Indian Military Aviation

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2011 14:39

I am ok with any personal style - so long as the jobs get done.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Jun 2011 14:50

Singha wrote:I am ok with any personal style - so long as the jobs get done.

His controversial views on the CDS is not endorsed at either of the other two Service HQs.

What ever happened to going quietly into the night.....

No need to rake up inter services discord at this stage of his life, no?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Jun 2011 18:03

Singha wrote:sher khan was doing stuff like AAR over vietnam way back then ...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... refuel.jpg

of the 2nd gen lot, the MirageIII appears to be the most versatile?

starfighter and dart were designed as mach 2 interceptors
thuds saw both a2a and a2g action in large numbers, i think they were the largest casualties in vietnam and replaced by the phantom eventually
19 and 21 were both intercept/air superiority platforms - though 21 possibly optimised for the mach 2 dash. it must have had better characteristics than the Su9/11 family - or was inherently more generalised for it to be exported in large numbers
i think you are right about the mirage III - a clean thoroughbred with good all round performance; but also designed for mach 2 sprints

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2011 19:58

ah yes the F-4 phantom...love that machine...still serving in germany and turkey I think. operated from CVN carriers too. unassuming but got the job done.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2011 20:04

In 3-4 years, IAF will be the best in the world

Well if the PLAAF says this we dhoti shiver. If the IAF says it we don't want to believe it. If the PAF says it, we will LOL but Pakis will believe it.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Jun 2011 20:13

^^Shiv ji as Viv S pointed out, the ACM didn't actually say it. It's DDM as usual. Apparently they now have a problem interpreting simple English as well.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 28 Jun 2011 20:26

Singha wrote:ah yes the F-4 phantom...love that machine...still serving in germany and turkey I think. operated from CVN carriers too. unassuming but got the job done.

Singhaji,

I beg to disagree. The MiG-21 was a winner against the US air assets in Vietnam. The F-105 and F-4.

Although the MiG-21 lacked the long-range radar, missiles, and heavy bombing payload of its contemporary multi-mission U.S. fighters, it proved a challenging adversary in the hands of experienced pilots, especially when used in high speed hit and run attacks under GCI control. MiG-21 intercepts of Republic F-105 strike groups were effective in downing US aircraft or forcing them to jettison their bomb loads.

There is a lot more material on this.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Jun 2011 20:41

the F4 is less manouverable than the 21 and its big problem was no gun in the early versions and once out of missiles (sparrows and sidewinders not so reliable those days) got into a sticky mess with quick turning 21's. but although the 21's were very nimble, the kill ratio's still favoured the americans

there's been some good programmes on this contest on Discovery in the Dogfight series

btw - i had the opportunity to clamber over an F4 once, its a real big beast. very solid and mean looking. real workhorse

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 28 Jun 2011 21:02

it was classic MiG-17 fighters which shot down advanced F-105 Thunderchief fighters-bombers

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jun 2011 21:09

The F-16 was a direct consequence of US pilots fighting over Vietnam and wanting a plane that could "turn on a dime". It is difficult to believe now that its development started in 1976 and the first flight was in 1978. It was, of course the MiG 21 that led to the scare that US pilots got. Just goes to show how the US is 20 years ahead of anyone else in aerospace tech - exept perhaps the Russkies - to some extent

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Jun 2011 21:17

the US and SU played leap frog in terms of mil-tech

one side brings something out and then the other a counter - which is roughly equivalent and then goes one better, so on and so forth

the equivalent to the F4 was the Mig23 i think, and then the 25 went one better than anything the americans had in fighters (mach 3 and high alt - to intercept U2's)

the Mig 29 came out to counter the F16/18, but then ended up being more of an F18++ platform (early versions of the F18) and then F15/Su-30, and now F22/FGFA

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 28 Jun 2011 21:37

Some guesses on this generation business:

Gen 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 5

SOviet: MiG-15 < MiG 21 < Mig 23 < MiG-29/Su-27 < Su-50

US: F-86 < F-104 < F 4 < F-16/F-15 < F 22/JSF

Euro/Fra: Mystere/Mirage I < Mirage III < Mirage F1 < Mirage 2000 < Rafale/TIffy

UK/Euro: Meteor-Vampire < Hunter < EE Lightning < Tornado < Tiffy < JSF

CM

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Jun 2011 21:55

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... ghter.aspx
This old link talks about various generation and technology readiness levels.

Technology Readiness Levels

Pentagon leaders now seek to reduce weapon risks and costs by deferring production until technologies are mature. Pentagon technology readiness levels—TRLs—are defined as follows:

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 28 Jun 2011 22:24

I read book called "Termite Hill" which covered the lives of 2 members of the a Wild Weasel flight of an USAF attack squadron from Takhli AFB, Thailand, during the Vietnam war. The author clearly puts that with proper GCI, the VPAFF, using MiG17 and MiG21 could really knock the USAF fighters out of North Vietnam skies.

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 28 Jun 2011 22:52

Mig-21 showed ,what an missile armed heavy maneuverable aircraft can do ,Mig-17 showed Gun fighting in WVR Dog fight is not dead

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 28 Jun 2011 22:58

After parsing the various comments from ACM, and the context -- the Mig 21++ descriptor is being used to ensure that LCA substitutes Mig-21. It is being used as a hedge against Babus and Politicians do not use MRCA acquisition to either claim that IAF has obtained replacement for Mig-21, or that the IAF is now all updated.

It is way to continue to reinforce in people's minds that LCA is being lined up for replacing the Mig-21s, and MRCA are meant for replacing the Mig-23/27 depletion. (95 Mig 23, 145 Mig-27).

It would be also the reason why IAF is going for Mirage-2K upgrade. IMHO in their minds, MRCA acquisition as currently planned does not replace the M2K. Only if the numbers are increased significantly then the M2K can be replaced.

Plan of action:
Mig-21 replacement by LCA MK1, and MK2 [200]
Mig-29 upgrade underway [69]
M2K upgrade planning/finalization underway [51]
Jag upgrade planning/finalization underway [169]
SU-30 continued induction [157?]

Mig-23 [95 retired], Mig-27 [145 in service, of which 40 upgraded to DARE] = total 240
MRCA: 126 + option for 74 additional

ACM is merely using the Mig-21++ descriptor to ensure that MRCA is never viewed as Mig-21 replacement. DDM and popular press has consistently used the Mig-21 aging and need for replacement in the same breath as MRCA. This has caused an obvious association for too many, and he wants to ensure that MRCA is viewed as Mig-23 + Mig-27 replacement.

So, in a way that is somewhat offensive to people on BR, he is serving the purpose that BR would like him to serve. Position LCA for replacing Mig-21 in large numbers ~ 200

--
2025 IAF will consist of fewer aircraft types:
LCA (MK1, MK2) ~ 200 (assuming 1-1 replacement of Mig-21): Interdiction and Air-Denial Role
SU-30 MKI (likely MKI-1, MKI-2) ~ 300: Secondary Strike Platform with Escort role to MRCA
MRCA (~150-200): Primary Strike Platform, Secondary Air-Denial
FGFA (~100 and increasing): Air Superiority, Secondary Strike Platform
{M2K, Mig-29 SMT, Jag, etc. will be on their way out, and AMCA on ascendant}

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Jun 2011 23:16

shiv wrote:I think one of our friend Prof Prodyut Das's criticisms can be levelled against the LCA. Like the Gnat - the LCA is a tightly packed aircraft with very little extra space inside to do innovative things. Little wonder that Mark 2 is getting a fuselage plug.

But let me mention a related story here - the latest Vayu has an article by Air Marshal Rajkumar about the intense and detailed flight testing done with BAe help on the Jaguar for the Darin upgrade where the truncated cone with laser designator was replaced by a black radar cone. BAe anticipated some changes in flight characteristics but AM Rajkumar did the flight testing and that testing was exhaustive - incredible detailed. No wonder our testing takes time. In the end it turned out that the new nose hardly made any difference. But the Indian authorities were even bigger sticklers for decaraing that Jag fit for flying (read the article!)

So an LCA with a fuselage plug will undergo exhaustive flying trials. Any deficiency will kill it, so it will take time and the IAF is sick of delays - even when those delays are self imposed. But when we import we "trust" the supplier to have done all the testing (even if he has not). If an accident occurs we blame him and he blames us - exactly as we saw when the first Hawk crashed.

Shiv sir, any chance that us unfortunate folks who cannot get Vayu could get a scan of that article?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 28 Jun 2011 23:26

Singha wrote:>> The Shibpur airstrip in north Andamans will be extended from 3,200 feet to 12,000 feet to support all
>> types of aircraft and night-flying operations.

can anyone point us to where this is. I am unable to see it in google earth.

Shibpur is 65 miles south of Coco Islands Chinese listening station.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Jun 2011 23:59

shiv wrote:I think one of our friend Prof Prodyut Das's criticisms can be levelled against the LCA. Like the Gnat - the LCA is a tightly packed aircraft with very little extra space inside to do innovative things. Little wonder that Mark 2 is getting a fuselage plug.

I thought the fuselage plug was one of the measures adopted for better area ruling on the Mk2?

In any case, the Professor's criticizm is unfair IMHO. The LCA isn't small and tightly packed because of some DRDO/ADA fetish for developing the smallest lightest aircraft. It is small due to necessity. In the eighties and eatly nineties, who could have imagined that the IAF would one day have enough money to be able to buy and operate 270 aircraft in the class of the Su-30? And since the IAF operated hundreds of Mig-21's, any potential replacement would have to be small and cheap to buy and operate, especially with our economy rapidly going down pakistan in those days. If the LCA designers had been given a mandate to create a larger more expensive aircraft, the LCA today would have been in roughly similar to the J-10 in size and we would have been importing the Al-31F instead of the F-404/414. And the pontificating Professor Das wouldn't have found it "tightly packed".

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 29 Jun 2011 05:57

Bagdogra IAF meet to discuss China threat

"Several operational matters will be discussed in the conference, first-of-its-kind at Bagdogra. With China's aggressive moves along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) turning into a major cause for concern, Bagdogra has emerged as the most important air base in the EAC, which is in charge of operations in the North East. Bagdogra is situated at the 'chicken neck', which is a narrow corridor that connects the northeastern states to the rest of the country," an officer said.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jun 2011 06:09

nachiket wrote:
In any case, the Professor's criticizm is unfair IMHO. The LCA isn't small and tightly packed because of some DRDO/ADA fetish for developing the smallest lightest aircraft. It is small due to necessity. In the eighties and eatly nineties, who could have imagined that the IAF would one day have enough money to be able to buy and operate 270 aircraft in the class of the Su-30? And since the IAF operated hundreds of Mig-21's, any potential replacement would have to be small and cheap to buy and operate, especially with our economy rapidly going down pakistan in those days. If the LCA designers had been given a mandate to create a larger more expensive aircraft, the LCA today would have been in roughly similar to the J-10 in size and we would have been importing the Al-31F instead of the F-404/414. And the pontificating Professor Das wouldn't have found it "tightly packed".

True. India's ideas seemed to stem from the "value for money" factor starting with the Folland Gnat which was as tightly packed as any aircraft can get - even the pilot had to use a shoehorn to get in. Prof Das of course roots for big planes with lotsa space and a reduction in emphasis from "latest tech" to "achievable tech".

Kartik I will scan that article - but since the mag is fresh off the shelf I think it would be prudent to wait for a bit.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 29 Jun 2011 07:15

Singha wrote:>> The Shibpur airstrip in north Andamans will be extended from 3,200 feet to 12,000 feet to support all
>> types of aircraft and night-flying operations.

can anyone point us to where this is. I am unable to see it in google earth.

Shibpur Naval air Station is 13°14'9.0658''N 93°2'58.7407''E.

This is due east of Diglipur in northern Andamans. Looks like there is plenty of space to expand.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jun 2011 08:00

Mig21 was always designed to be a one-trick disposable pony. its overly austere electronics and short range gave it no headroom to evolve and grow like the F-4 and F-16 did over decades. its ok for the SU system of 3000 fighters and always ready for WW3. but not so ok for mid-sized militaries and conventional wars. and not ok for anyone wanting to use it over decades in various models (IAF was the onlee one seriously doing it to me). if you compare the Mig21FL initial models to Mig21Bison ultimate edition, nothing much of the airframe and engine could be changed, the payload didnt go up and neither did the sensors beyond the bare bones radar & rwr combo.
compare the day-only F-16block10 to the F-16block60 - huge diff.

for us, its better to go the "western multi role fighter" way even if its more costly and complex and indeed we have done so with Tejas, rather than the FBC-1 / F-7route which even PRC has abandoned now in favour of the J-10 route.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 29 Jun 2011 09:38

shiv wrote:
Kartik I will scan that article - but since the mag is fresh off the shelf I think it would be prudent to wait for a bit.

Thanks Shiv sir.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Jun 2011 09:52

singha ji, strongly disagree.

regarding mig-21 and mig-21bis, through the evolutionary upgradation of the mig-21's, the later did end up having a large number of differences from early mig-21's like FL, enough to push it a generation.

here's some mig-21 threads on BR over the years. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/search ... mit=Search

while the mig-21 did originate as a pure interceptor, unlike the F-104 it did have enough agility to be a decent dogfighter, enough to cause serious problems to the F-4 over vietnam. (13 mig-21 aces while 3 mig-19 aces IIRC)
wiki says :

British author Roger Boniface when he interviewed Pham Ngoc Lan and ace Nguyễn Nhật Chiêu (who scored victories flying both MiG-17 and MiG-21) – Pham Ngoc Lan told Boniface that "The MiG-21 was much faster, and it had two ATOLL missiles which were very accurate and reliable when fired between 1,000 and 1,200 yards.", and Nguyễn Nhật Chiêu asserted that "...for me personally I preferred the MiG-21 because it was superior in all specifications in climb, speed and armament. The ATOLL missile was very accurate and I scored four kills with the ATOLL. [...] In general combat conditions I was always confident of a kill over a F-4 Phantom when flying a MiG-21."

the major differences between initial mig-21 versions and mig-21 bis :

Code: Select all

		Mig-21F13						Mig-21bis

Avionics
_______

RADAR		SRD-5ND 'kvant'			RP-22 sapfir (ver. 'jay bird')
			rangefinder only		A2A search and track with ~ 20 km range

ILS		- none -					polyot-OI
	
Nav(radio)	- none -					rsbn-2

autopilot	KAP-2 roll control only		AP-155 3channel autopilot

RWR		sirena-2			sirena-3M
	 
Weapons
_______
gun		NR-30 30 mm slow firing,		Gsh-23-2 same as used in the LCA
		ill suited for A2A but good for strafing

Air to air		AA-2 atoll/k-13			R-60 and R-60M (AA-8 aphid) IR guided missile

air2surface	rockets and dumb bomb only	+ guided missiles like KH-23 and KH-25 


internal Fuel		2160 litres			more fuel carried in saddle tank inside
									enlarged spine (3041 litres in all)

Engine		R-11-300			R-25-300 improved efficiency and reliability
								hugely improved A/B thrust (+23%).

ejection seat	SK-1				KM-1M


airframe	larger inlet diameter in bis to accommodate the fire control radar. the nosecone had
		3 settings in initial versions (depending on speed) but continuously variable settings on later
		versions. the canopy system was completely overhauled to improve ejection safety and
		pilot visibility. all in all, the mig-21 airframe was continuously improved and 
		modified in increments throughout its life, leading to perhaps the largest number of
		variants of a jet fighter type in history -- at least 19 major and numerous minor 
		variants that went into service. the f-16 has had about 8.

in summary, the mig-21 evolved from a limited good weather interceptor to an all
weather multi-role aircraft with much improved avionics .

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Jun 2011 17:03

Eastern Air Force Commanders' Conference 2011 commences

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Jun 2011 20:11

Rahul M wrote:in summary, the mig-21 evolved from a limited good weather interceptor to an all
weather multi-role aircraft with much improved avionics .

2.5 + gen?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Jun 2011 21:10

what would you say are the primary characteristics of a 2nd gen fighter as against a 3rd gen one ?
please reply in newbie thread. this is going OT here.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Jun 2011 23:51

I will stop at it. IMO,3 rd gen a/c began with FBW.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Jun 2011 23:54

FBW started with 4th, it's one of the defining characteristics.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jun 2011 00:02

^^ Which one Digital or Analog , Partial or Fully

Some PITA questions to complicate generational terms

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 30 Jun 2011 00:06

chackojoseph wrote:I will stop at it. IMO,3 rd gen a/c began with FBW.

MIG 29 ???

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Jun 2011 00:08

Rahul M wrote:FBW started with 4th, it's one of the defining characteristics.

But then the M2k and Mig-29 would be in two different generations, no?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jun 2011 00:11

analog, most started that way. mirage-2000 still does. of course some might want to split hairs about 'true' 4th gen having digital FBW.

MIG 29 ???

IMHO, by the tech criteria, basic mig-29 is not 4th gen. that's not to say its performance was worse than 4th gen birds. only the recent fulcrum versions, like the k we are getting have FBW.

But then the M2k and Mig-29 would be in two different generations no?

they are IMO, just that the mig-29 is a superb 3.5+ performer (in the hands of a competent pilot) that allows it to compete. just like how the bison competes well with fighters a gen ahead.
in fact if you compare cockpits (to pick one area) you will feel this too.
http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/gallery-cockpits.html

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Jun 2011 01:00

Rahul, both cockpits have analog instruments + HUD, and while the ergonomics of the M2k are vastly superior, the Mig-29 did come with an HMS with off-boresight targetting, something which the M2k lacked.

The FBW of the M2k did not give it any advantage over Mig-29 (in fact as per AM Masand's article, the Mig thoroughly outperformed it), so classifying them into different generations based on that is unfair IMO.
However, if being multi-role was a criteria for classification, then yes, the M2k and (the original) 29 would be in different generations.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 30 Jun 2011 01:29

Mig 29 did not have FBW coz i guess it did not need one while M2000 did.

While M2000 did have better cockpit (less clutered) than Mig 29, it did not have stuff like IRST and HMS which the Mig did.

So, to just say that a plane is of some gen if it did not have some feature (that it did not need) while it had other useful features that the so called 4th gen did not have would be wrong.

P.S. I think this generation business is too generic for comparing aircrafts with different design philosophies as well as requirements. Probably that is why ACM reverts to the Mig21++ comment as it gives a more clearer picture.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jun 2011 01:33

2 points here, 4 gen is primarily a classification based on tech, not capability. for example it is easy to argue that the F-14 is more capable at least in A2A than the next gen birds that replaced f/a-18.
so that is not really relevant.

secondly, compared to the mirage-2000, the fulcrum was not easy to fly. it took a very capable pilot to get the best out of it. this is one of the reasons why m2k was so popular in IAF. that, and the much better serviceability rates, engine life, no smoking engines etc. these are nitty gritties that we fanboys don't care about much but actually decide aircraft gen. newer gen aircraft generally have far better uptimes
let's not forget it is Harish Masand we are talking about, a name synonymous with hair raising mig-29 displays by IAF in the 80's.

>> Rahul, both cockpits have analog instruments + HUD, and while the ergonomics of the M2k are vastly superior, the Mig-29 did come with an HMS with off-boresight targetting, something which the M2k lacked

improved ergonomics is one of the features of 4th gen fighters. if you compare the mig-27 with mig-29 you would see that there is virtually no improvement.
you do have a point about schlem and that's why I put it in between 3 and 4 gen. if you ask me, the modified flankers with modern cockpits were the first true 4gen fighters from russia.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jun 2011 01:34

>> P.S. I think this generation business is too generic for comparing aircrafts with different design philosophies as well as requirements. Probably that is why ACM reverts to the Mig21++ comment as it gives a more clearer picture.

precisely, once you agree to this system you are agreeing to the US classification system, which is specific to their fighter development history. no other country will fit in exactly. in any case the russians too seem to have adopted it.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 30 Jun 2011 01:41

Crossposting from the Newbie thread:

My guess would be the presence of a radar (is the defining characteristic that seperates Gen 2 and Gen 3). IIRC, the gen 3 a/c such as the Mirage F1, MiG-23, and F4 (gen 3), all came with an FCR, the MiG-21, F104, Hunter/Mirage III/Lightning did not until much later or if at all?

CM.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jun 2011 05:31

The "generation" classification was American. Applying it to planes from other nations either leads to GIGO

If F-22 is gen 5, F/A-18 and F-16 were gen 4, F-4 was Gen 3, Sabre - Gen 2 and the first jets were gen 1.

Russian and European equivalents do not exist on parallel dates.

If Hawker Hunter was == Gen 2 (Sabre), then Harrier/Jaguar were gen 3, Tornado was gen 5, Eurofighter Gen 6

If Mystere was gen 2, Mirage III was gen 3, Mirage 2000 was gen 4, Rafale should be Gen 5

Russia - MiG-15/17 - gen 2, MiG 21- gen 3, MiG 25, 27, Su-15 were gen 4, MiG 29/Su27 were gen 5.