhuk-ME" is this the new AESA ....

No, Zhuk ME is not AESA..

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 20 Sep 2009 19:00

I dont think its an AESA radar

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Sep 2009 13:33

Sriman wrote:No, Zhuk ME is not AESA..

krishnan wrote:I dont think its an AESA radar

It is an AESA.

Russia ready to help India build its own advanced radar

We are ready to develop a new advanced radar jointly with India,” said Vyacheslav Tishchenko, head of the Phazotron-NIIR Corporation. The company has built Russia’s first Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Zhuk-ME, for the MiG-35 fighter, the Russian contender in the IAF tender for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA). Two planes will go to India next month for flight evaluation trials.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Sep 2009 15:27

first set of AN32 images from Nyoma FOP - where eagles dare. there is a lone lady
IAF officer too.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/09/ia ... adakh.html

wrt the haunting pic of the AN32 against the mountains, put in some strong caves
and change the AN32 to a line of tall big twin tailplanes rolling for takeoff

live free or die!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Sep 2009 15:44

Do we know who that lady is ? She does not look like a pilot/co-pilot to me , Ground Crew ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Sep 2009 16:03

Singha wrote:first set of AN32 images from Nyoma FOP - where eagles dare. there is a lone lady
IAF officer too.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/09/ia ... adakh.html

wrt the haunting pic of the AN32 against the mountains, put in some strong caves
and change the AN32 to a line of tall big twin tailplanes rolling for takeoff

live free or die!

Looks like the engines were not turned off.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 21 Sep 2009 16:43

Austin wrote:Do we know who that lady is ? She does not look like a pilot/co-pilot to me , Ground Crew ?

She is holding jacket like the big person standing next to him. So she must be the co-pilot.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2009 00:23

RKumar wrote:
Austin wrote:Do we know who that lady is ? She does not look like a pilot/co-pilot to me , Ground Crew ?
She is holding jacket like the big person standing next to him. So she must be the co-pilot.

Emm .... I do not see the wings on her outfit , compare those to the other pilots with wings , could she be an Airman ( or Airwomen ? )

Why does she look so dead serious , no smiles why ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Sep 2009 00:27

the wings will be on the jacket ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2009 08:06

Rahul M wrote:the wings will be on the jacket ?

Auro ko dekho , they may or may not have their names but have their wings on their outfit , but the lady has name on her outfit not wings

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Sep 2009 08:26

none of them are wearing jackets. the only one who is has it on his jacket.

now where's jag when you need him.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Sep 2009 09:40

Austin wrote:
Why does she look so dead serious , no smiles why ?

Because

1)all us men are spending all our time looking at her when there are so many other things to look at.

2) The photographer was also looking at her and he may think she is trying to get friendly

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 22 Sep 2009 16:39

Austin wrote: Emm .... I do not see the wings on her outfit , compare those to the other pilots with wings , could she be an Airman ( or Airwomen ? )

Dont look for the wings but look on the strips, which match to that of the guy wearing jacket is having.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Sep 2009 20:29

If all those guys have wings on their outfit , the lady cant be an exception , I think she is an Airmen or Engineer/technical dept.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 22 Sep 2009 23:13

Austin wrote:If all those guys have wings on their outfit , the lady cant be an exception , I think she is an Airmen or Engineer/technical dept.

Well She's an Air Officer... not an air women... My guess is she's probably AF public Relations Cell or IA-IAF liaison office... I could be wrong...

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Sep 2009 23:34

shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:first set of AN32 images from Nyoma FOP - where eagles dare. there is a lone lady
IAF officer too.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/09/ia ... adakh.html

wrt the haunting pic of the AN32 against the mountains, put in some strong caves
and change the AN32 to a line of tall big twin tailplanes rolling for takeoff

live free or die!
Looks like the engines were not turned off.

Normal ops procedure.

Engines may not easily start up again at that altitude.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Sep 2009 23:45

WRT the Wings: The jacket/pullover should carry the wings and the name plate. But I dunno why she has name plate on the overalls while holding the jacket?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 22 Sep 2009 23:49

rohitvats wrote:WRT the Wings: The jacket/pullover should carry the wings and the name plate. But I dunno why she has name plate on the overalls while holding the jacket?

Probably there's another name patch in jacket/pullover...

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 23 Sep 2009 00:17

rohitvats wrote:WRT the Wings: The jacket/pullover should carry the wings and the name plate. But I dunno why she has name plate on the overalls while holding the jacket?

No wings on flight suit means not flight crew for sure.

That leaves Medical, Logistics, ATC, or maybe Technical Officer.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Sep 2009 06:42

chetak wrote: Normal ops procedure.

Engines may not easily start up again at that altitude.

Yes - that is what I thought. The Daulat Beg Oldi story says that too.

Have you looked at DBO on Google Earth/Bhuvan? No airfield is visible to me. The terrain is all flat though and probably suitable to create a "rough field" of the sort that all ex-Soviet aircraft with their variable pressure tyres were designed to use.

You have IAF aircraft taking off with full loads at around MSL - landing at these fields to offload men and material - to fly out with a light load. Does that tell anyone anything?

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Sep 2009 06:57

These airfields are all designated advanced landing grounds for a purpose. The Aircraft land quickly offload and are gone in like < 30mins, the engines running at low speeds the time they spend on the ground.
This is better than airdropping of cargo from transport planes (not helicopters), which IAF had to resort to during '62. This was expensive, with some supplies landing with the enemy and some which were unretrievable / damaged.

The ALG concept is fine until the shooting starts, then its all just touch and go.

Are IAF aircraft equipped to land on these grounds say at night time if they are required in the event of hostilities? I understand that landing on any of these places at the best of times is hazardous, but I wondered.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Sep 2009 08:22

yes they can certainly land at night if needed - weather permitting. portable flares
have been used for ages in AGL/jungle strips even petromax lamps in WW2 I think.

my guess is the lady was a medical officer given the top brass on board and their age.

samsher · Post by **samsher** » 23 Sep 2009 09:28

Gagan wrote:These airfields are all designated advanced landing grounds for a purpose. The Aircraft land quickly offload and are gone in like < 30mins, the engines running at low speeds the time they spend on the ground.
This is better than airdropping of cargo from transport planes (not helicopters), which IAF had to resort to during '62. This was expensive, with some supplies landing with the enemy and some which were unretrievable / damaged.
The ALG concept is fine until the shooting starts, then its all just touch and go.[/color]
Are IAF aircraft equipped to land on these grounds say at night time if they are required in the event of hostilities? I understand that landing on any of these places at the best of times is hazardous, but I wondered.

Do we have any information about whether the IAF trains for 'Touch and Go' supply drops on ALG's ?
Any IAF / Ex IAF air warriors (similar to Ray sir on the Army side) who can conform / deny / comment on this.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 23 Sep 2009 17:59

Our Air force strength is one third of China: IAF chief
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 046670.cms

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 23 Sep 2009 18:14

dinesha wrote:Our Air force strength is one third of China: IAF chief

Even with full sanctioned strength (42 Squadrons) , we will reach no where near PLAAF who has around 2000 aricrafts in fighter, ground attack and bomber role...

It is high time we increase our sanctioned strength to 60 squadrons as minimum.. But again just increasing it will not matter. It will take decades for GOI and IAF to fill it physically...

Pathetic...

-Nitin

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 23 Sep 2009 18:20

nrshah wrote:
dinesha wrote:Our Air force strength is one third of China: IAF chief
Even with full sanctioned strength (42 Squadrons) , we will reach no where near PLAAF who has around 2000 aricrafts in fighter, ground attack and bomber role...

It is high time we increase our sanctioned strength to 60 squadrons as minimum.. But again just increasing it will not matter. It will take decades for GOI and IAF to fill it physically...
Pathetic..-Nitin

you know air chief will never criticize govt. or he just loose his job

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 23 Sep 2009 18:25

IAF sanctioned strength is 39.5 sqns (why half a sqdn, don't ask me, it's another of the mysteries of babudom)
IAF dream is 55 sqn/1000 aircraft.

PLAAF numbers around 1500 including bombers. I'm not counting the fantans which would be near useless in Sino-Indian contexts, not too mention that they are really long in the tooth.
also note that around 500 of these are old J-7s, not exactly state of the art either and difficult to use against India due to range/performance/payload considerations in tibet.
the older J-8s too will find it difficult to find anything useful to do in case of a war with India.

bottomline is yes PLAAF is large and all that but not as much some people think.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 23 Sep 2009 19:20

First the Navy chief and now the IAF chief. Add to that the media hype!! I'm loving this dog n' pony show!! Maybe the forces have figured out how to get new hardware quicker!!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 23 Sep 2009 19:59

But this also means that PLAAF has the numbers, specifically the numbers in trained airmen and pilots.
They could easily do a wave type attack like in the 50s and 60s by cycling pilots and quickly turning around aircraft on the ground for a new attack.
Even if the number of capable fighters with PLAAF will roughly correspond to IAF 42 sq dream, PLAAF can still hold the advantage because of this.

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 23 Sep 2009 20:15

hi guys here are a few numbers of chinese air force from air fleet mag
120 H6(TU-16) free fall bombs
250 H5(IL-28) cruise missiles,tanker,EW
500 Q5 (modernized MIG-19)
25 J-6(MIG-19)
392 J-7(MIG-21)
248 SU-27(151-SK,MK 98 J-11)
140 J-10
98 J-8(comparable to SU-15)
TOTAL 1700 combat aircraft

22% 4,4+ generation(su-30mk,su-27,j-11,j-10)
5% 3 gen(j-8)
22% 2 gen(j-7)
51% 1 gen(h-5,h-6,j-6,q-5)

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 23 Sep 2009 21:45

chiru wrote:hi guys here are a few numbers of chinese air force from air fleet mag
120 H6(TU-16) free fall bombs
250 H5(IL-28) cruise missiles,tanker,EW
500 Q5 (modernized MIG-19)
25 J-6(MIG-19)
392 J-7(MIG-21)
248 SU-27(151-SK,MK 98 J-11)
140 J-10
98 J-8(comparable to SU-15)
TOTAL 1700 combat aircraft

22% 4,4+ generation(su-30mk,su-27,j-11,j-10)
5% 3 gen(j-8)
22% 2 gen(j-7)
51% 1 gen(h-5,h-6,j-6,q-5)

On comparison with our fleet OrBat, we have qualitatively more superior aircraft as most of our fleet is 4th generation aircraft... At least the one's assigned for air defence are... Only the Bis version is a 3rd generation aircraft... So this should help tip the scales in our favour for at least the air defence... Or at least I hope so...