Indian Military Aviation- September 29 2013

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 25 Jul 2015 10:24

^^ IIRC both Jags and Mig-27 participated in Kargil high altitude carpet bombing but as such they were not designed for high altitude bombing but low and fast precision attack.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Jul 2015 15:57

We'll have to wait for the upgrades to both M2Ks and 29s. However,I'm sure that the IAF would've tested out the MKIs for the role. Whether the MIG-27UGs have the capability is a moot Q. Jags have yet to be upgraded.

There is this old piece of info:
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mi ... ision.html

Israeli Griffin 3 bomb guidance kits for the Indian Air Force news

12 July 2008
The Indian Air Force is all set to get the Israel Aerospace Industries' (IAI) Griffin 3 laser-guided bomb.

Made by IAI's MBT division, the Griffin 3 is said to be the most advanced version of a combat-proven guidance kit that effectively converts "dumb" bombs into precise weapons, claiming a circular error of probability of less than 2 metres (6.5ft).

The Griffin 3 conversion kit is compatible with the Mk82/83/84 general purpose bomb series.

The kit comprises a front guidance section and a rear section that has steering fins. It provides a 12 kilometre (6.5 nautical miles) stand-off range against ground targets, and allows its flight trajectory and impact angle to be pre-programmed.

Our very own desi alternative:Wik.
Sudarshan laser-guided bomb

The kit can guide a bomb within 10 m CEP from its otherwise 400 m to 1000 m fall off the target.[24] If dropped from normal altitude, it has a range of around 9 km.[1] A program to extend the kit’s capability to further increase its range using GPS is ongoing.[4][25] It is expected to rival GBU-12 Paveway II in performance.[26] However, reports indicate that the kit may not support bunker buster bombs, forcing the IAF to look for alternatives.[27][28]

The successful trials and flight tests in 2010 led ADE to further improve the bomb's accuracy. The Indian Air Force is upgrading a large number of unguided bombs to this standard based on the successful results.[16][23] Sudarshan will be in service with the IAF bombers squadrons of Mig-27 and SEPECAT Jaguar. Also, several other fighters in the IAF could carry these bombs for the air-to-ground attack tasks like Su-30MKI, Mirage-2000 and MiG-29.[9] It might also be used by the Indian Army for its long range artillery strike weapon and Indian Navy from an on-board launcher.[29]
Further development[edit]

ADE is developing a next-generation bomb (NG-LGB), which will address the problem of rolling of the bomb after its release. Its range will be increased to 50 km from the current glide-range of 9 km of Sudarshan, when dropped from normal altitude.[1][17]

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jul 2015 16:03

Sudarshan was cancelled in 2014.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Jul 2015 16:57

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jul 2015 17:46

none could fix its instability problems. the NG-LGB is the only hope now of getting a relatively cheaper desi guidance kit.

I guess just like IJT, its a deceptively simple yet poisonous kind of problem.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 25 Jul 2015 17:57

With these new wing kits, can they do off-bore targeting? much like AAMs have progressed to helmet cueing. Consider a scenario where the plane is flying low in a valley at high speed, releases a bomb with a wing kit which due to its initial KE performs a pop up maneuver and can then be guided to the target taking altitude waypoints along the way or could be augmented by rocket boosters crosses the mountain ridge and glides down on the reverse slope.

The pilot has the target from a recon resource handed to him over the network, so may not be seeing it visually.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jul 2015 18:35

i believe all the bideshi ones do, so must be part of the ng-lgb req also for low level release part of it.

the swedish mjolnir submunition dispenser is a famous one for this profile...its can attack a few km off the release axis.
http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... bk90-1.jpg

unlike the JP233 release the plane can flyby a few kms away at low level and not have to fly down the runway. even in ODS a number of tornados were lost or damaged by AAA in this role
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGmDqH4c-8

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jul 2015 18:54

"Low level flight" is totally hazardous unless it is really low - like 30-50 meters above ground level at which height it is below radar and too fast for Manpads to get a lock. Bombs released at that height can be aimed very accurately but require overflying the target. A bomb that uses up its KE to "rise" from that low level will still not travel very far. Generally bombs released from such low levels are retarded by parachutes or pop up airbrakes so they fall away from the aircraft and their explosions do not kill the launching aircraft. Bombs and drop tanks are designed to be 100% certain to fall away from the dropping aircraft at any altitude. Rising is dangerous unless it happens well away from the launch aircraft.

If "low level flight" means 1000-2000 meters - manpads, AA fire and radar will get them. Better to stay above 5000 meters and release glide bomb/LGB

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Jul 2015 19:09

>> like 30-50 meters above ground level

this what our jags and tornados and gripens/viggens(with mjoelnir) can do. they train at 30m over the sea - at night.
plenty of low level footage on youtube.

I think on egress they go as low as possible and even faster. the tornado is said to be notoriously difficult to catch because its low level speed is very high!

imo with proliferation of wing kits / AASM / SDB / stealthy CMs this fast slashing low level attack mode might be deleted from the syllabus...but all these long range weapons suffer from a relatively slow speed and hence can be detected and targeted by radar guided AA guns like oerlikon skyshield. the AASM does have a small rocket but is really not a fast missile.

for the really badass targets like the big radars of the S400 battery, there will be SRSAM and AA gun umbrellas arranged to protect against ARMs or other munitions. a equally badass weapon like brahmos is probably the best current way of taking it out, or else a very low flying ELO shaped weapon , or a Shourya type missile plunging at Mach10 ...... the SAMs themselves are useless if the guidance radars and C3I system is damaged.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 Jul 2015 19:30

Many 1965 and 1971 IAF war stories (2 Jagan books) speak of 50 feet above ground level ingress. That is really low.

In fact when the '65 war started India had no radar. Pakis had radar. 2 Vampires were shot down on day one giving CAS over Chhamb. That night escort Gnats were flown at 50 feet AGL to forward bases so that Pakis would not know they were coming. The next day the Gnats got 2 Sabres.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 25 Jul 2015 19:32

Fact:- It took ten years to fix problems in Lakshya Parachute recovery systems. But a solution was found.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 25 Jul 2015 19:34

Philip wrote:Why?

Because if India is able to make its own home grown LGBs then many billions in foreign bombs will not be bought (specially at war times, hurriedly, justifying 10 times more price). Also it gives foreign power leverage in controlling how much we can bomb hence fight the war. You will hear other reasons, but they are to cover the above reason. Reasons like, CG of the bomb cannot be controlled leading to oscillations that can threaten the plane, or the lead scientist dies mysteriously etc etc.

Imagine, we can make Agni that can hit 6000 Km with 10 M CEP, we have these bombs that we can reverse engineer, but still cannot make a LGB.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 25 Jul 2015 21:53

Kargil imposed a different restriction of not crossing the border, loony in itself, but had to be managed, the aircraft were to fly N-S axis while the targets are on the E-W axis. if the pilot is shown the engagement bubble of the precision weapon he is carrying taking into account the terrain and his altitude, real time decision making would be easier for him. He can engage targets that are covered in the bubble. Anyways, for scale, the next gen glide bomb is good for 50km range when released at altitude, and then there are rocket boosters to augment. Sideways trajectory as well as climb both are energy bleeding so would get us back to the lower side of the range, great if it is just outside the AA and MANPAD range, then except for the terrain and bomb release they is no limit on the aircraft speed.

one would think the wings are folding and deployed after release, the height of the release should be just enough so the bomb doesn't run into terrain before its wing kit is deployed giving it lift

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Jul 2015 06:48

fanne wrote:
Philip wrote:Why?

Because if India is able to make its own home grown LGBs then many billions in foreign bombs will not be bought (specially at war times, hurriedly, justifying 10 times more price). Also it gives foreign power leverage in controlling how much we can bomb hence fight the war. You will hear other reasons, but they are to cover the above reason. Reasons like, CG of the bomb cannot be controlled leading to oscillations that can threaten the plane, or the lead scientist dies mysteriously etc etc.

Imagine, we can make Agni that can hit 6000 Km with 10 M CEP, we have these bombs that we can reverse engineer, but still cannot make a LGB.

We probably need to make aerodynamic bombs. That is not so easy.

First a government committee has to recommend it and pass it on to the Ordnance factories board. OFB will have a feasibility study to see if aerodynamic bombs can be made easily or if it is simpler to import. A team of experts from OFB will visit USA, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Brazil and Israel in a fact finding mission. RFPs will be called (from Indian or foreign vendors) for the initial supply of aerodynamic bombs for a future LGB with subsequent transfer of technology under "make in India" After 3 years foreign vendors will be found to be expensive and DRDO will take up the study.

DRDO will find that a falling bomb reached transonic speeds and wil need a transonic wind tunnel. Since we have friendly relations with USA a bomb model will be taken to USA for study of Aerodynamic characteristics at transonic speeds. The development process will be expected to last 3 years.

In 2022 the first bomb drop trials will be attempted from an Su-30. trials will last up to 2023 and the successful models will be shown as mock ups in several Aero India shows and will come as 250 and 500 kg variants. A 100 kg variant will also be developed and brochures will list the 100 kg variant with an all up weight of 980 kg and range of 9 meters when dropped from 10,000 meters

The next will be a feasibility study of guidance kit. Because of national elections, floods, retirement of director etc the project gets delayed a little bit but the first tests will be done by late 2026 or early 2027. Then Air Force will be blamed for asking for something different because the world has moved on.

Om namah Shivaya. Only Shiva is eternal and unchanging

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jul 2015 07:15

The script does not have a SDB?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Jul 2015 07:54

NRao wrote:The script does not have a SDB?

I deliberately left it out. Don't want to throw faecal matter at the wind tunnel inlet

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 26 Jul 2015 10:39

Philip wrote:
Singha wrote:Sudarshan was cancelled in 2014.
Why?

Too much spin affecting the CEP. They tried fixing the excessive spin with a free rotating tail but that didn't work out. Thankfully we already had the Garuda (most likely NG-LGB) and Garuthma family of bombs in works.

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 26 Jul 2015 13:07

Too much spin affecting the CEP. They tried fixing the excessive spin with a free rotating tail but that didn't work out. Thankfully we already had the Garuda (most likely NG-LGB) and Garuthma family of bombs in works.

So we could not fix the thing in hand but then moved on to something more advanced. Not sure if it is right approach

. ISRO worked successfully on staged combustion and then moved to Gas generator for cryo engine.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Jul 2015 15:05

One system we could emulate without too much R&D.The US's latest winged torpedo for their P-8s.Flying at low alts is not the P-8s cup of tea for many reaons.Prosecuting subs is best using "low and slow" aircraft and helos.Thus the dev. of the wing-kit for ASW TTs dropped from P-8s.

Is there any more info on the "stealth" bomb/missiles that we saw made up of composites at Aero-I this year ? Shiv had some pics posted if I recall.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 26 Jul 2015 19:20

Philip saab , i have observed your post for a very long time about P-8I , your reasoning is , as P8I is a fast jetliner it cant fly low and thus it have low probability of detecting subs ,is an absurd argument you have been propagating through out .
go through the link http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-china-de ... 1414166686
Navy will be going for more P-8Is in near future and it have already exercised the right to get 4 additional platforms.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jul 2015 11:19

Shaun,pl read why the winged ASW torpedo has been developed.Trust it explains the rationale behind its development.

The P-8 usually does not fly at low speeds at low alt,it is less effective for a jet,greater fuel consumption,reduced endurance,stress on the aircraft,etc,unlike slower turboprops meant for the purpose.The P-8 is better flying at higher alts. This poses a problem as the torpedo will destruct if launched from that height,hence the dev. of the wing-kit.

The P-8 is to be equipped with the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability (HAAWC) Air Launch Accessory (ALA), turning a Mark 54 torpedo into a glide bomb for deploying from up to 30,000 ft (9,100 m).

It is nothing to do with the aircraft's detection capability. Our P-8Is include a MAD "sting" unlike US aircraft,sonobuoys,etc.

It features two major components not fitted on the P-8A, a Telephonics APS-143 OceanEye aft radar and a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD)

In the anti-shipping role there is no problem at all using Harpoon AShMs.It would be interesting to se whether our P-8Is will also be able in the future to carry BMos or BMos-M.

Not everyone really cares whether the operators barf in the back and believe in the P-8's higher-altitude approach. "I don't think it will work as well," noted naval expert Norman Polmar said bluntly. "It's rather controversial."

In particular, after some waffling back and forth, the Navy decided to leave off a sensor called the Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD), which can detect the metal hulls of submarines -- if the plane flies low enough. MAD was crucial to the P-3's traditional low-altitude tactics. Significantly, the P-8 variant that Boeing is building for the Indian Navy will still have it; only the U.S. Navy P-8 will not. Both Rondeau and Boeing argue that the P-8 can more than compensate with more sophisticated sensors and by using its superior computing power to interpret their data.

Traditional "maritime patrol aircraft" like the P-3 spend part of their time at high altitude but regularly swoop down, sometimes as low as 200 feet above the waves, to drop sonar buoys, scan for subs with the magnetic anomaly detector, launch torpedoes, and simply eyeball unidentified vessels on the surface. But jets like the P-8 are significantly less fuel-efficient at low altitudes than turboprops like the P-3.

For some of the new sub-hunting technologies, Rondeau argued, going higher actually gives you a better look. Today, for example, one key tool is a kind of air-dropped buoy that hits the water and then explodes, sending out a powerful pulse of sound that travels a long way through the water and reflects off the hulls of submarines, creating sonar signals that other, listening-device buoys then pick up. (The technical name is Improved Extended Echo Ranging, or IEER). Obviously, an explosive buoy can only be used once, and the sonar signal its detonation generates is not precisely calibrated. So the Navy is developing a new kind of buoy called MAC (Multistatic Active Coherent), which generates sound electronically, allowing it to emit multiple, precise pulses before its battery runs down.

American maritime patrol aircraft currently carry torpedoes as part of their armament, which serve as key weapons against enemy submarines. As any high-diver of cliff-jumper knows first hand, however, water can feel surprisingly solid after a long fall. Torpedoes still have to be released from low altitude, typically 100 feet or less above the waves. Two recent developments, however, are making this approach less practical for the US military. One is tests of sub-launched anti-air missile systems, using modified short-range air-air missiles that do not require radar guidance. The other is its selection of the 737-based P-8A Poseidon as its next maritime patrol and surface surveillance aircraft. The P-8A can perform low swoops if necessary, but its airframe is really optimized for cruising at altitude.

As these trends developed, someone in the US military asked the logical next question

“what if we could attach a JDAM-ER style glide kit with GPS guidance to a lightweight torpedo, launch from high altitude, then let the kit maneuver it into attack position and release it near sea level instead? Not only would this fit the P-8A’s strengths, it would also let us reduce airframe fatigue on the old P-3C fleet.”

Enter Lockheed’s Longshot, aka. the High Altitude ASW Weapons Concept (HAAWC).

The LongShot system is a low-cost, self-contained wing adaptor kit that can provide these capabilities to a range of existing air-to-surface munitions, including sea mines, gravity bombs, laser-guided bombs and cluster bomb dispensers. The system is self-contained and includes a flight control computer, a GPS-based navigation system, and power sources; range is up to 50 nautical miles. This makes the LongShot kit a potential competitor to Boeing’s JDAM-ER offerings.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Jul 2015 22:23

Phillip,

What do you recommend instead of the p8I, given the limitations according to you?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2015 22:24

It isn't a limitation but a different way of doing things..

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 28 Jul 2015 22:39

Agreed brar_w, just curious to hear what Philip had to say

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 28 Jul 2015 22:58

The C-295W can be used as MPA. It should complement the P-8I's and can replace the Dorniers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jul 2015 15:41

Beesh,the LTA is too small to be a replacement for the MTA.Its max payload is just under 10t,while the MTA has a 20t payload,70/150 passr. troops..The LTA is an AVRO replacement.Comparative aircraft:
ATR 72,Bombardier Dash 8,C-27J Spartan,Xian MA60.
C-295 unit cost $28M.
The LTA will complement the medium and heavy transports in service/planned. In time it could replace the approx. 100 AN-32s which are being upgraded.Upgraded AN-32 cost approx. $15M.

I was going through a Feb issue (Aero-India) of a mil mag,which had a special feature on the resurgence of Russian mil transports,where family of aircraft of diff. sizes is being built,from LTAs to super-heavy heavylifters. There was some interesting details about the proposed MTA.It has a double-deck feature capability which can accommodate over 110 paras. 150 pass.The aircraft is a smaller variant of the larger IL-476 in production.It will have the half the length/same fuselage of the IL,the same glass cockpit controls and engines. A lot of commonality.June 2015 news reports said that PS-90 engines are supposed to power the bird.

UAC chief Yuri Slyusar also said that India has agreed to install the Russian PS-90 engines on the MTAs which the two countries are jointly developing. State-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) is UAC's Indian partner on this long-delayed project.
Speaking to journalists at the Paris International Air Show, Slyusar said, "The Indians have agreed to the PS-90.

The aircraft is expected to be powered by Russian-made Aviadvigatel PD-14M turbofan engines (now PS-90s) attached to top-mounted wings,[8] and will have a T-shaped tail. The cabin size would be similar to the Ilyushin Il-76, but will be half the length, supporting a maximum payload of 20 tonnes (44,000 lb) of military or civilian cargo. The aircraft's maximum range is expected to be 2,500 kilometres (1,600 mi), and its top speed will be around 870 km/h (540 mph).[1]

Comparative aircraft for MTA:
Antonov An-72
Antonov An-178
Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules
Embraer KC-390
Kawasaki C-2

Wik costs:
MTA Unit cost
US$35–40 million

C-130J Unit cost
US$67.3 million (flyaway cost, USAF, FY2014)[2]
US$100-120 million (avg. cost, international sales)[3][4]

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 29 Jul 2015 18:12

Well Philip saab , I got your point . You are talking about probable deficiency in anti submarine weapon capability of P8-Is , right ??

Mk. 54 lightweight torpedoes ( that we have )can be retrofitted with Fish Hawk kits for High Altitude ASW Weapons Capability (HAAWC) capability.

Interesting read http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confes ... 1598415741

srai · Post by **srai** » 30 Jul 2015 03:05

^^^

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2015 08:17

subs can easily detect the dropping of sonobuoys or a LRMP plane flying low and using its MAD stinger and take evasive action or get into quiet mode.

this wing bee thing could permit standoff silent attacks via third party detecting the sub and passing on its location...like say a UUV trailing a floating radio transmitter buoy in the water.....

mody · Post by **mody** » 30 Jul 2015 16:14

Financial express reporting, IAF has asked HAL to stop work on IJT project!!

http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... 4/?ref=yfp

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jul 2015 17:09

mody wrote:Financial express reporting, IAF has asked HAL to stop work on IJT project!!

http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... 4/?ref=yfp

There is no direct governmental mechanism by which the IAF can ask HAL to start or stop something. There has to be something fake about this news.

Look at it this way. Surely, if IAF can ask HAL to stop something they can equally ask HAL to start something they want. Neither happens that way. Another way to look at it is to ask if health ministry can ask defence ministry to stop something to get on with something else the health ministry may want.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2015 17:35

Just going trough some recent mags,Textron is to collaborate with us on developing a 22.5kg PGM.Deliveries within a year once the deal is signed.The PGM can even be launched from transports (tubes) suitably modified apart from mil aircraft.Various options available for installing a variety of seeker heads. This sounds very promising and should be pursued asap.

Ckd the cost of a C-130J,the replacement for the lost bird was $88M. LTA payload given as 9.2t ,MTA same cross-section as an IL-476 ,20t,other commonality given in earlier posts,details from the the "F" mag.

P-8Is are the newest LRMP aircraft available from both east and west. We've already plumped for 8,with options for 4 more.Therefore,the Q of alternatives doesn't arise. The TU-142 Bears are/have been modernised (engines?) to serve another decade+.They were originally designed as strat. bombers,still used by Russia for the same and after the UKR crisis have been tetsting UK/NATO defences increasingly.Their huge range and endurance is of great value to the IN which can send them to attack targets in the Indo-China Sea and anywhere in the IOR and back without refuelling.Equipped with BMos and Nirbhay missiles,they will be very potent apart from regular ASW duties. We also have 5 IL-38SDs,upgraded ASW aircraft.55 or so were built bu the Soviets,with first deliveries of upgraded aircraft to the RuN this year. If there are a few more mothballed aircraft available,another 3 would be fine to augment the current fleet.8 Bears,8 IL-38SDs,and 8-12 P-8Is will give us an excellent LRMP capability. These aircraft will complement each other very well,with the P-8s equipped with US ASW sensors and weaponry,we will have the best of both Ru and the US.

I spent a couple of hours last night refreshing one on sonar tech. Extremely complex.Water/sea conditions make a huge diff. Shallow muddy waters vs deep sea. Clear Arctic seas offer great range detection unlike tropical waters. Thermal clines,etc. give flawed readings. Eevery ocean/sea has its own pecularities.The Baltic waters dreadful.Iron content in the water affects MAD,makes it useless. That's why the Swedes have had so many false alarms. marine life,etc. give false readings. They've now discoverd that the sub located is a Tsarist one.
Sweden Says Sub Wreck a Czarist Russian Vessel(http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /30810587/)
Then come sonobuoy types,TAS,VDS,etc. There are some stats reg. std. detection ranges of warships,etc. The advantage clearly lies with the sub!

What we lack are more medium MRP/ASW aircraft,greater numbers for prosecuting subs in the littorals.Here we have several options. Maritime ATRs.This type is perhaps the easiest to operate in the subcontinent,as there are so many civilian aircraft in service with more on the horizon with new low-cost airlines to operate them. If the LTA/C-295 programme is pursued faster,the ASW version of it could be acquired.Both the CG and IN require the type and a comparison could be made. I would advocate going in even for for some ASW amphibs which would fit the bill.A new ASW version of a Beriev design is being planned,smaller and much cheaper than the large expensive Japanese US-2s. One would prefer acquiring more P-8Is to US-2s. Just for the SAR/firefighting role,Beriev-200s should suffice.

IJT:If the report is true then thank the Dear Lord and GOI for pulling the plug over this farce (or is it only the IAF that has asked HAL?). When the IJT was first rolled out years ago,there was much applause and one expected that it would enter service in record time.However,a few crashes,setbacks,design flaws which HAL has been allegedly unable to rectify ,along with the dangerous reliance on the aging pensioner,the Kiran,has meant that it has past its dev. sell-by date. The IAF lost enough pilots in HT-32 crashes,over 20, and a substitute for the IJT must be acquired asap.

PS:Would the IAF say so without support or are they being asked to do so first by the MOD,to publicise their case for GOI action?

member_29112 · Post by **member_29112** » 30 Jul 2015 17:39

shiv wrote:
mody wrote:Financial express reporting, IAF has asked HAL to stop work on IJT project!!

http://www.financialexpress.com/article ... 4/?ref=yfp
There is no direct governmental mechanism by which the IAF can ask HAL to start or stop something. There has to be something fake about this news.

Look at it this way. Surely, if IAF can ask HAL to stop something they can equally ask HAL to start something they want. Neither happens that way. Another way to look at it is to ask if health ministry can ask defence ministry to stop something to get on with something else the health ministry may want.

Saar, a few days back I heard this rumour and posted it here. It may be true as people in HAL believe it to be true. The rumour is that currently only the top level management in HAL is privy to this information.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jul 2015 18:45

hsrada wrote:
Saar, a few days back I heard this rumour and posted it here. It may be true as people in HAL believe it to be true. The rumour is that currently only the top level management in HAL is privy to this information.

The same news appeared a couple of weeks ago. It was contradicted soon after by someone else. I had forgotten about it until this story was posted - and I really don't know if there is any mechanism by which the IAF can directly make HAL start or stop a program. Do you happen to know if there is? I doubt it but would be happy to learn something new.

In fact the IAF is said to have placed orders for (and presumably paid for) a few IJTs. Fine - so does this news now mean that they are asking for cancellation and money back?

The problem as I see it is that the press cannot be trusted because they have to survive in a dog eat dog world and they will publish anything for money. Now if a company that wants to supply trainers to the IAF commissions such a report we will not know for sure.

If you watch the media you find that reports are made and contradicted within hours - so there is a completely different game of reporting going on that has little to do with reality.

member_29112 · Post by **member_29112** » 30 Jul 2015 18:57

You may be right. We'll have to wait to hear more.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 30 Jul 2015 19:11

shiv wrote:

We probably need to make aerodynamic bombs. That is not so easy.

First a government committee has to recommend it and pass it on to the Ordnance factories board. OFB will have a feasibility study to see if aerodynamic bombs can be made easily or if it is simpler to import. A team of experts from OFB will visit USA, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Brazil and Israel in a fact finding mission. RFPs will be called (from Indian or foreign vendors) for the initial supply of aerodynamic bombs for a future LGB with subsequent transfer of technology under "make in India" After 3 years foreign vendors will be found to be expensive and DRDO will take up the study.

DRDO will find that a falling bomb reached transonic speeds and wil need a transonic wind tunnel. Since we have friendly relations with USA a bomb model will be taken to USA for study of Aerodynamic characteristics at transonic speeds. The development process will be expected to last 3 years.

In 2022 the first bomb drop trials will be attempted from an Su-30. trials will last up to 2023 and the successful models will be shown as mock ups in several Aero India shows and will come as 250 and 500 kg variants. A 100 kg variant will also be developed and brochures will list the 100 kg variant with an all up weight of 980 kg and range of 9 meters when dropped from 10,000 meters

The next will be a feasibility study of guidance kit. Because of national elections, floods, retirement of director etc the project gets delayed a little bit but the first tests will be done by late 2026 or early 2027. Then Air Force will be blamed for asking for something different because the world has moved on.

Om namah Shivaya. Only Shiva is eternal and unchanging

You forgot the Olive Ridley turtles and the hurt sentiments of tribals.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 30 Jul 2015 19:16

hsrada wrote:You may be right. We'll have to wait to hear more.

Okay, the word is that IJT is unable to meet stated design goals like Take Off distance. By how much and how serious is this issue, I do not know.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jul 2015 19:38

The IJT is a funny program. Funny for India that is. It was started by HAL de novo - I am unsure whether they started it as a specific IAF requirement. Maybe HAL thought they were making a Kiran replacement. Everything looked fine for 3-4 years and then BAM! the program hit an air pocket and has never recovered.

Aerospace companies in the West have a long history of starting de novo experimental programs - only with HAL it is public funds and not private risk. But you can be dead sure that a series of engineers have burnt the midnight oil and cut their teeth on IJT and built up experience. This must not be wasted. Humans do not necessarily live as long as aircraft programs and career spans may be shorter than a program.

The take-off distance data point is interesting. It reminds me of a story about why MiG 21 MOFTU was shifted to Tezpur. In the absence of an AJT the MiG had to be used as AJT - and Tezpur is at sea level so the take off performance for trainee pilots would be OK there. Not sure if my info is correct but I am reasonably sure.

The HTT 40 is also a de novo HAL program I think

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 30 Jul 2015 19:44

In keeping the distraction short, let it be known that my sentiments have been hurt by rumor mongering-e-IJT. I shall be complaining to Amnesty Internationale, Banana Republik, and Whoman Writes Swatch. So there! (end short electronic dispatch, I said full stop. Are you listening to me computer? I said submit!)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jul 2015 19:55

I wonder why takeoff distance is concern
For a land based ijt.