C-17s for the IAF?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Nov 2009 23:18

guys do read AM Goel's article.

negi sahab, would the C-17s/Il-76s be the first choice for airdrops ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Nov 2009 23:22

^ Rahul my point is if capability exists let it be layed out as an available option.We here have no clue as to whether IAF or IA finds that capability of much significance .

Being pro active and stationing platforms is only possible when one is being defensive ; in case of scenarios like airlifting tanks to Jaffna one needs to be able to mobilise and airlift heavy assets on demand.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Nov 2009 23:24

negi wrote:How does Il-76 fair in terms of self protection suite and countermeasures when compared with C-17 ?
How important is a small crew size for IAF ?

firstly self protection suite can be added any time, by the way IL76 has RWR,flares,chaffs but not MAWS,laser warning receivers but these can be added any time

but you should also know that how effective are these defensive suite against missile? i think you also know the answer

and small size crew isn't important at all because some people loose their jobs,this is something like if you loose your job

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Nov 2009 23:24

Baldev wrote: STOL is hardly needed most of the time

What makes you make such claims ?

Do you know IAF's requirements or the kind of role they envisage for their heavy lift transport AC ?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 11 Nov 2009 23:26

STOL and rough airstrip capability is a major issue in NE. If a C17-size airplane can land on a semi prepared airstrip, disgorge tons of cargo and then back up (as in reverse gear) to takeoff again asap in a short airstrip, a lot of areas in Arunachal can become accessible overnight for rapid buildup of troops and material with several times the capacity and speed of C130/An32-class aircraft. The rugged terrain mainly allows for very tight landing spaces and a lot of such advanced landing grounds are being prepared there as we speak. Right now the job is done by lumbering An32s and our pilots are the best in the world at this type of operation. This goes a long way towards neutralizing the superior chinese infra in the area.

The discussion about tanks is relevant only to Ladakh, not NE where they are near useless (unless we are talking about delivering them in Lhasa environs). We need to flood Arunachal with Prithvi and Brahmos units that are capable of accurate interdiction 50-400 miles into Tibet. This can only happen with C17 type aircraft.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Nov 2009 23:28

negi wrote:
Baldev wrote: STOL is hardly needed most of the time
What makes you make such claims ?

Do you know IAF's requirements or the kind of role they envisage for their heavy lift transport AC ?

you first look at past and you would know that what kind of role they envisage for their heavy lift transport AC in past and same will be true for C17 in future

STOL shown in airshows only with when aircraft was empty.

and all other aircraft with thrust reversal engines can move backwards

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Nov 2009 23:31

Baldev wrote:firstly self protection suite can be added any time, by the way IL76 has RWR,flares,chaffs but not MAWS,laser warning receivers but these can be added any time
but you should also know that how effective are these defensive suite against missile? i think you also know the answer

Again there is a difference in having a capability which is tested and onboard the AC as against having the potential for upgrade . Are you aware of the timelines which IAF expects to be met for such an AC ?
Specially when its not just the protection suite but even the engines and may be the fuselage which need to be re-engineered, that if two platforms were to be matched.

Coming to susceptibility to missiles ; yes may be AIM-9X and family or other BVR missiles are robust enough to defeat the counter measures, but same is not true for cheaper and widely available older Igla family which are otherwise a genuine threat for a lumbering transport AC specially when taking off or landing.

and small size crew isn't important at all because some people loose their jobs,this is something like if you loose your job

Nice .

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Nov 2009 23:32

Baldev wrote: STOL shown in airshows only with when aircraft was empty.

Yeah just like a MKI does a Pugachev without being armed to teeth and using that useless TVC.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 11 Nov 2009 23:33

Baldev wrote:unfortunately that retail rate proved to be 200million to us.

if we already had the infrastructure, the training and support for C-130Js in place, the cost would've been a lot cheaper. on LM's page on the IAF specific CC-130J, they say the cost includes 3 years of training, support and maintenance as well as basing of technicians in India for 3 years to support the fleet. and if the IAF hadn't asked for avionics to allow it to be used as a special forces aircraft, it would've been cheaper too. when the IAF orders the follow-on batch of 6 C-130Js (which it will, for sure) the cost will be less, as the IAF won't need to pay for training, on-site fleet support, etc. as they would've learnt enough from the first 6 to support it on their own.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Nov 2009 23:36

negi wrote: Again there is a difference in having a capability which is tested and onboard the AC as against having the potential for upgrade . Are you aware of the timelines which IAF expects to be met for such an AC ?
Specially when its not just the protection suite but even the engines and may be the fuselage whihc need to be re-engineered that if two platforms were to be matched.

Coming to susceptibility to missiles ; yes may be AIM-9X and family or other BVR missiles are robust enough to defeat the counter measures, but same is not true for cheaper and widely available older Igla family which are otherwise a genuine threat for a lumbering transport AC specially when taking off or landing.

c17 has MAWS and DIRCM as extra thats it

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 11 Nov 2009 23:39

Kartik wrote:
Baldev wrote:unfortunately that retail rate proved to be 200million to us.
if we already had the infrastructure, the training and support for C-130Js in place, the cost would've been a lot cheaper. on LM's page on the IAF specific CC-130J, they say the cost includes 3 years of training, support and maintenance as well as basing of technicians in India for 3 years to support the fleet. and if the IAF hadn't asked for avionics to allow it to be used as a special forces aircraft, it would've been cheaper too. when the IAF orders the follow-on batch of 6 C-130Js (which it will, for sure) the cost will be less, as the IAF won't need to pay for training, on-site fleet support, etc. as they would've learnt enough from the first 6 to support it on their own.

i know that,but do you agree with 500-600 million price tag of C17 if we calculate price according to the price of c130j

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Nov 2009 23:53

negi wrote:^ We are not in IAF/IA high command to build scenarios or jot down requirements ; point is to be prepared for any eventuality . Capability to airlift heavy tanks is one such point , what about other major possible requirements i.e. to be able to air drop munitions/supplies and men with high precision from both high as well as extremely low altitudes ?
How does Il-76 fair in terms of self protection suite and countermeasures when compared with C-17 ?
How important is a small crew size for IAF ?

If I take your advice on the bolded part, there should be no debate on anything on BRF. However little information that I have, at least I'm trying to evaluate the situation objectively and check on the employability of C-17. And not make general statements.

And in case you did not read up on what I wrote in the scenarios:

There are two main benfits that I see of buying the C-17:

--Contigency situation: Where we are trying to airlift a division size force post haste.Something like airlifting the entire 6 Mountain Div to Leh in 1987. As the load (tonnage) one needs to carry increases, the utility of C-17 comes to fore.

--Transporting outisize cargo like T-90 and Arjun in case of crisis. This is one capability which no number of IL-76 can give you. In case IA decides to haul a Battle Group of 50(I) Para Bde+Mix Squadron of T-90/BMP-II, there is no replacing the C-17.

I replied specifically to the Tank transportation situation and locations that you mentioned. Trasnsporting them to locations like Srilanka or even lifting heavy forces to theaters in India is something I did cover.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Nov 2009 00:01

Rahul M wrote:guys do read AM Goel's article.

negi sahab, would the C-17s/Il-76s be the first choice for airdrops ?

OT here: The incident about IL-76 undertaking 28 sorties in 1987 to Leh (Brasstacks) is about the airlifting of 6 Mountain Division to Leh. The main thrust of Excercise Brasstacks was a master deception with aim of striking at Northern Areas. It was called Op Trident and 6th Div was airlifted for the role or it would have relieved 3rd for the assault and itself handled the holding posture. I did check with some old timers in IA and they corroborated the airlift of 6th Div. To quote in hindi, "subah dekha to itna troops pata nahin kahan se aa gaya".

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 12 Nov 2009 00:54

Given that we have already ordered 6 C-130s for sp ops, it makes sense to build on the same type. Or if a bigger capacity is required, it is better to go in for A400M. It is supposed to make its first flight this year, and since it is a new type, the support and upgrade will be available for a longer time, compared to C-17 whose production line has been on the chopping block for a few years now.

I don't see MTA making any headway, and it already way too late for replacing our AN-32s. We should seriously start looking around for AN-32 replacement right now, and I feel that is of more importance than C-17s at this time.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 12 Nov 2009 02:34

negi wrote:
Baldev wrote: STOL shown in airshows only with when aircraft was empty.
Yeah just like a MKI does a Pugachev without being armed to teeth and using that useless TVC.

so you very well know that air show stunts are restricted to air show only

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Nov 2009 02:56

Rohit how do you justify this as objective ?

STOL is not a feature, IMO, IAF is looking at. The debate erupted becasue some posters were forwarding the claim of STOL for C-17 and how great that will be for IAF

Do you have access to IAF requirements for a heavy Transport ?

My first post was in response to above , from there on discussion has now gone into a tangent.

The link which I posted earlier and many others if you google for "IAF + C-17" will have something on following lines

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik is quoted by the India Strategic defence magazine as saying that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study because of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, long range, and ease of operation.

Now this might very well be DDM ; but in absence of a report which proves otherwise I am inclined to believe that STOL capability cannot be overlooked .

You have done nice analysis of the IAF's operations and I do not wish to be the one who pokes fingers and has little to contribute , so I will desist from arguing with you on this matter.The only point I wanted to make was that since IAF has shown interest in C-17 despite having operated IL-76s for decades C-17's STOL, high MTOW , CARP and small crew size can very well be reasons good enough to keep the IAF interested.

Or may be this might be one of those deals which a country has to sign at times under political compulsions , we don't know .

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Nov 2009 04:09

negi wrote:
Baldev wrote: STOL shown in airshows only with when aircraft was empty.
Yeah just like a MKI does a Pugachev without being armed to teeth and using that useless TVC.

you do know I suppose that in its coming out party (farnborough '92 ?) the flanker faced the same criticism after its opening maneuvers and the next day promptly did a repeat performance with a full weapons load !! that silenced the critics in no time !

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Nov 2009 04:20

RaviBg wrote:Given that we have already ordered 6 C-130s for sp ops, it makes sense to build on the same type. Or if a bigger capacity is required, it is better to go in for A400M. It is supposed to make its first flight this year, and since it is a new type, the support and upgrade will be available for a longer time, compared to C-17 whose production line has been on the chopping block for a few years now.

I don't see MTA making any headway, and it already way too late for replacing our AN-32s. We should seriously start looking around for AN-32 replacement right now, and I feel that is of more importance than C-17s at this time.

An-32 will be upgraded and be in use for another 10-15 years, well in time for finding a replacement. incidentally, MTA is much heavier bird than the An-32 category and can't be called a replacement in that sense. I think the An-32 and the remaining avros will be replaced by a similar category aircraft though in smaller numbers.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Nov 2009 04:32

^ Yes I am aware of that (Iirc f-16.net had a post about Mikhail Simonov's statement about Su-27 being able to execute a Cobra with 7000kg load)but the point was naysayers always find something or the other to cling to ; just like the recent ruckus over F-15 vs MKI duel in Red Flag.

Does one need to have a complete video of 60tonnes of cargo being loaded into C-17 and then show its STOL capability , I guess OEM's datasheet can be accepted as fairly accurate .

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Nov 2009 05:34

Of all the discussions, is there any comparison btw the sortie rates of heavy-lift a/c?

Any commander would love to have their entire troops and machines delivered in shortest possible time with min. no. of sorties. In a battle zone, where ALGs comes under attack anytime, heavy life a/c plays a very crucial role of inserting troops or resupplies at shortest possible time. Anyone like to recall the IPKF-Jaffna-heli incident? This is where the capabilities of C-17 or other a/c's ability to land in semi prepared runway are of significance. Why we need 3 An-32 to deliver 98 para troops in Nyoma if we can make it with one a/c of large capacity? Can we forget the role of Mi-26 in Sumdorong Chu incident? So the argument of An-32 being the workhorse or MTA is enough is only good for academic exercise.

Again, it is a moot point to discuss whether C-17 will land with full load at 3000 or 3700 or 3500 feet. As long as those capabilities exist, it is fine. As Gillies noted in one of his post, 500 feet allowance on both sides of 3500 feet for practice run is not a bad idea. What is a big deal if other a/c can't do that with the same load. Any valid discussion is to compare this STOL performance with similar a/c. Rest is just BS.

Regarding the wear and tear of a/c to landing regularly in 3500 feet runway, it should be borne in mind that C-17 uses reverse thrust rather than simply applying the brakes.

Only problem as i see wrt C-17 is price. We can expect CCS will take a better decision.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 12 Nov 2009 06:20

Yes, but the application of reverse thrust on unprepared air fields would lead to some additional wear/service because of all the junk that is blown onto/into the C-17 and it's engines (my guess).

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 12 Nov 2009 08:57

for the C-17 price, if its pluses are limited to serving NE better than IL-76, we could instead build infra in the NE over a decade, and I don't think we are going to Lhasa any time soon, while anti armor can be deployed in the Ladakh region

one could do a JV in the heavy class with the Russians over the decade

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 12 Nov 2009 09:28

>>>>Any commander would love to have their entire troops and machines delivered in shortest possible time with min. no. of sorties. In a battle zone, where ALGs comes under attack anytime, heavy life a/c plays a very crucial role of inserting troops or resupplies at shortest possible time. Anyone like to recall the IPKF-Jaffna-heli incident? This is where the capabilities of C-17 or other a/c's ability to land in semi prepared runway are of significance. Why we need 3 An-32 to deliver 98 para troops in Nyoma if we can make it with one a/c of large capacity? Can we forget the role of Mi-26 in Sumdorong Chu incident? So the argument of An-32 being the workhorse or MTA is enough is only good for academic exercise

The counter argument would be that:

1) If the airfield where landing is to take place is under attack, why risk a huge plane with many more troops inside? it will be a sitting duck. If one C-17 can unload 3 AN-32 cargoes, land 3 AN-32s in sequence....what would be the extra time required to land..? It will also distribute the assets as well - even if one gets shot, other two can land.

2) For the asking price of C-17, there is only a limited number we can have. Like the MI-26, they will remain white elephants. Yes, ofcourse, they can be on special duty, but for day to day operations, they may not be of immense use.

3) short landing and take-off, landing on unprepared surfaces etc are design features incorporated in MTA also, apart from those cargo planes already operating. These thngs are a norm, not an exception for a military plane.

All said and done, the biggest problem with C-17 is its price and American origin, IMO.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Nov 2009 09:38

Kanson wrote:
Only problem as i see wrt C-17 is price. .

After member Gilles raised his objections on this thread I did some Googling and he is right. It appears that Boeing has been promising and trumpeting a lot more than it can actually deliver with the C 17. Boeing claims that 9000 airfields worldwide can use this jet. It appears that the actual number is in the low hundreds. And Indian airfields have hardly been tested for suitability.

The C 17 has great airshow performance - but I now worry if it really is a good choice.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Nov 2009 09:40

American origin point imho no longer holds any ground what so ever , given the pace at which deals are being signed between the two countries that too under single vendor tenders (something which was only limited to RU and Israel until now) GOI does not seem to share the Jingo sentiments. Signing of EUMA too is a step in the same direction.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Nov 2009 09:46

Shiv ji I don't know if it was Boeing , but the GAO report itself came out with those numbers (below 1000) ; the 9000 figure was based on Airfield's length and did not account for the ACN of the C-17 and the corresponding PVN for respective airfields hence the huge discrepancy .I guess Wiki article on C-17 refers to GAO report tabled in congress.

Infact if I were to give credit where its due while US based OEMs do indulge in publicity and promotion of their products they are equally open with the information related to cost overruns or other hiccups faced during the development programme.It is left to Jingos and readers on web to draw logical conclusions to suit their pov.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Nov 2009 09:47

emperor naked question - why is Leh considered the major airhead in Ladakh?

from what I understand, the road to Siachen base camp climbs from Leh to khardung la pass, then descends into nubra valley and turns west, while if we continue north, daulat beg oldie is reached.

my wife has done some camping in nubra valley, which is fertile near the
streams, there is also a deserty part where bactrian camel rides are available.

why cannot a major airbase be laid in the nubra valley itself to shorten
and improve our posture in the north than trucking up stuff through the
dangerous khardung la stretch? beside the nubra river there is flat land.
this will likely be out of immediate range of chinese tactical weapons like artillery & MLRS and permit feeding in supplies towards DBO once
DBO ALG is cratered.

we are fighting over a small pizza, instead of enlarging the pizza.

likewise in eastern ladakh, on the road to pangong tso (onlee the very
western tip is allowed to tourists so all shots on web look same bkground) I wonder if opportunties exist for a decent base across the
steep chang la pass which is another bottleneck from the leh side.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 12 Nov 2009 10:02

>>>American origin point imho no longer holds any ground what so ever , given the pace at which deals are being signed between the two countries that too under single vendor tenders (something which was only limited to RU and Israel until now) GOI does not seem to share the Jingo sentiments. Signing of EUMA too is a step in the same direction.

Please explain the 'pace' at which deals are signed..I mean no. of deals per year or something like that, which you have put across to counter the "Jingo" Statement. Also, please care to explain why the MEA had clarified during H. Clinton's visit that EUMA was only 'finalised' and not 'signed' yet.

I suspect you are projecting your enthusiasm for American products as that of GOI.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Nov 2009 10:18

Geeth I was merely pointing to the fact that the pace at which our arms procurement machinery works, Trenton, C-130J and P-8I were concluded and signed in a jiffy .

Terms of the EUMA have been agreed upon , yes I got the semantics wrong but that does not invalidate my point about increased chances of India buying US military HW.

Coming to Jingo sentiments:
All of the above deals have been signed in space of last 5 years which is pretty fast given MOD's tack record , this certainly indicates MOD/services do not share the general sentiments aired on BRF about sanctions/strings attached with US equipment.

Unless of course if we believe that all of the above platforms were one of a kind and not available elsewhere.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Nov 2009 10:24

negi wrote:Signing of EUMA too is a step in the same direction.

negiji I am currently reading a book called "Flight of the Falcon" by fmr PAF officer Sajad Haider who talks of how EULA was enforced by US on Germany when Germany tried to sell old F 86 Sabres to Pakistan. It was OK for US to give new a/c to Pakistan but not OK for Germany to sell old a/c

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 Nov 2009 10:27

Shiv ji why 'ji' , this is so

.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 12 Nov 2009 10:33

Even Russian Airforce MiG29s were different from East German Luftwaffe aircraft that went into German(unified ) Airforce, thus preventing Amirkhans directly getting info, they still get therequired info from other sources.

So in the context of Flight of Falcon, the German F-86 must have been different variant that would be offered by Unkil directly to GUBO client TSPAF.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Nov 2009 10:45

negi wrote:Rohit how do you justify this as objective ?

STOL is not a feature, IMO, IAF is looking at. The debate erupted becasue some posters were forwarding the claim of STOL for C-17 and how great that will be for IAF
Do you have access to IAF requirements for a heavy Transport ?

My first post was in response to above , from there on discussion has now gone into a tangent.

The link which I posted earlier and many others if you google for "IAF + C-17" will have something on following lines

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik is quoted by the India Strategic defence magazine as saying that the aircraft had been chosen after a thorough study because of its capability to take off and land on short runways with heavy loads, long range, and ease of operation.
Now this might very well be DDM ; but in absence of a report which proves otherwise I am inclined to believe that STOL capability cannot be overlooked .

You have done nice analysis of the IAF's operations and I do not wish to be the one who pokes fingers and has little to contribute , so I will desist from arguing with you on this matter.The only point I wanted to make was that since IAF has shown interest in C-17 despite having operated IL-76s for decades C-17's STOL, high MTOW , CARP and small crew size can very well be reasons good enough to keep the IAF interested.

Or may be this might be one of those deals which a country has to sign at times under political compulsions , we don't know .

Negi, point taken. But as you say, I did take that news as DDM, especially after reading the thesis by USAF Major on the problems about STOL and unpaved runway performace. Also, I do not see where we are going to land an a/c on ~3500 feet runway. Like I said in an earlier post, even if C-17 can demostrate ability of sustained operations from ALG like Nyoma (which is 9000 feet btw) with out damaging the airfield and requiring specialized crews to re-do and maintain with considerable effort, even with 40% load (>25tons), it will be its worth its weight in gold.

As for tanks and heavy load carrying capacity, there is no alaternative to C-17

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Nov 2009 10:54

Singha wrote:emperor naked question - why is Leh considered the major airhead in Ladakh?

from what I understand, the road to Siachen base camp climbs from Leh to khardung la pass, then descends into nubra valley and turns west, while if we continue north, daulat beg oldie is reached.

my wife has done some camping in nubra valley, which is fertile near the streams, there is also a deserty part where bactrian camel rides are available. Why cannot a major airbase be laid in the nubra valley itself to shortenand improve our posture in the north than trucking up stuff through the dangerous khardung la stretch? beside the nubra river there is flat land. This will likely be out of immediate range of chinese tactical weapons like artillery & MLRS and permit feeding in supplies towards DBO once DBO ALG is cratered. We are fighting over a small pizza, instead of enlarging the pizza.

likewise in eastern ladakh, on the road to pangong tso (onlee the very western tip is allowed to tourists so all shots on web look same bkground) I wonder if opportunties exist for a decent base across the steep chang la pass which is another bottleneck from the leh side.

Singha, Thoise AB is in the Nubra Valley and 10,000 feet runway at that. The ALG opened recently in Ladakh are for suporting each of the sectors - DBO - Northern/Nyoma-Chusul/Fukche-Dhemchok

Of these, DBO and Fukche are pretty close to LAC and with in artillery range. Nyoma is in the Indus Valley with Ladakh Mountains to its east. It is relatively better situated and with it being in the shadow of the mountains that much better protected. IMO, this is one candidate for upgrading to full fledged air base. It will serve the Central (Chusul) and Southern (Dhemchok) sector very well. Just imagine a fleet of C-17 and IL-76 disgorging men and materials in super quick time if panda does any mischief. As compared to PLA, we can do that far quickly.

BTW, Pathankot AB is within artillery range of PA. Just check the distance of AB from the international border.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 12 Nov 2009 11:05

>>>Unless of course if we believe that all of the above platforms were one of a kind and not available elsewhere.

The answer could be both yes and no...I am not in the know. However, from reading general information available, I conclude as follows:

The US is interested in selling military ware to India because, (a) it gets them moolah (being 'American" itself fetches them a lot of it, even if they sell $shit - thanks to Desi attitude) (b) It gives them a strategic foothold into the Indian Military ware -fooling around with Trojans, denying spares in critical times etc.

Indian interest is to keep the Americans in good humour, so that they can gain something else in some other field - it is a give and take game. Nuclear deal is an example. So, purchase of all those platforms that you mentioned need not be construed as articles of faith in American Systems.

As you said, Americans advertise a lot. But, they also arm twist a lot, bribe a lot.. On top of that, they are capable of BLACKMAILING a lot, which most of the Indian officials & politicians are vulnerable to, because most of them are corrupt and has got something to conceal. Add to that the lure of American life for their kith and kin, they will be more than willing to sell their country.

There are exceptions of course, but our system of decision making is vulnerable to external forces. It is true to a lesser extent with Russian, European, Israeli systems. it is a question of choosing a lesser evil right now.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 12 Nov 2009 11:09

Of these, DBO and Fukche are pretty close to LAC and with in artillery range.

I wonder what arty range you are considering (haven't checked GE, my GE skills aren't good).

chances are that the 100-180 km range WS-1 variants might show up.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Nov 2009 11:10

Rahul M wrote:
Of these, DBO and Fukche are pretty close to LAC and with in artillery range.
I wonder what arty range you are considering (haven't checked GE, my GE skills aren't good).

chances are that the 100-180 km range WS-1 variants might show up.

Less than 50kms

sunny y · Post by **sunny y** » 12 Nov 2009 12:24

Saras production is likely to be delayed

Latest on NAL Saras. Apologies if posted earlier....

http://www.icast.org.in/news/2009/oct09/oct01Tb.pdf

Also, we all are talking about MTA but what if NAL RTA comes earlier than MTA. I mean RTA is more in league of commercial aircrafts but How much tweaking needs to be done in order to convert it for military use ??

Thanks

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Nov 2009 15:01

negi wrote:Shiv ji why 'ji' , this is so .

Negi - "ji" is an Indianism. It is just a way of addressing someone. Think nothing of it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 12 Nov 2009 15:05

sunny y wrote:Saras production is likely to be delayed

Latest on NAL Saras. Apologies if posted earlier....

http://www.icast.org.in/news/2009/oct09/oct01Tb.pdf

Thanks for scanning. I actually spoke to someone about this and the impression I got was that there was pilot error involved. But take my word only as rumor - the DGCA report is not out yet and the Saras is collecting dust in the meantime.