Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

member_25279 · Post by **member_25279** » 25 Oct 2013 22:03

Singha wrote:there is some talk that cellphone tower signals could be used in some grid computing fashion to detect VLO objects...

You dont need 3G GSM network for that....simple 2.5G or EDGE will suffice and already all operators provide this level of data to the Intelligence and Police as and when required. If the IAF or Army needs an independent feed and a GUI into the HLR/VLR/GMSC/AUC grid...they can be provided that at a circle or national level...no issues....3G is not required for triangulation....

member_25279 · Post by **member_25279** » 25 Oct 2013 22:10

Singha wrote:there is some talk that cellphone tower signals could be used in some grid computing fashion to detect VLO objects...

A slight amendment....Radio frequencies from Transmitters are not bouncing back onto the Transrecievers....they are merely being relayed onto the CBSC and then onto the MSC using SS7 signalling. So not sure what they will find by triangulation. The only thing that they will find is a radio source (based on IMEI and SIM) by triangulation. So if they want to pinpoint someone using a radio source or phone in a given area....triangulation will work. Not otherwise. The BTS is not a RADAR....

In the 3G sphere....due to bandwidth width, chances of a block due to shadow area or physical obstruction is lessened. But still there is no bounce back as an image on to the transrecievers....

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 25 Oct 2013 23:02

arijitsengupta wrote:@Nits and @Aditya_M

Gentlemen, I have spent the last 21 years working in the GSM and CDMA field in 7 countries, including India.....

So you are saying that IAF should have used the existing private network for it's encrypted communication requirement.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 25 Oct 2013 23:13

arijitsengupta wrote:
Singha wrote:there is some talk that cellphone tower signals could be used in some grid computing fashion to detect VLO objects...
You dont need 3G GSM network for that....simple 2.5G or EDGE will suffice and already all operators provide this level of data to the Intelligence and Police as and when required. If the IAF or Army needs an independent feed and a GUI into the HLR/VLR/GMSC/AUC grid...they can be provided that at a circle or national level...no issues....3G is not required for triangulation....

This is a misleading statement. Cellular communication networks have no capability, out of the box, to triangulate anything but cellular phones! The "VLO objects" Singha ji is talking about are not cellular phones but reflectors and very weak reflectors at best.

For Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) cellular networks (2G, 2.5G, 3G or 4G), with the receiver and transmitters working simultaneously, the base station's transmission is in the "downlink" frequency band while the cellular phones transmit in the "uplink" band. It is impossible for the receiver at the base station to receive reflected signals because the receiver receives signals through a filter designed to attenuate or block out signals in anything but the uplink frequency band. Reflections of the downlink signal are dissipated into a dummy load and dissipated as heat. The only objects that can be triangulated are objects transmitting in the uplink frequency band, i.e. cellular phones, not aerial reflectors.

Even with Time Division Duplex (TDD) cellular networks (3G or 4G), with the receiver and transmitters working alternately in the same frequency band, it could be possible to detect the trailing edge of the downlink signal when the system switches from transmitting mode to receiving mode. However, just because it is possible to detect the signal at the lower physical layer doesn't mean that it is being received at the higher layers of the protocol stack. The receivers are designed to scan for signals which comply with the uplink coding scheme. They're not designed to receive the system's own transmission, which uses the downlink coding scheme.

I would advise people to read Arun_S' post on this in response to a similar discussion earlier.

There is many practical ways to use Cellular network to realize Bistatic , Mutistatic and/or Passive radars (or a hybrid combination there of). In all cases one needs additional hardware in addition to Cellular network to realize it.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 25 Oct 2013 23:22

Indian Air Force’s 4th C-17 Globemaster III delivered

member_25279 · Post by **member_25279** » 25 Oct 2013 23:34

You dont need 3G GSM network for that....simple 2.5G or EDGE will suffice and already all operators provide this level of data to the Intelligence and Police as and when required. If the IAF or Army needs an independent feed and a GUI into the HLR/VLR/GMSC/AUC grid...they can be provided that at a circle or national level...no issues....3G is not required for triangulation....[/quote]
This is a misleading statement. Cellular communication networks have no capability, out of the box, to triangulate anything but cellular phones! The "VLO objects" Singha ji is talking about are not cellular phones but reflectors and very weak reflectors at best.

For Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) cellular networks (2G, 2.5G, 3G or 4G), with the receiver and transmitters working simultaneously, the base station's transmission is in the "downlink" frequency band while the cellular phones transmit in the "uplink" band. It is impossible for the receiver at the base station to receive reflected signals because the receiver receives signals through a filter designed to attenuate or block out signals in anything but the uplink frequency band. Reflections of the downlink signal are dissipated into a dummy load and dissipated as heat. The only objects that can be triangulated are objects transmitting in the uplink frequency band, i.e. cellular phones, not aerial reflectors.

Even with Time Division Duplex (TDD) cellular networks (3G or 4G), with the receiver and transmitters working alternately in the same frequency band, it could be possible to detect the trailing edge of the downlink signal when the system switches from transmitting mode to receiving mode. However, just because it is possible to detect the signal at the lower physical layer doesn't mean that it is being received at the higher layers of the protocol stack. The receivers are designed to scan for signals which comply with the uplink coding scheme. They're not designed to receive the system's own transmission, which uses the downlink coding scheme.

I would advise people to read Arun_S' post on this in response to a similar discussion earlier.

There is many practical ways to use Cellular network to realize Bistatic , Mutistatic and/or Passive radars (or a hybrid combination there of). In all cases one needs additional hardware in addition to Cellular network to realize it.

[/quote]

That is why I amended my statement immediately.....if you read on....and I made a fresh submission immediately after I wrote this one...

member_25279 · Post by **member_25279** » 25 Oct 2013 23:36

@PratikDas....

Read what I wrote right after I wrote the first submission...

A slight amendment....Radio frequencies from Transmitters are not bouncing back onto the Transrecievers....they are merely being relayed onto the CBSC and then onto the MSC using SS7 signalling. So not sure what they will find by triangulation. The only thing that they will find is a radio source (based on IMEI and SIM) by triangulation. So if they want to pinpoint someone using a radio source or phone in a given area....triangulation will work. Not otherwise. The BTS is not a RADAR....

In the 3G sphere....due to bandwidth width, chances of a block due to shadow area or physical obstruction is lessened. But still there is no bounce back as an image on to the transrecievers....

member_25279 · Post by **member_25279** » 25 Oct 2013 23:40

Sagar G wrote:
arijitsengupta wrote:@Nits and @Aditya_M

Gentlemen, I have spent the last 21 years working in the GSM and CDMA field in 7 countries, including India.....
So you are saying that IAF should have used the existing private network for it's encrypted communication requirement.

Hi - No....they had no need to use this technology....when Mil Spec Bandwidth (reserved) and Tech is available either COTS (Military) or Designed....3G spectrum usage for a AFTEL network was a total waste of national resources....

member_25279 · Post by **member_25279** » 25 Oct 2013 23:44

Sagar G wrote:
arijitsengupta wrote:@Nits and @Aditya_M

Gentlemen, I have spent the last 21 years working in the GSM and CDMA field in 7 countries, including India.....
So you are saying that IAF should have used the existing private network for it's encrypted communication requirement.

And further more....all National level carriers in any case have specific kernels configured for Special tasks....cannot reveal more..as I am bound by certain legal constraints....sorry....

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 25 Oct 2013 23:44

arijitsengupta wrote:Hi - No....they had no need to use this technology....when Mil Spec Bandwidth (reserved) and Tech is available either COTS (Military) or Designed....3G spectrum usage for a AFTEL network was a total waste of national resources....

Does the reserved Mil Spec Bandwidth give the same data transfer rate as 3G or is better ???

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 25 Oct 2013 23:45

The ISTAR aircraft will use active electronically scanned array radar and be able to scan more than 30,000 kilometers in a minute and analyze the data in 10 to 15 minutes to identify targets. The system would operate in all weather, day and night. To cover India’s lengthy borders, the ISTAR surveillance aircraft would need to fly as high as 40,000 feet , said an IAF official.

Must be km^2 instead of km.
30000 km^2 can be visualised as a 173x173 km grid, Perspective from 12 km height .

member_25279 · Post by **member_25279** » 26 Oct 2013 00:06

Sagar G wrote:
arijitsengupta wrote:Hi - No....they had no need to use this technology....when Mil Spec Bandwidth (reserved) and Tech is available either COTS (Military) or Designed....3G spectrum usage for a AFTEL network was a total waste of national resources....
Does the reserved Mil Spec Bandwidth give the same data transfer rate as 3G or is better ???

Hello.

Ok. To explain further....there are certain parts of the EM spectrum that are reserved for the defence forces. This is true for every country. What you do with it...is a national debate. But to put it mildly....generally....most militaries these days only deal with broad bandwidths....which allow concurrent data/video/chat in a scrambled format....its not a question of speed...but of security, capacity and ability to switch between formats (while transmitting)....it may be faster, or it may be capable of throughput....depends on what the country/govt/military so desires.....data transfer rates are calculated on various factors. Commercially we have to keep in mind certain key milestones....which are not applicable to the government services....but its a landscape which can be altered....depending on which side you want to bat on...

srin · Post by **srin** » 26 Oct 2013 00:10

Or as a 100km radius circle.

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 26 Oct 2013 09:50

For the purpose of wide area networking (WAN), while it may seem like a waste of a national [spectrum] resource for the Armed Forces to be using that spectrum which can be used commercially, one must spend some time thinking about the cost of network hardware and cellular phone/data modem hardware to understand the decision. It seems like the ambition is to steadily expand the coverage of the Air Force's network. COTS equipment is available in plenty [by definition] and cheap. It would cost a fortune to have cellular base station radio units, cellphone chipsets and cellphone RF Tx/Rx circuits designed for a custom frequency. Moreover, the most power-efficient (think long battery life) varieties of cellular chipsets and base station radio units are manufactured by Western vendors. Getting them to custom manufacture these products in low volumes would be like approaching Dassault for a mid-life upgrade of the Mirage

Added later: However, I will agree that the IAF could have chosen that frequency band which is pegged for commercial use in other countries but not yet allocated for commercial use in India. Such a frequency choice would still enable a cost-efficient COTS technology-based network deployment. Also, if available, a frequency in the 750 to 850 MHz space, much lower than the 2.1 GHz chosen by the IAF, would have gone a long way toward reducing the cost of network. Lower frequencies travel further. But then one might argue that the lower frequencies are even more valuable for providing commercial broadband to rural areas. All in all, I can't fault the IAF for this choice. I will say though that 300 crore rupees is enough for a large city like Delhi, not the length and breadth of the nation.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 27 Oct 2013 20:26

IAF launches own 3G cellular network project.

The Indian Air Force on Friday launched its 3G cellular network named Air Force Cellular (AFCEL), becoming first among the three services to have commissioned its own captive 3G network.

Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) and Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne inaugurated the cellular network at Air Headquarters Vayu Bhawan in the National Capital Region.

Launching the pan-India AFCEL project, the Air Chief said, ''Today's launch of Phase I of AFCEL in the National Capital Region is yet another milestone in the IAF's transformation into a modern, networked, aerospace organisation with full spectrum dominance.With the IAF's 3G WCDMA project, we are taking a quantum leap forward in our quest to provide mobile and secure 'end-point' connectivity to the air warriors deployed across the length and breadth of our country".

"AFCEL will facilitate real time exchange of information in an ever dynamic operational environment that we operate in. Considering the ever increasing relevance of cellular devices in our work space AFCEL will form a crucial component of IAF's network-centric operations delivering timely and accurate information to our air warriors.I am certain that provision of this capability will keep our men and women connected to the Information Grid and ensure high situational awareness as well as greater synergy in command and control functions.''

He said the AFCEL nodes will cover a number of fixed locations with mobile base transmitting stations (MBTS), which will extend connectivity to remote areas as well. These BTS will provide critical secure communications support for voice, SMS and data exchange and have a force multiplication effect in the conduct of our operations, he added.

The system has been integrated by HCL Infosystems and technology partners Alcatel Lucent India.

IAF's AFCEL project team will now take the process of linking IAF personnel in a more efficient and effective manner.Through AFCEL, IAFaims to bring all its units and stations under the overarching umbrella of 3G connectivity.While Phase I of the project will ensure mobile connectivity to all air force personnel in the National Capital Region, Phase II will cover the rest of the bases.

AFCEL has been customised for defence requirements and is a full IP network with stringent quality of service, high quality voice and data solutions.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Oct 2013 08:08

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20508
UAV crash

which one? DRDO or Israel one?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 29 Oct 2013 12:16

Air Marshal Arup Raha is new air chief. ACM Browne will retire on Dec 31.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 29 Oct 2013 20:25

gist from an article "the rising - and rising cost of air operations' by Vijay Matheswaran (in the latest VAYU mag) who wonders if the IAF could well be forced to cut operational costs -

- IAF spent rs. 4090 crore 'only' on fuel in 2012-13. much of this 'fuel guzzling' is by SU 3OMKI that consumes 7.5 tons of fuel/hour and with IAF flying app. 200hrs/yr SU 30MKI alone accounts for rs. 1100 crore of the bill. this is for a fleet of 150 SU 30MKI. 122 will be added to this in future.

- SU 30MKI cost has balloned to $100mil from $35mil initially and with fuel guzzling the 'savings envisaged' by continuing the existing line of prod is proving to be a burden on the fuel bill.

- AN 32s too are fuel inefficient and add to the burden. these are going to remain for a couple of more decades.

- advises selection and induction of fuel efficient platforms.

- mentions Rafale is $100mil apiece. negotiations stalled over TOT/Offsets which MOD is insisting. without TOT and accounting for the capabilities of local aerospace industry - as per him - 'some say' the cost of the deal may balloon to $30bil with little benefit to the local industry.

- IAF is planning Rafale, FGFA and already has Mig 29s (all twin engined) which will add to the fuel bill.

- the LCC of an aircraft includes acquisition cost, fixed and variable operating costs and any residual costs that may arise - which involves maintainence, spares, fuel cost, repairs and upgrades.

- turning off fuel tap is not the answer but what is needed is smart decisions and smart investments.

koti · Post by **koti** » 29 Oct 2013 22:18

pragnya wrote: - SU 30MKI cost has balloned to $100mil from $35mil initially and with fuel guzzling the 'savings envisaged' by continuing the existing line of prod is proving to be a burden on the fuel bill.

Isn't this the life cycle cost saab?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Oct 2013 23:31

I guess that's where a small single engine aircraft like LCA fits in. A good replacement for Mig-21s , will consume less fuel, good for point defence and quite a few scenarios with IFR probes. Overall, less total cost of ownership.

Looks like LCA will be the only single engine fighter in IAF going forward. SU-30MKI, Rafale, Jaguar are all twin engines.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 29 Oct 2013 23:53

putnanja wrote:I guess that's where a small single engine aircraft like LCA fits in. A good replacement for Mig-21s , will consume less fuel, good for point defence and quite a few scenarios with IFR probes. Overall, less total cost of ownership.

Looks like LCA will be the only single engine fighter in IAF going forward. SU-30MKI, Rafale, Jaguar are all twin engines.

Saar, don't forget the Vajra - Mirage 2000s!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 30 Oct 2013 00:02

Nikhil T wrote:
putnanja wrote:I guess that's where a small single engine aircraft like LCA fits in. A good replacement for Mig-21s , will consume less fuel, good for point defence and quite a few scenarios with IFR probes. Overall, less total cost of ownership.

Looks like LCA will be the only single engine fighter in IAF going forward. SU-30MKI, Rafale, Jaguar are all twin engines.
Saar, don't forget the Vajra - Mirage 2000s!

Yup, thanks for catching that.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Oct 2013 05:17

Oct 4, 2013 :: IAF chief plans more C-17s, admits FGFA delays

Key Points

ACM Browne has announced plans to buy six more Boeing C-17s, bringing the fleet total to 16
ACM Browne also confirmed delays to the fifth-generation fighter aircraft, which India is co-developing with Russia

The Indian Air Force (IAF) plans to induct six more Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft by 2022, Air Chief Marshal N A K Browne declared in New Delhi on 4 October.

Addressing a news conference before the IAF's 81st anniversary on 8 October, ACM Browne said the IAF would forward its C-17 requirement to the federal government for approval by the year's end.

Three of 10 C-17s ordered by the IAF in 2011 for USD4.1 billion were inducted into service on 2 September. Delivery of the remaining seven transports will be completed by November 2014.

ACM Browne also admitted to delays to the USD35 billion fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA), which is based on the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA and a co-development between India and Russia.

"We are still working on the [FGFA's] research and development [R&D] contract, which will take at least one more year. Technical discussions are on and until we get those we cannot get to the issue of discussing financial terms and conditions," ACM Browne said.

The FGFA's USD295 million preliminary design contract was signed in December 2010. Under its terms Indian designers and technicians based in Russia were tasked with finalising blueprints for the advanced fighter within 18 months. IAF sources said this has been delayed, further deferring negotiations on the USD11 billion R&D phase that was to be shared equally between the two countries.

The R&D delay will also postpone the arrival in India of three FGFA prototypes for flight testing by the IAF. The first FGFA prototype was originally scheduled to arrive in India in 2014, followed by another in 2017 and third in 2019.

The IAF plans to induct 220-250 FGFAs from 2022 but this deadline now stands postponed, ACM Browne conceded.

ACM Browne also rejected a proposal by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to locally develop and build 106 Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 aircraft to meet the IAFs projected requirement for 181 Basic Trainer Aircraft (BTA).

Instead, he insisted the Ministry of Defence would import 106 Swiss-made Pilatus PC-7 Mk II turbo-trainers to supplement the 75 acquired in 2011 for INR37.8 billion (USD613.8 million). Thirty PC-7s will have been delivered by the year's end and all 75 by late 2014, ACM Browne said.

"The IAF cannot have two types of BTA as it would be an extravagant and wasteful move besides adding to logistical complications to operate them," ACM Browne said.

Instead, he urged HAL to make progress on its Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT), which has been under development for over a decade. "HAL has spent INR40 billion on designing the IJT but it is nowhere on the horizon," he said.

ACM Browne said the IAF is augmenting its capabilities along the disputed border with China by spending INR21.73 billion to upgrade the Nyoma airbase (4,053 m) in the Ladakh region so that a mix of combat, transport, and rotary wing platforms can operate from it.

Located about 25 km from the un-demarcated Line of Actual Control, Nyoma was reactivated in September 2009 after being disused for 45 years in response to China's military build-up in Tibet.

ACM Browne said the IAF is also spending INR7.2 billion to upgrade the Kargil airstrip in northern Kashmir and seven advanced landing grounds in India's northeastern region to expand its "operational envelope" against China.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Oct 2013 22:10

A Bakistani military officer writes about IAF 2020. Second paragraph starts off on how dastardly IAF has convinced GOI to fund it for meanie aims..its not that bad thereafter but read and judge at your own risk. I only read till a few pages but was surprised to see pretty less political commentary and a balanced writeup..dont know if that continues.

http://www.defence.gov.au/adc/docs/Publ ... %20AWC.pdf

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 30 Oct 2013 22:43

NRao wrote:Oct 4, 2013 :: IAF chief plans more C-17s, admits FGFA delays

I was going through the tenders for the HTT-40 that HAL floats almost every two weeks. The latest ones are for oxygen system and the SMFDs.

I feel ACM Browne should be upfront on why he doesn't want the HTT-40. He can say that his requirement for basic trainers is critical and his force have no faith on HAL to deliver on time based on its record. That he does not want to put the life of his boys or national security in the hands of a non performing DPSU is understandable to me (yeah I know the HAL camp will throw MKIs and Dhruvs at me).

But all this nonsense of commonality and price difference is not palatable to me. On one side, it is reported that the ToT for PAKFA is required to keep its price down, and somehow a more low-tech Basic Trainer whose considerable percentage of manufacturing price comes from man hours is pricier! And for God's sake this commonality logic doesn't make sense coming from IAF which (creditably) maintains 6 types of fighters (forget tranches). And that this number is only going to grow by over the next decade!!! 106 is not a small number in any sense of the word.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Oct 2013 22:48

At 16 C-17's - doesnt that make the IAF the second largest operator of the type?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Oct 2013 23:05

I think they should order more and make it around 22 units. Transports are something the US are good at presently (unlike fighters apparently, where they want to make a one size that fits all sevices, F/A-18/F-35 as versus the masterpieces such as the F-15). The Russians and Euros have no eqvt in town either. Best to get enough today before the line shuts down.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 30 Oct 2013 23:06

Lalmohan wrote:At 16 C-17's - doesnt that make the IAF the second largest operator of the type?

Even with 10 IAF will be the second largest operator. UQ is next with 8.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 30 Oct 2013 23:11

Read through the Pak doc (quick skim TBH), and surprise of surprises, its pretty balanced. Wonders never cease.

koti · Post by **koti** » 30 Oct 2013 23:41

http://rt.com/usa/declassified-soviet-mig-area51-975/

Mig 21 has 20 min turnaround time.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 30 Oct 2013 23:49

Karan M wrote:I think they should order more and make it around 22 units. Transports are something the US are good at presently (unlike fighters apparently, where they want to make a one size that fits all sevices, F/A-18/F-35 as versus the masterpieces such as the F-15). The Russians and Euros have no eqvt in town either. Best to get enough today before the line shuts down.

Totally 24 would be a wonderful number. 4 in reserve and 2 full squadrons of 10 each

Also Refurbish the older il-76 and move 3 to phalcon and 3 to refuelers, leaving 10 in active transport service with 1/2 in reserve. This will give us 9 refuelers + 6 AEW, which IMHO is more than enough. Perhaps add one or two from rusie reserves and scarp the MRTA A330 contract.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Oct 2013 00:12

Also Refurbish the older il-76

I think they started to refurbish them:

2010 article wrote: Air Chief Marshal Naik disclosed that the IL 76s, first acquired in April 1985, are also under life extension under a contract with Russia. “The life extension of IL-76 aircraft would involve complete overhaul of airframe at the vendor’s premises in Russia… The first aircraft has already been positioned and the servicing has commenced. Various other upgrades would be executed in India. Post-servicing, the aircraft would be available to us for more than 10 years,” he said.

IIRC, the last IL-76 is expected to retire in 2024 (includes this refurbishment).

For tankers they have the EADS planes. They have a total of 5 Phalcons on he IL platforms.

16 C-17s under the current order. With what Boeing has in the manufacturing pipeline, but not ordered I expect at least 4-5 for India.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 31 Oct 2013 00:26

Problem is whether spares are assured despite refurbishment. During refurb, they only replace/upgrade certain items. Many of the earlier items are repaired, put back in service. When their overhaul time appears, spares are in short supply and IAF gets frustrated and has to run after 100 different Russian suppliers thanks to long lead times.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Oct 2013 00:45

IMHO, it really does not matter. The way I look at "airlift" capability is a ref to a Russian study that claimed IAF needed 25 IL-476 (the proposed new ILs at that time). So, I did a very simple math exercise: tons/plane*max distance and came up with 25 IL-476 = 20 C-17. So, I suspect some combination of 16 C-17s and 12 C-130Js should suffice for the IAF. And 20 C-17s will foot the entire airlift bill.

Which is why I think/feel that the IL-76/476 are of really no use.

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 31 Oct 2013 04:15

The only thing i'd say is let them use the Il-76's until the MTA come in to the picture. The airlift capability with the C-17s, C-130s & existing IL-76 (with future replacements from MTA) should increase the IAF's lift capability in the near future. Much needed! I never appreciated any estimates that the Russies ever gave, hell they can't deliver one damn thing on-time!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 31 Oct 2013 04:55

Will the MTA ever come? There has been agreements and MOUs for more than 10 years now, and nothing to show for it.

Would make sense to just scrap it and go in for more plain vanilla C-130s (instead of the spec forces which cost a bomb).

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 31 Oct 2013 05:11

^ As soon as there is even halfway serious talk of going with anything transport not involving HAL, we will see another signing of MOU and Indo-Russi group photo with model of MTA in the background. The idea is to scotch anything that doesn't involve HAL until HAL is ready to get ready. IAF will mope and cuss in the background.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2013 07:38

the few MRTT A330 will not be enough.
its better to convert some of the newest IL76 to tanker role.
if you calculate the fuel needed to keep AEW planes on station in 12 hr shifts, its a lot.

MTA - even its bones have disintegrated under the soil, not just the flesh. yet we have HAL on the grave paying namaz five times a day and claiming a djinn miracle will bring it back.

finish the circus and just order more of C130J basic version

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Oct 2013 09:12

USAF feedback on secret test of Mig-21 at Area 51
http://en.ria.ru/world/20131030/1844431 ... ea-51.html

The US Air Force held onto the MiG-21 for more than three months in 1968 at Area 51, where specialists tested and examined the fighter to evaluate it against US fighter planes in air-to-air combat and to develop new tactics to defeat the Soviet jet, according to the documents.

The operation to study the MiG-21 was designated “Fishbed-E” and concluded that the Soviet fighter has “excellent operational capability in all flight regimes,” according to one of the declassified US Department of Defense documents.

US specialists noted, however, some deficiencies, including poor forward and rearward visibility and “limited” performance when flying below 15,000 feet (4,572 meters).

The aircraft was subsequently returned to the Israelis in April 1968.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 31 Oct 2013 13:14

NRao wrote:IMHO, it really does not matter. The way I look at "airlift" capability is a ref to a Russian study that claimed IAF needed 25 IL-476 (the proposed new ILs at that time). So, I did a very simple math exercise: tons/plane*max distance and came up with 25 IL-476 = 20 C-17. So, I suspect some combination of 16 C-17s and 12 C-130Js should suffice for the IAF. And 20 C-17s will foot the entire airlift bill. Which is why I think/feel that the IL-76/476 are of really no use.

Airlift capability is not a static thing.

For example, coming in of MSC and strengthening of Ladakh Sector will place addition demand - not to mention that we still cannot airlift the whole Para Bde at one go w/o committing a very large %age of out transport fleet.

Any requirement on the lines of air-mobile bde for out of area contingency will require more transport aircraft.

The planning has to be considering the future and not the past.