Indian Military Aviation

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Gaur »

shiv wrote:
Gaur wrote: TVC increases maneuverability which is not only needed in dogfights but is a highly valuable factor while evading BVR missiles.
Gaurji - You can rest assured that I am reading your posts with great enthusiasm. So you are saying that thrust vectoring is required to dodge BVR missiles? You are speaking of a scenario when two stealthy aircraft approach each other and fire off BVR missiles at each other and then each does a fancy dance to dodge the missile, and then they get up close and personal where they further use their thrust vectoring capability to do the dogfight dance?

But sir, what if 4 MiG 21s approach a stealthy 7th gen fighter (5th gen is stealth no - you said so. 7th gen is stealth+TV+ supercruise). The 7 th gen fighter then fires off all its missiles to hit one MiG 21. Three are left. Then the stealthy fighter which is huge approaches for a dogfight with 3 Mig 21s. Will the advanced fighter then use its thrust vectoring to dodge bullets?
Sirjee,
F-22, a 5th gen fighter can carry 6 Aim-120 BVR missiles (plus 2 Aim-9 sidewinders). PAK-FA, in all probability will be able to carry more. So, your scenario of a "7th gen" fighter downing only 1 of the 4 Mig-21s is absolutely impossible IMHO. If it performs as per your scenario, the aircraft and missile designers have totally failed and should not be allowed to play even with paper aeroplanes when they are sent to Siberia for the rest of their lives.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Rahul M wrote:AFAIK we have moved beyond KALI and DURGA.
You mean we have an even advanced program than these? :twisted:
Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Suresh S »

Still, a vital element are human resources. "People will remain at the heart of warfare. Technology is no an end in itself, human resources need to be trained and adapted to new technologies"
The above quote from the speech by CAS I would like to slightly modify that.

I think human resources are not just at the heart of warfare "they are the heart of warfare ". I firmly believe that a better trained /better led/highly motivated and highly intelligent army is likely to prevail most of the time even if they are not as well equipped as it,s enemies and are smaller in numbers.

The history of human warfare from alexander the great to the battle of thermophyles to babur,s victory at panipat all support the above argument.
nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 579
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by nrshah »

But sir, what if 4 MiG 21s approach a stealthy 7th gen fighter (5th gen is stealth no - you said so. 7th gen is stealth+TV+ supercruise). The 7 th gen fighter then fires off all its missiles to hit one MiG 21. Three are left. Then the stealthy fighter which is huge approaches for a dogfight with 3 Mig 21s. Will the advanced fighter then use its thrust vectoring to dodge bullets?
Shiv, no body denies importance of quantity General thumb rule is quality starts fading when faced with opponents (less qualitywise) in a proportion of 1:3 (One quality aircraft V/s 3 less advanced Aircrafts)... It is a thumb rule described many times in chinese related thread... please dont ask for link or explaination...

Besides, with stealth aircraft becoming increasingly popular, how sure are we of BVR shots at a respectable range... take example of Raptor v/s Pak fa/FGFA... At what distance will they will detect each other... Perhaps less than 50 Kms... Say at 50 kms Raptor detects pak fa and vice versa... Both are cruising at at speed of say 800Kms... Defacto speed becomes 1600 km/hour for a head on shot... Thus in 2 minutes they will be having eye contact with each other... Now tell me where do you have time to go for BVR shots at a decent range... Not to mention getting a lock on stealth aircraft itself will take time even after detection...

Also, TV can help a stealth platform break the radar lock because of very low RCS combined with super agility/maneuverability
Last edited by nrshah on 02 May 2010 21:13, edited 1 time in total.
nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 579
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by nrshah »

Rahul M wrote:AFAIK we have moved beyond KALI and DURGA.
Rahul, can you throw some light on the same and enlighten us
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

Gaur wrote: Sirjee,
F-22, a 5th gen fighter can carry 6 Aim-120 BVR missiles (plus 2 Aim-9 sidewinders). PAK-FA, in all probability will be able to carry more. So, your scenario of a "7th gen" fighter downing only 1 of the 4 Mig-21s is absolutely impossible IMHO. If it performs as per your scenario, the aircraft and missile designers have totally failed and should not be allowed to play even with paper aeroplanes when they are sent to Siberia for the rest of their lives.
Respected Sir,

Here is a quote from the article I posted earlier (for the second time in this thread) in case you have no read it. It is about BVR missiles and the US
It is not to be sporting that the US rules of engagement ask for positive identification - they blue on blued their own helicopters in Bosnia where enemy air activity was almost non existent, a repeat of Iraq. Finally four BVRs (weighing over a tonne!!) with different homing systems are to be launched to ensure a 90% kill.
Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Carl_T »

Rahul M wrote: this of course ignores that IAF might need to conduct operations inside enemy airspace against adversaries that have stealth aircraft. what do we expect them to do ? get a convoy of SAM vehicles chugging along at 40KMPH behind a fighter flying at hundreds of KMPH ? :lol:
What good would stealth aircraft do? Stealth aircraft or not, for any operation there has to be suppression of enemy air defenses first, and that's going to be done probably by cruise missiles. If we're going to do operations in China, with its substantial strategic depth, we will have to move a lot of aerial assets like tankers and AWACS deep into enemy territory, which of course will not happen until total air superiority and control of ground is established. We will have to destroy a big part of the PLAAF before we start doing operations deep in Chinese airspace. The battle for that will probably not be happening over Sichuan, I think it would more likely happen near our own borders if not within our own territory.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by PratikDas »

nrshah wrote: ...
Also, TV can help a stealth platform break the radar lock because of very low RCS combined with super agility/maneuverability
Since missiles like the Meteor reach speeds above Mach 4, does super manoeuvrablity really give the targetted aircraft a significantly greater chance of survival?

Also, with the missile moving in as fast as it does, I would think the lower RCS of the target aircraft would become increasingly irrelevant. Is this correct?
Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Carl_T »

Gaur wrote: Depends. If they make super heavy fighters like PAK-FA and F-22, they will have "relatively" lower no of 5th gen a/cs. But what if they develop medium or light 5th gen a/cs? And even if they develop heavy 5th gen a/c, I am sure that that you would agree that they would be able to produce and maintain many more heavy fighters as compared to IAF.
If you're talking about defending against medium 5th gen aircraft, I think then Shiv has a point, it is more economical to think about other ways to stop the planes without matching capabilities. However I think you are right when it comes to air to air battles.
Gaur wrote:
On the other hand, IMO formations filled with mix of Stealthy and non stealthy a/cs would totally defeat the purpose of sending a stealth a/c (which is to attack with surprise and without detection). Also, true, EW a/cs would be helpful but stealthy EW platforms would be lethal. :twisted:
OK, what I was imagining was in "waves" - in order to do a strike on a heavily fortified area IMVVHO the first thing to do would be to take out air defenses with cruise missiles, and then BVR missiles from aircraft, then quickly followed on by stealth air superiority fighters to attack planes and form a "guard" for less stealthy ground attack or strike aircraft.

Gaur wrote: IMO, strike a/c has more need for stealth than any other type. Also such EW capabilities to provide significant enemy electronics jamming is still a stuff of the future (and considering that AESA radars are more jam resistant and data links are becoming more severely encrypted than ever, it will probably remain so). IMHO, even growler would find itself severely restricted against modern sophisticated equipment. However, as there is no way to ascertain growler's capability, feel free to disagree. But again, do not let me give you the idea that EW is totally useless. Even during recent Red Flag exercise, our Bisons were invisible to enemy a/c's radar at very short range (ironically, this info came from Fornof). Also, air dominance UAVs have nor yet been developed for the fear of jamming signal to the operator. So what I mean to say is that while EW is a good feature to have, IMO it is not progressed far enough to be relied upon to strike enemy ground radars and air defence blind. And IMHO, the situation will only get worse in future.
So, if you would feel inclined to agree with me that EW is not a magical solution, you will find that to supress air-defence, you will not be able to do without a stealthy strike platform.
I think air defences should be suppressed before strike aircraft enter the game - CMs, BVR Ms for ground targets, and stealth fighters (to attack aerial targets).



First of all, let me get something straight. I have reread some of my posts and I seem to convey that I am against having LCA in bulk 25 years from now. Let me clarify that this is not the case. Even if we develop MCA, we would need order lca in bulk to reach our sanction strength (as there is a limit to how many stealth a/cs we would be able to maintain). What I am against is that LCA being made to perform role of medium a/cs just because we don't have any. so, while we need to bulk order LCA, we will also need a lot of medium fighters in future. So it is a question of whether it will be indigenous or imported.
I agree, but I think that strike fighters have a limited usefulness as I don't think carrying out strikes against fortified enemy targets will be a common scenario.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

nrshah wrote:
Besides, with stealth aircraft becoming increasingly popular, how sure are we of BVR shots at a respectable range... take example of Raptor v/s Pak fa/FGFA... At what distance will they will detect each other... Perhaps less than 50 Kms... Say at 50 kms Raptor detects pak fa and vice versa... Both are cruising at at speed of say 800Kms... Defacto speed becomes 1600 km/hour for a head on shot... Thus in 2 minutes they will be having eye contact with each other... Now tell me where do you have time to go for BVR shots at a decent range... Not to mention getting a lock on stealth aircraft itself will take time even after detection...
Absolutely correct. I was setting up a strawman there and you have rightly demolished it. There is a persistent myth doing the rounds that a supercruising aircraft firing one BVR will take out opposition at 100 km or some such figure. So 6 BVRs ==6 enemy aircraft. I think it is high time someone started questioning the presumptions that discussions are based on. BRF is supposed to be an informed forum. The depths to which it has sometimes sunk were so preposterous that I was tempted to do some serious rabble rousing and questing of what is passed as "accepted knowledge"

Apart from that myth, there are several other myths doing the rounds - I will name a few.

One myth is that one needs to send 5th gen aircraft to face 5th gen. Sending 4th gen is fatal. How come nobody asks how you will know if an attacking enemy aircraft is 3rd, 4th 5th or 250th gen so you can send up and appropriate fighter? :roll:

Another common myth is that air battles will be one on one (and see above - victory will go to the higher generation aircraft)

A third is that jousting will take place in the air between AAM and gun armed fighters. What is forgotten is that many of the battles will be interceptors flying close to home bases trying to shoot down heavily laden attack aircraft who have used utmost stealth and deception to get in and will use whatever power they have to get out. And the scene may be complicated by escorts who may pounce on the defenders who are then left with the dilemma of either defending themselves while allowing the attack aircraft to press home their attack, or ignore the escorts and try and get the attacking aircraft.

The problem of friend killing friend is a serious one. How much would Indians love to have one Su 30 shoot another in a BVR engagement? In a battle zone of 100 km radius there may be a dozen aircraft visible on radar from 100 km. Whom do you shoot? And you may have only 2 minutes to make a decision because everyone is flying at 1000 kmph.

And there may be worse things in store for us. A swarm of cruise missiles and stealth fighters at night taking out all radar and missile sites. AWACS being taken down by a concerted, almost kamikaze attack of a swarm of enemy fighters.

Can we shoot down cruise missiles? Stealth aircraft? Do we need aircraft for all this? Do we need SAMs? Do we need radar redundancy? Decoys? Should the IAF do its own pre emptive with Prithvi/Brahmos All this has very little to do with 4 gen, 5 gen, supercruise or TV.
Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Gaur »

Shiv,
I get that x BVR missiles do not mean x no of kills. I think no one can dispute this. But this is something which even strengthens the need for TVC.
Also, I guess you mean that it is better to have 4 fourth gen fighters rather than 1 super duper 5th gen fighter. Again, I agree with you. Prime eg of this is F-22 which has been restricted to so few nos because of its exuberant cost of production and maintenance (F-35 seems to be going the same way too and IMHO it's capability is also questionable). Again, this argument cries out even more for AMCA. If us desis will be able to develop an indigenous 5th gen a/c (without supercruise and TVC, which as Rahul M pointed out is within out reach), then in all probability it will be as cheap as most Western 4th gen fighters (perhaps even cheaper if you go by all the cost rumours of Rafale and Eurofighter). So, even if AMCA turns out to be somewhat less capable than other 5th gen a/cs, it will most probably make it up with its cost.

Carl_T,
You seem to be of the opinion that mass cruise missile attack on enemy ground installations (including air defence) will be the way to go in future wars. In an ideal situation, you will be correct. However, in reality, one has to consider the economics of cost too. A cruise missile can be crudely described as a relatively cheap aircraft with a single ammunition. This aircraft is sent on a one way trip to self destroy on a single target. On the other hand, a strike a/c will be able to carry multiple munitions, thus destroying multiple targets. Then it will hopefully return to repeat this many more times. So, while tactically it makes more sense to simply use missiles in place of strike a/cs, economically, it will never be feasible. Not even US can rely so heavily on cruise missiles against a decently powerful foe. This can be seen from the way the US is developing F-35. Consider this. F-35 will be the backbone of USAF for a long time and F-35 is being developed with keeping most emphasis on its strike ability. It has no supercruise, no TVC, no superagility..nothing to make it a dominating next gen air to air platform (which is a huge mistake IMHO but anyways, this is the way US has went). And US has the greatest stockpile of cruise missiles on earth.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5301
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote: Apart from that myth, there are several other myths doing the rounds - I will name a few.

One myth is that one needs to send 5th gen aircraft to face 5th gen. Sending 4th gen is fatal. How come nobody asks how you will know if an attacking enemy aircraft is 3rd, 4th 5th or 250th gen so you can send up and appropriate fighter? :roll:

Another common myth is that air battles will be one on one (and see above - victory will go to the higher generation aircraft)
Frankly, I would've agreed with you, until a few years back. When the F-22 entered service, they were a lot of detractors and there still existed a big ? on its potential. Until it was sent to Alaska and later to Nellis for exercises. At Ex. NE it enabled Blue Forces to rack up an astonishing 241-2 kill ratio with F-22's accounting for well over half of Opfor losses. No figures are available for Red Flag but rookie F-22 pilots were able to dominate the USAF's front-line F-15s and F-16s flown by some of the most experienced pilots in the world. I think that more than anything else proved why stealth was such a game changer.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9199
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by nachiket »

Carl_T wrote: I agree, but I think that strike fighters have a limited usefulness as I don't think carrying out strikes against fortified enemy targets will be a common scenario.
Um, the whole point of having an Air Force is to be able to attack enemy targets from the air, and you are saying Strike Fighters have "limited usefulness". :lol:
If you have the time, read some of Vivek Ahuja's Indo-Chinese war scenarios (especially the last one he wrote) in the Military Scenarios archive here.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

Viv S wrote: Frankly, I would've agreed with you, until a few years back. When the F-22 entered service, they were a lot of detractors and there still existed a big ? on its potential. Until it was sent to Alaska and later to Nellis for exercises. At Ex. NE it enabled Blue Forces to rack up an astonishing 241-2 kill ratio with F-22's accounting for well over half of Opfor losses. No figures are available for Red Flag but rookie F-22 pilots were able to dominate the USAF's front-line F-15s and F-16s flown by some of the most experienced pilots in the world. I think that more than anything else proved why stealth was such a game changer.
Precisely. If you recall I pointed out many pages ago and repeatedly that F22 class tech can be used against us if the US decides to fight a war against India (or supplies it to our foes), but we cannot wield F22s class aircraft against anyone else.

That means that we can gain a big advantage by trying to defeat F 22 aircraft if we spend time and money on countering that sort of technology. On the other hand, if we try to acquire the type of tech that has gone into the F 22 we may not get there even in 30 years time.

Of course if we are not fighting the US then the question of facing F 22s does no arise in the immediate future. But even if it is likely to arise in say 10 years time our thrust NOW should be towards defeating F 22 tech rather than slobbering over it and saying Americans have it. I want it". This is the poodle mentality that was being referred to earlier. We should be thinking "The Americans have it. It may be used against us. How can we defeat it?"

Acquiring F22 class tech and developing totally new tech to defeat F22 have opposite aims. The US will never give us the latter even if the US has developed it. But for us it should be a thrust area because we can be at the receiving end of an attack by F 22 type tech.

I am now beginning to repeat everything that I have said earlier proving that there is no use writing because people do not actually read. But that wil not stop me :mrgreen:

Since the topic has come up yet again in a new avatar (but same facts being highlighted) let me repost part of a rant I made on page 65 of this thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 76#p865276
If the US gets stealth, you must think of how to defeat stealth. If the US gets a satellite system to navigate - think of how to defeat the US's satellite system. And finally the ultimate game - if the US wants nuclear war, give the US nuclear war. The USSR did that. China did that. The US's advancements must be studied not just because they are leaders. We must imagine what we are going to do if the latest US tech is gifted to our foes. We spend hours whining on the strat forum blaming an MMS for softness. But the rest of India too is soft in the head. We automatically credit the US with leadership and do not even open our minds to methods of defeating US tech. Note that if you watch the US's every move and do your own research to develop antidotes/counters to US moves - you can develop a huge market. But as long as all we want to do is "follow the US' and copy the US why blame someone else for being soft. We just don't have it in us. How stupid can an entire nation be to get hit by US arms in 1965, in 1971 and again in 1999 and still believe that the US is a benign leader to be followed.

I am banging my head against a wall here. it is not about forum members. Indian think this way we all love and slobber after the US and cannot even get ourselves to think "Hey those jokers have a stealthy supercurise aircraft. How can I spoil his fun and shoot it down?"
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

Here is one more post from me from page 65 of the relationship between American F 22 class tech and what India faces

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 96#p865296
shiv wrote:If you are a defence advisor in India and you think like an American you will say "The latest and best is supercruise, stealth, UCAV which the US has therefore we need that"

But if you are a defence advisor and think like an Indian you will say "The latest and best is supercruise, stealth, UCAV which the US has. We don't have it and the US already has it. The US may be our friend, but they make money from our foes who will buy US tech. So I must plan first to defeat US tech and in the long term learn to emulate the US"
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5301
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:Precisely. If you recall I pointed out many pages ago and repeatedly that F22 clas tech can be used against us if the US decides to fight a war against India, but we cannot wield F22s class aircraft against anyone else.

That means that we can gain a big advantage by trying to defeat F 22 aircraft if we spend time and money on countering that sort of technology. On the other hand, if we try to acquire the type of tech that has gone into the F 22 we may not get there even in 30 years time.

Of course if we are not fighting the US then the question of facing F 22s does no arise in the immediate future. But even if it is likely to arise in say 10 years time our thrust NOW should be towards defeating F 22 tech rather than slobbering over it and saying Americans have it. I want it". This is the poodle mentality that was being referred to earlier. We should be thinking "The Americans have it. It may be used against us. How can we defeat it?"

Acquiring F22 class tech and developing totally new tech to defeat F22 have opposite aims. The US will never give us the latter even if the US has developed it. But for us it should be a thrust area because we can be at the receiving end of an attack by F 22 type tech.
Well first of all, I think we need to dismiss the idea that we'd go to war with the US or any NATO/SEATO/EU country. War with China on the other hand is very unlikely but still possible and therefore China needs to figure in India's defence planning, in addition obviously to Pakistan.

Its pretty evident that China is working on a fifth generation aircraft right now, and if one goes by recent history its going to be inexpensive and potent. And it will eventually make its way to the PAF as well. So, the IAF does require to plan ahead for a possibility where it may have to fly against fifth generation aircraft on both offensive and defensive missions.

1. The AMCA needs to be a true fifth generation aircraft. And its performance/stealth should be a bigger priority than sourcing all components domestically.

2. I understand what you're saying about starting to work on countering stealth aircraft right away rather than playing catch up again, but I don't think its that simple. I don't know of any existing or potential technologies that are a 'silver bullet' solution to countering fifth generation aircraft. Passive and low frequency radars as well as IRST systems are already exist, though there's a lot of scope for further development and refinement.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

Viv S wrote: I don't know of any existing or potential technologies that are a 'silver bullet' solution to countering fifth generation aircraft.
YOU don't know? Surprise surprise! Nobody else knows either and if the Americans know they are not going to tell.

Research is about problem solving. My complaint that started the last 7-8 pages of intense discussion has been the Indian penchant for defining the problem wrong. If you define the problem wrong, your solution will not address the correct problem.

If you (not YOU personally!) define the problem as "The Americans already have this and I want it" then you are going to waste your life trying to get what the Americans already have and any time along the way, if they move forward to some other area they may cheerfully offer you the old technology (for them) that you are desperately trying to get.

But if you define the problem as "The Americans have it and it may be used against me" you will not waste time in trying to get it. You will start putting time and effort into countering the US or anyone who may get what the US has, by whatever means at your disposal. In fact if you can find weaknesses - you can exploit that to develop systems of your own that do no have those weaknesses while the US (and those who get gifts from the US) have to play catch up with you. (Even this does happen from time to time eg Russian MiG 29, Thrust vectoring. Cope India)

The difference, to repeat what I have said many times over is as follows: "If India tries to play catch up with US tech - india will only reach in 30 years time where the US is today, and India will still be defenceless if someone uses that tech against it. But if India develops tech to counter the US, we will at least have a defence against that in 30 years time - so that by the time the tech filters down to your foes - you can kick their asses and also make money selling your original idea to others."

However, If the US attacks us today, We are screwed. We have to play like Vietnam/Taliban
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

It may seem ironic, but Pakistan (and their tarrest fliend China) are in the best position to develop technology to counter US tech like Predator and Reaper UCAVs. Passive monitoring of these should be possible and I am sure the Chinese are researching how to detect and shoot small stealthy quiet UCAVs out of the sky and developing stuff that will be used against India.

I wonder what we are doing? Are we applying for licence manufacture of UAVs?

Can we shoot down Babur cruise missiles? Can we shoot down a heavily loaded stealthy Chinese aircraft that has been refuelled over Tibet and is supercruising to hit a target 1000 km deep in India? Can we even detect it given reports of our wretched radar cover? Or are we desperately going to buy tech that is of no use in doing the above things that we need to get most urgently.

What is the use of developing a stealth fighter if we can't shoot down stealth aircraft and cruise missiles that will attack us? How will an Indian MCA or PAKFA detect or shoot down any of these things? Which of these requires priority development? Guess which one is more romantic and attracts more eyeballs?
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5301
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote: YOU don't know? Surprise surprise! Nobody else knows either and if the Americans know they are not going to tell.

Research is about problem solving. My complaint that started the last 7-8 pages of intense discussion has been the Indian penchant for defining the problem wrong. If you define the problem wrong, your solution will not address the correct problem.
Well for defensive operations one would want a better C4I system, better radar density, higher AEW&C coverage, the usual. On the other hand, for offensive operation you need fifth generation aircraft just to survive in airspace defended by S-300/400 class systems not to mention enemy 5th gen aircraft.

I agree our defence planning has been reactive rather than proactive. While I don't think we have the resources to invest in a DARPA style research effort that would yield new technologies to counter stealth aircraft, but we can invest an effort into less capital intensive fields like small arms, EW equipment, UAVs etc and aim to excel.
However, If the US attacks us today, We are screwed. We have to play like Vietnam/Taliban
I don't believe we need to be concerned about a war with the US today or anytime in the foreseeable future.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

Viv S wrote: I don't believe we need to be concerned about a war with the US today or anytime in the foreseeable future.
Without disagreeing with what you say I believe this thought process is the very one that leads to India being reactive. We do not worry about US advances in technology because we do not worry about war with the US. But we fail to recall that US tech was supplied to people who have attacked us time and again. So it is an imperative for us to pro actively develop technology to defeat US arms even if there is zero risk of war with the US.

US "global dominance" is based on selective supply of US arms and tech to others and unless we are naive enough to think that lack of war with the US means that the US does not want to dominate us (by us I mean Indians) we have another think coming. I believe that the thought you have expressed - when accepted and followed by a large number of elite Indians comfortable with US dominance is fatal for India. The US may not be an adversary, but they do seek to stay dominant and their tech is supplied to adversaries as part of overall dominance by "balancing power". Too many Indians owe too much affinity and love for the US to see things this way and that has been part of my rant. Indians tend to see the US as a benign non threat and that is exactly the thought you have expressed. If you were American I would say you are selling snake oil.
Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 122
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Ashutosh Malik »

Strangely, it seems that nobody wants to respond to the key points that Shiv is trying to drive home!

It is almost like talking at each other rather than to each other.

I am not sure what drives us as a nation, but are we even trying to learn from the Russians and the Chinese? They never had the capacity to fight the Americans on economic terms in the last 50 years. Could we steer the discussion around trying to learn what we can do differently?

Snahata had made an interesting point earlier about a nations capacity to create weapons and fight long wars when he raised the question about how the Germans and the Russians were fighting and creating weapons during WW II. I had raised a point about War Wastage Reserves in an earlier discussion. We maintain about a month or so War Wastage Reserves. Now that itself is a signal to the current adversaries! That we wont manage to fight beyond that. I can understand that our economic situation drove this decision whenever it was decided and presumably as our economic situation is improving we will change that. Imagine the situation when we are dependant on imports for our key weapon systems! Where will we get them in the middle of a long war which we may have to fight with the Chinese in the future?

Even Israel, which has spent time and energy in creating a fairly successful Military-Industrial complex and faces more existential questions than us, needed a massive air-lift by US to cope with the offensive by Egyptians, Syrians etc in the Yom Kippur war!

I read a story about 1965 war as to how we were in bad shape w.r.t War Wastage Reserves and that may have also driven the need to go for a ceasefire. The fact that Pakistan was in even worse condition is hardly a reason to celebrate. Pakistan is a piddly country.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

shiv wrote:The US may not be an adversary, but they do seek to stay dominant and their tech is supplied to adversaries as part of overall dominance by "balancing power". Too many Indians owe too much affinity and love for the US to see things this way and that has been part of my rant.

and here is that rant, again

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 76#p865276
I don't want to/cannot dispute the fact that the US is often the leader. But let me also point out that India, of all countries has a population who are "more prone' to following a US lead and less prone to thinking about how to defeat the US because we fundamentally see the US as an ally, on our side. My father and I studied in the US no? My son is working in the US no? In Silicon valley no? I have to go there and see my grandson no? Indians see the US as a friend and award leadership to the US and take the benign approach that it is OK for us to copy and remain a generation behind. This is a bit like the Brits "handing over" to the US. We the commonwealth follow this Brit tendency. The US is now our spiritual leader.

But as has been discussed time and again the US leads because it wants leadership and will keep anyone down, including India if its own position is threatened.

The only countries who have theratened the US (or even checkmated, restricted or defeated the US) are countries who have been unwilling to award the US with the automatic certificate of "leader" that we give the US (Yes even our scientific establishment does that). Once you start seeing the US as a threat or a competitor you will always start thinking of how to defeat what the US does. Till then you will only watch with gaping mouth as we do.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5301
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Viv S »

shiv wrote:Without disagreeing with what you say I believe this thought process is the very one that leads to India being reactive. We do not worry about US advances in technology because we do not worry about war with the US. But we fail to recall that US tech was supplied to people who have attacked us time and again. So it is an imperative for us to pro actively develop technology to defeat US arms even if there is zero risk of war with the US.
The same people have received tech from Europe and Russia(via China) as well. And unless there's some radical change in regional trends, China's going to their sole supplier of major defence equipment going into the 21st century. I don't think anyone's worried about fifth generation fighters or any similar weapon system making its way to Pakistan.
US "global dominance" is based on selective supply of US arms and tech to others and unless we are naive enough to think that lack of war with the US means that the US does not want to dominate us (by us I mean Indians) we have another think coming. I believe that the thought you have expressed - when accepted and followed by a large number of elite Indians comfortable with US dominance is fatal for India. The US may not be an adversary, but they do seek to stay dominant and their tech is supplied to adversaries as part of overall dominance by "balancing power". Too many Indians owe too much affinity and love for the US to see things this way and that has been part of my rant. Indians tend to see the US as a benign non threat and that is exactly the thought you have expressed. If you were American I would say you are selling snake oil.
I would respond to the first part but I'm not really sure what the term 'dominance' entails. Since we're talking about a military conflict, I can't foresee any potential scenario, which would cause that to pass. With regard to balancing power, I'm (sort of) in agreement with you, except I think its the India-China balance that the US is more interested in rather than Pakistan. The current American campaign in Afghanistan tends to over-state the actual interest the US has in a militarily strong Pakistan(unlike the Cold War days). Our concern on the other hand needs to be China and in that we have a potential ally in the US.

Also, if one uses the US media as an indication of American intent vis a vis India, I can't help but be optimistic about the chances of closer cooperation.

BTW we're getting off-topic here. Maybe we should pursue this debate in the India-US thread.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Sanku »

Bravo Shiv. Wow and Wow!!
sunny y
BRFite
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Aug 2009 14:47

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by sunny y »

Wow Shiv sir...fantastic points.....I never thought about all these in this way....I myself was always a supercruise-shupercruise guy... but now I think I need to change my thinking & i hope guys in MoD & in our scientific establishment are reading this.

Thanks
nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 579
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by nrshah »

However, If the US attacks us today, We are screwed. We have to play like Vietnam/Taliban
I recall an interview of one on the naval officer involved in Bangladesh Liberation war... On being asked what would have happen if US would have directly involved in the war against us (thru 7th Fleet of USN Led by Enterprises)... Without hesitating or thinking for a second, he replied we would have created a thousand time bigger Vietnam here for them... Will try to find link and post...
Since missiles like the Meteor reach speeds above Mach 4, does super manoeuvrablity really give the targetted aircraft a significantly greater chance of survival?

Also, with the missile moving in as fast as it does, I would think the lower RCS of the target aircraft would become increasingly irrelevant. Is this correct?
Survivability is not a monomial... it is a polynomial.... There are many factors that contribute to survivability...Some are in the form of technology(EW / Decoys / Flares and chaff / RWR / MAWS etc. Even a rearward radar can increase the survivability as i see) , others are gifted by nature (Malacca Straits / Greater Himalayas for Eg)....

Of Course, with super maneuverability as an added feature in addition to EA / Decoys / Flares etc, chances of survival increases...Not only Meteor, many other missiles also reach Mach 4 and even above.... What makes meteor special is its Ramjet which gives it higher Kinematic energy to chase and destroy highly agile and maneuverable targets...If maneuverability or super maneuverability does not have any importance, we would not have gone for negative stability and develop all the expensive digital FBW... Besides with maneuverability, it may be possible to break radar lock... Some times it increases the survival by giving you first shot over your opponent or avoid giving your opponent a first shot...

If i am reading your point right, I dont think speed of missile makes stealth irrelevant... Both are different aspects... of course multi-spectrum seekers can negate the effect of stealth but not sure of proportion...
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Manish_Sharma »

shiv wrote: I am now beginning to repeat everything that I have said earlier proving that there is no use writing because people do not actually read. But that wil not stop me :mrgreen:
Shiv perhaps a scenario written by you can help explaining the situation (Remember last time 50KT on Rawalpindi 8) ).

Like in 2020 Pakhanastan gets mashed to pulp by India and khan steps in with F22s, F 35, UCAVs and the Seventh Fleet etc.

While India is armed with 40 FGFAs, 40 AMCAs, 360 su 30mkis, 300 Tejas Mk I, 90 Tejas Mk II, M2ks & Jaguars 50 each, 10,000 Brahmos costing 6 crore each, 1500 Nirbhays and good numbers of Akash + Barak + Spyders. Mmmmmm and 1200 Arjuns :twisted:
^^ I mean this is just the idea of which of the above systems india indigineouses completely and answer from its unique position!

Secondly an experimental Thread of AMCA can be opened for 2 weeks just to discuss the real role for AMCA plus the pitfalls and our strengths. The main theme of the thread can be "%age of AMCA which can be made indigenously, its role and numbers." People can also mention the problems faced by mighty khan to make F 35.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Surya »

I recall an interview of one on the naval officer involved in Bangladesh Liberation war... On being asked what would have happen if US would have directly involved in the war against us (thru 7th Fleet of USN Led by Enterprises)... Without hesitating or thinking for a second, he replied we would have created a thousand time bigger Vietnam here for them... Will try to find link and post...
I would be very curious on that link

The only known public statement I believe was from admiral Krishnan regarding the usage of subs as the fleet turned at full speed around Sri lanka.


Reality is the Vietnamese are way ahead of us in having the resolute grit to take a pounding (or at least at that time).

But then they did not have much to lose. If you have something to lose like we do - its harder to be stupid in recklessly provoking a much stronger force.
Why I consider Saddam stupid for the Kuwait invasion. Caused nothing but misery for his people and pushed them back from almost the best developed in the Islamic world to third world and worse.

Paddy's book envisaged using asymmetric warfare and that is something we need to prep for but are woefully behind.
D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by D Roy »

It has been said that IAF pilots were ready for a kamikaze attack on the Enterprise..

Apparently at a certain airbase when volunteers were sought all pilots unflichingly raised their hands.

Sergei Gorshkov later told Indian naval officers during a visit to India that they had nothing to fear in any case since two soviet nuke subs had been tailing the CSG from the gulf of tonkin itself.
Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1171
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Samay »

Shiv sir
great posts
please reply to my posts here
[post moved to the distorted history thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 83#p866783]
Last edited by Samay on 03 May 2010 22:21, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

Manish_Sharma wrote:
While India is armed with 40 FGFAs, 40 AMCAs, 360 su 30mkis, 300 Tejas Mk I, 90 Tejas Mk II, M2ks & Jaguars 50 each, 10,000 Brahmos costing 6 crore each, 1500 Nirbhays and good numbers of Akash + Barak + Spyders. Mmmmmm and 1200 Arjuns
Manish you need to look at that statement by the Indian CAS that I posted earlier. We need "full spectrum dominance". That will mean he ability to see hear and track what an adversary is doing (even while hitting him) while at the same time blinding him and killing his C&C. These "less romantic" aspects are often more important than sexy hardware. Space, satellites and other capability needs to be built up.

We need to create (on this forum) a general awareness that sexy hardware per se is not a war winner. It can be a liability in some instances.

The other thing is that war is always a last resort. (at least it is for sensible winners). If you can win without war, why fight a war? The US dominates the world, and India along with it. Now what war did the US fight with India to dominate India? The US does not need to fight any war as long as victory can be had by diplomatic and economic means. But that is OT.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19329
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by NRao »

While a lot is possible, the window of opportunity will close pretty fast with an Indian economy that will soon rival that of other nations. The current set of leaders will also be gone by then. The issue is about Indian preparedness for such situations.

As far as I am concerned Pakistan will be a footnote.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5301
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Viv S »

nukavarapu wrote:
Viv S wrote:I agree our defence planning has been reactive rather than proactive. While I don't think we have the resources to invest in a DARPA style research effort that would yield new technologies to counter stealth aircraft, but we can invest an effort into less capital intensive fields like small arms, EW equipment, UAVs etc and aim to excel.
I don't agree with you ... If ISRO can do what it has done on a minuscule budget of NASA, DRDO can definitely achieve at a minuscule budge of DARPA. With limited budget, technologies to counter stealth is too much to ask? All these years we had enough excuses, from lack of resources, to lack of quality manpower to lack of everything !!! When are we going to take the first step ??? After all these excuses what have achieved ??? A country of 1 billion people is being bullied by almost everyone in the world. Heck, these days Uncle Sam decides whether we should resume dialog with Pukis or not !!!
Most of ISRO's R&D effort has been down the beaten path. The US invests $80 billion in defence R&D annually. They can do that because they have another $600 billion to fling at regular defence expenses. We have other priorities. There are gaps in defence preparedness that need to be addressed before a substantial investment can be made into theoretical research.
As Shiv said, that if we want our voice heard, the only way ahead is to develop technologies to counter Ameerkhan himself. That will make our voice heard loud and clear and we as a nation decide our fate on our own terms and by our own hand!!!
Shiv is right, in that we need to plan ahead, do the groundwork that will in the future result in systems that can compete with the best available globally, the F-INSAS being a good example. But, where I disagree with him, is that it cannot come at the cost of current or near future requirements. We need a fifth generation aircraft and it needs to be capable.

And while we're at it we need to recognize that our neighbor to the north is a bigger concern than, than some perceived threat from the US.
Last edited by Viv S on 04 May 2010 19:43, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19329
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by NRao »

nukavarapu wrote: I don't agree with you ... If ISRO can do what it has done on a minuscule budget of NASA, DRDO can definitely achieve at a minuscule budge of DARPA. With limited budget, technologies to counter stealth is too much to ask? All these years we had enough excuses, from lack of resources, to lack of quality manpower to lack of everything !!! When are we going to take the first step ??? After all these excuses what have achieved ??? A country of 1 billion people is being bullied by almost everyone in the world. Heck, these days Uncle Sam decides whether we should resume dialog with Pukis or not !!!

As Shiv said, that if we want our voice heard, the only way ahead is to develop technologies to counter Ameerkhan himself. That will make our voice heard loud and clear and we as a nation decide our fate on our own terms and by our own hand!!!
The bolded part was of concern as far back as the 1980s. The topic was brought up but, of course, to no avail. The topic was specifically related to reorganizing other non-ISRO orgs.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5301
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Viv S »

nukavarapu wrote:Though most of the achievements done by ISRO are in areas/technologies which are already present in this world, but make no mistakes, the technologies are very tightly controlled and no-one would allow even a sneak peak into them. For ISRO it is as good as developing everything from scratch just with a small hope that because it works somewhere, we should be able to make it work too. But apart from that, the progress that ISRO has done with the AVATAR (RLV) project and HEX (hypersonic experiment) is more than impressive. Ameerkhan and a couple of universities can boast the same, but the direction we are persisting, is nothing less than path breaking.
Difference is while ISRO's R&D was bound to yield results sooner or later, theoretical research requires a sinking of funds with the possibility of zero returns. And while our budget is increasing we're still far from the stage where we can comfortably write-off R&D failures.
There are ways and there are ways if the GOI is really interested and has some vision. We do have funds which can be allotted on a minimum to begin with and then increment it as the technology matures. We spend around 2.5% of our GDP on defense. No harm would come if we increase it to 3.0% and invest the 0.5% completely on defense research, specifically to counter stealth. I remember some Jingoes making a statement here, about how to put a certain percentage of extra tax called special defense tax. If from an average person, the deduction is not more than 1000 Rs. pa, he won't mind nor would he care. If we consider tax paying population of 500 Million, we are looking at an annual collection of 50,000 Crore Rs. or 10 Billion $. I would say if we can muster 10 Billion $ pa, that might revolutionize our defense research.
It doesn't work like that. While its common to state the defence expenditure as a percentage of the GDP, the actual ratio is over 13% of the annual budget. And at a time when the fiscal deficit has been hovering around 10% for 2009-10(dropped a bit now), and debt servicing accounts for large part of govt. expenditure, while infrastructure and healthcare are underfunded, spending money to counter stealth is waste of resources.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

OK folks here's something for y'all. As you know the IAF's basic trainer aircraft has been grounded, and the IAF is now looking at several choices of basic trainer Here is a list of contenders from the latest VAYU magazine.

Ten aircraft models. Ten countries. Does anyone notice anything about the list?


Aircraft name: Pilatus PC 21
Country of Origin: Switzerland
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: EADS/PZL 130TC III Orlik
Country of Origin:Poland
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: Wong Bee
Country of Origin:S Korea
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: Grob
Country of Origin: Germany
Engine: Rolls Royce Allison

Aircraft name: Alenia Aeronautic SF 200
Country of Origin: Italy
Engine: Rolls Royce Model 50 turboprop

Aircraft name: PAC CT/4
Country of Origin: New Zealand
Engine: Lycoming

Aircraft name: Tucano
Country of Origin: Brazil
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: Fuji T-7
Country of Origin: Japan
Engine: Allison turboprop

Aircraft name: Hawker Beechcraft T-6 Texan II
Country of Origin: USA
Engine: Pratt & Whitney PT6

Aircraft name: Zlin
Country of Origin: Czech Republic
Engine: Lycoming
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7812
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Prasad »

2-bit countries like the Czech rep has an entry and we don't have one of our own? Or that the engines are all but PW or RR mostly?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34981
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

tsriram wrote:2-bit countries like the Czech rep has an entry and we don't have one of our own? Or that the engines are all but PW or RR mostly?
It's the engines.

Anyone can design an aircraft, but the engines in that list originate from only 2 countries - the US and Britain. OK Pratt & Whitney Canada is involved by that is a branch of P&W USA. Allison is a US company acquired by Rolls Royce (Britain) and Lycoming is US.

Only 4 countries in the world (or so) are holding the balls of the entire world because they know how to make good engines. And depending on the circumstances they laugh all the way to the bank or laugh all the way to the high table.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Singha »

usa, russia, uk, france have proven and experienced vendors in all types of engines. they can
make any engine they want.

germany can do it (MTU,renk) but seems to have withdrawn from many segments due to dharmic objections.
whatever they want to make, they can make. if they want to make anything else german govt has to provide
funds but manpower and skillset is not an issue - like fighter engines.

japan has not tried much to develop aerospace 100% locally but one hears people like honda and mitsubishi are
keen if the reqd govt funding to local projects is given. mitsubishi has for long played a second fiddle to boeing.
honda does make small jet engines iirc.

canada , spain , sweden, ukaine and italy probably have "some" capabilities with strength in certain niches but not all.
folks like iveco do make heavy engines I think. zorya makes good marine engines.

china has many engines but none at the bleeding edge. they are spending and stealing 24x7 to close the
gaps and broaden their skillset.

south korea is toddling up the food chain.

we are sucking our thumbs on gas turbines while pvt sector like M&M and telco have gone out and resolved the
issue atleast for diesel engines upto 500hp. given time and some foreign consultancy they can make IFV engines
of say 750-1000hp but 1500hp ultra modern tank engine will take more time unless lavish funds are thrown in
to attract relevant people.
shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shukla »

MOD press release..

Procurement of Transport Aircraft
Six C-130J – 30 transport aircraft and twelve Dornier aircraft have been procured from the US Government and M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited respectively for the Indian Air Force during the last three years.
Ten Dornier aircraft have been inducted so far and the remaining two are expected to be inducted during 2010-11. The six C-13-J aircraft will be inducted by 2011-12.
Locked