Indian Military Aviation

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 10 Mar 2009 21:21

Unfazed by the crash of its prototype 14-seater passenger aircraft, scientists will go ahead with the project to develop the country's first indigenous plane.

"The Saras project will continue, we will not shelve it," S K Brahmachari, Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) said. The second prototype of Saras civilian plane had crashed on Friday near Bangalore killing three IAF test pilots.

The aircraft built by National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL) was completely destroyed in the accident. NAL is one of the 37 research institutes governed by CSIR. Brahmachari has held discussions with officers of the Indian Air Force and civil aviation authorties after the accident.

He said the prototype - I of the aircraft will be modified and converted to a prototype III by fitting the higher thrust Pratt and Whitney engines.

The Union Cabinet has already approved additional funds for the project as well as for developing a 70-seater passenger aircraft.

Brahmachari, who met scientists at NAL and relatives of the deceased pilots on Saturday, said that father of one of the pilots told him that completion of the project would be a fitting tribute to his son.

Brahmachari said that after the Cabinet nod, procurement has begun to build a Production Standards Aircraft (PSA) and some of the components may be diverted for the prototype III.

its ok with the positive attitude shown by everyone associated with saras project, but who is accountable for the three lives lost, aren't the designers so dumb that they are ok with few lives lost in return to the earnings??
some standards must be there which always saves pilot's life , specially in a prototype, no matter what type of design they fly

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 10 Mar 2009 21:53

Namit, there is only so much one can do in when something goes wrong in-flight. You either follow the pre-defined SOPs specific for that situation, or try to contact the OEM to obtain technical inputs, or innovate when nothing works. All of the above assume that you have the time to execute those steps, which you may not necessarily have.

some standards must be there which always saves pilot's life , specially in a prototype, no matter what type of design they fly

While you have a record of ridiculous statements in the past, this one takes the cake. There are no "golden standards / mechanisms" which can save a pilot's life, in all emergencies for fully-tested / in-production aircrafts, let alone the aircrafts which are still in design / testing. If we did have such a magic bullet, there wouldn't be any deaths in aviation, _anywhere_, which obviously is not the case.

Calling the designers as dumb, because of not having designed a magic bullet conceptualized by yourself shows your ignorance. It is because test pilots are willing to take such high risks, that they deserve all the more respect. Lastly, the official investigation is still on, can you not wait until it is out before commenting on who is responsible for the crash ( your dumb designers comment) ?

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 10 Mar 2009 22:07

JaiS wrote:Namit, there is only so much one can do in when something goes wrong in-flight. You either follow the pre-defined SOPs specific for that situation, or try to contact the OEM to obtain technical inputs, or innovate when nothing works. All of the above assume that you have the time to execute those steps, which you may not necessarily have.

some standards must be there which always saves pilot's life , specially in a prototype, no matter what type of design they fly

While you have a record of ridiculous statements in the past, this one takes the cake. There are no "golden standards / mechanisms" which can save a pilot's life, in all emergencies for fully-tested / in-production aircrafts, let alone the aircrafts which are still in design / testing. If we did have such a magic bullet, there wouldn't be any deaths in aviation, _anywhere_, which obviously is not the case.

Calling the designers as dumb, because of not having designed a magic bullet conceptualized by yourself shows your ignorance. It is because test pilots are willing to take such high risks, that they deserve all the more respect. Lastly, the official investigation is still on, can you not wait until it is out before commenting on who is responsible for the crash ( your dumb designers comment) ?

not to mention thousands of those dumb designers who left the country leaving smarter ones behind,?
yes pilots risk their lives while testing a prototype,
but that doesn't mean that it is taken for granted that they are worthless,this is shown from that official's statement,which is my point,
if there is no golden magical bullet that saves lives then it's the designer's responsibility to make such
we don't see such high frequency accidents in any other air force
also just see the safety records of Indian jets, so many had crashed, means the problem is still circulating.

maybe my statement seem ridiculous to anyone but it doesn't causes a crash!

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 10 Mar 2009 22:34

namit k wrote: not to mention thousands of those dumb designers who left the country leaving smarter ones behind,?
yes pilots risk their lives while testing a prototype,
but that doesn't mean that it is taken for granted that they are worthless,this is shown from that official's statement,which is my point,
if there is no golden magical bullet that saves lives then it's the designer's responsibility to make such
we don't see such high frequency accidents in any other air force

also just see the safety records of Indian jets, so many had crashed, means the problem is still circulating.

maybe my statement seem ridiculous to anyone but it doesn't causes a crash!

boss, understand one thing- test pilot's jobs are risky. military aviation has a certain risk element to it that every single military pilot has to accept, or else quit.

from your statements, its rather glaringly obvious that you are not an aviation engineer and are not remotely related to the aviation industry. do you have any clue how much work is done to make sure that EVERY single part on the aircraft, from primary structures to bolts and hinges, from secondary structures like panels, to systems brackets, is CERTIFIED labouriously to ensure it doesn't fail ?? we take YEARS to certify all the thousands of parts on the airplane before it can even fly as a prototype. yet, its a machine and even with extensive testing, somewhere a mistake may occur, which is why there is so much flying done before an aircraft is certified as being airworthy. for absolutely crucial systems, redundancies are built in, but it cannot be done for all parts and all systems. understand that. it cannot be done because there are space, weight, cost and a myriad of other constraints that an arm-chair enthusiast like you won't understand.

tell me, what magic bullet exists on the B-737 so that it won't crash ? even in the recent Schipol crash, the pilots died, didn't they ? and thats with a tried and tested B-737, so with a prototype that has new systems that aren't fully tested, the risks are that much greater.

and if you've actually been reading the news (or even BRF itself) properly, you'd know that military crashes are not restricted to the IAF. in fact, the IAF's attrition rate is now among the better ones of the world. the USAF (if thats what your golden standard is) has them all the time. want to try and tabulate how many of their prototypes (not even in service military or civilian planes and helicopters) have crashed ? or else, we could just be like some other air forces, like PAF, and conserve fleet hours and fly less..attrition will automatically come down a bit, but in contingencies, pilots will be that much less experienced.

just coming to BR and painting a picture of incompetent engineers will not do. in fact, BRF has gone down several notches with an infusion of newbies who are eager to post, but don't really know what to write, so they come up with a load of tripe.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 10 Mar 2009 22:42

Namit K wrote: not to mention thousands of those dumb designers who left the country leaving smarter ones behind,?

Namit, apparently it is difficult for you to desist from name-calling.

Namit K wrote:
but that doesn't mean that it is taken for granted that they are worthless,this is shown from that official's statement,which is my point,

Which statement, be specific. And address all those points from my previous post which have shown you to be hot-gassing.

if there is no golden magical bullet that saves lives then it's the designer's responsibility to make such

No, because namit k the aerospace guru thought about such a magical bullet, he should come up with such contraptions. You might end up discovering a few new laws of physics in the process which again would be a good thing.

Namit K wrote:
we don't see such high frequency accidents in any other air force

Another statement, full of hot-air, zilch evidence or data to back-it-up. Come back when you have any real information.

Namit K wrote:
maybe my statement seem ridiculous to anyone but it doesn't causes a crash!

You can definitely take out maybe from the above statement, and while your statements do not cause a plane crash, they do cause the level of discussion here to go down immensely.

So, namit, in a nutshell, your statements are full of ignorance and name calling. You refuse to comment on those points of yours' which have been refuted, and your english is difficult to comprehend. You are well on your way to being an official troll. Congratulations.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Mar 2009 09:18

namit k wrote: if there is no golden magical bullet that saves lives then it's the designer's responsibility to make such
we don't see such high frequency accidents in any other air force
also just see the safety records of Indian jets, so many had crashed, means the problem is still circulating.

maybe my statement seem ridiculous to anyone but it doesn't causes a crash!

Namit - I would be interested in seeing a comparison of accident rates of the Indian Air Force with the USAF, RuAF, PLAAF and PAF from 2004 to 2008.

You seem to have figures at your fingertips - so I am asking you to go beyond rhetoric and show me the figures.

Oh by the way - the Saras was not an Indian Air Force aircraft.

kobe · Post by **kobe** » 11 Mar 2009 10:47

shiv-ji,

regarding namit_k jaaney do, bachcha hai

internet allows anyone and everyone to say any jibbrish,
for all i know he could be a chinese flame-baiter

not worth the LCD monitor its written on

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Mar 2009 11:20

kobe wrote:shiv-ji,

regarding namit_k jaaney do, bachcha hai

internet allows anyone and everyone to say any jibbrish,
for all i know he could be a chinese flame-baiter

not worth the LCD monitor its written on

I agree - but there is method in my madness.
If he is a baccha he will learn
If he is a troll - he will be shown up and be put in line for banning.

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 12 Mar 2009 02:52

Its really a unfortunate event, and there can be no words enough to describe them. Rest in Peace!

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 13 Mar 2009 00:14

Indian Air Force gets first director general operations.

New Delhi, March 12 (IANS) Air Marshal D.C. Kumaria Thursday became the first ever director general operations of the Indian Air Force (IAF).

Kumaria, commissioned as a fighter pilot in the flying branch of the IAF on July 2, 1973, took charge in a ceremony at the Air Headquarters here, an official statement said.

Kumaria is a graduate of the Defence Services Staff College, in Tamil Nadu, and also a qualified weapons instructor having undergone the course in Britain and a fighter combat leader. He has also served as a directing staff at the Tactics and Air Combat Development Establishment (TACDE).

Kumaria brings with him vast experience to the office of the director general operations, said an IAF official.'He has held many important field and staff appointments in his service career. He has been assistant advisor (Air) at the Indian high commission in Dhaka, and has served as a defence attache at the Indian embassy in Rome,' the official said.

Kumaria has also written the Air Power Doctrine of the IAF in 1994.

'He has commanded a frontline Jaguar squadron specialising in Maritime Strike Role as well as a fighter air base and has had operational experience of flying all versions of the MiG-21 and Jaguar aircraft.

'He has also functioned as the principal director of concept studies at the Air Headquarters,' the official added.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 13 Mar 2009 02:18

Flight safety statistics for USAF
http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/doc ... 19-068.txt

http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/doc ... 07-052.pdf

Although even a single crash or fatality is a sad occurrence, but on comparison the recent IAF safety record doesnt look as bad as some of us believe it is.....Btw iam not trying to trivialize crashes or fatalities, its not really my intention and ideally a single crash or fatality shouldnt happen.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 Mar 2009 20:28

Srivastav wrote:Flight safety statistics for USAF
http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/doc ... 19-068.txt

http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/doc ... 07-052.pdf

Although even a single crash or fatality is a sad occurrence, but on comparison the recent IAF safety record doesnt look as bad as some of us believe it is.....Btw iam not trying to trivialize crashes or fatalities, its not really my intention and ideally a single crash or fatality shouldnt happen.

Thank you for taking the trouble.

The other reason I asked the question is that i did exactly the same search some years ago. Statistis from nations like China and Pakistan do not exist at all in public sources. you do find some stats from free-er countries - including Europe, Singapore and South Korea.

I am reminded of a morbid medical joke in Bangalore. If an operating theater gets contaminated with Tetanus it has to be closed down. Ever hospital must check its own theatres and have statistics. One particular Nursing Home claimed that the problem of Tetanus did not exist in their operating theaters. Naturally - it could not exist because they never bothered to check. People on the net tend to get moved by the presence of Indian stats and imagine that absence of stats proves absence of accidents.

That is rubbish of course.

Srivastav · Post by **Srivastav** » 13 Mar 2009 21:33

Sir, media doesnt help either. Instead of showing people comparison between us and other air forces, they tend to sensationalize each crash and fatality.
I still remember when the movie "rang de basanti" came out, my friends who knew of my interest in Indian forces etc tried to lecture me about the sorry state of our equipment and every one had the word "flying coffin" on their lips.

Anantz · Post by **Anantz** » 13 Mar 2009 22:29

Yup same thing happened to me, and I gave them a good one hour long lecture on Mig 21s and how they performed during Cope India exercises, and after that none dares to call it Flying Coffins again lest I give them another hour worth of lecture!

I guess its up to people like us to educate everyone around us on things like this.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Mar 2009 02:18

Anantz wrote:Yup same thing happened to me, and I gave them a good one hour long lecture on Mig 21s and how they performed during Cope India exercises, and after that none dares to call it Flying Coffins again lest I give them another hour worth of lecture!
I guess its up to people like us to educate everyone around us on things like this.

same here..that one movie probably caused more damage to the MiG-21's reputation than any other media article or coverage..even dimwits who'd never read a newspaper in their lives now called it the "Flying Coffin"..after all the decades where the MiG-21 has been the backbone of the IAF, serving almost in all possible roles of a fighter (interceptor, strike, recon, advanced training).

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 14 Mar 2009 08:22

India worried as Russia grounds MiG-29 fleet

m mittal · Post by **m mittal** » 14 Mar 2009 08:55

Mig-35 for sure is doomed.

I guess now we can count out Mig-35 from 126 MRCA deal.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 14 Mar 2009 09:23

JTull wrote:India worried as Russia grounds MiG-29 fleet

as if algeria returning Mig-29 wasn't enough, Russian state of Mig-29 fleet. forget about Mig-35, we are already aquiring new Mig-29Ks and upgrading IAF Mig-29s. what abt them?

kmc_chacko · Post by **kmc_chacko** » 14 Mar 2009 09:31

JTull wrote:India worried as Russia grounds MiG-29 fleet

What about Migs we are having

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Mar 2009 10:05

there have been umpteen delays in the Mig29K delivery....though the media like a broken record can only harp on domestic project delays.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Mar 2009 10:28

Our Mig-29 have been flying , no large scale grounding has taken place due to structural defects , none has so far fallen from sky due to structural defects.

The problem with Russian Mig-29 may have been due to lack of proper maintenance over the period of years , leading to corrosion and structural defects.

Their grounding may also be a precutionary step , as they lost couple of them due to structural defects

bijeet · Post by **bijeet** » 14 Mar 2009 12:49

kmc_chacko wrote:
JTull wrote:India worried as Russia grounds MiG-29 fleet
What about Migs we are having

Here we go:
India worried as Russia grounds MiG-29 fleet

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 14 Mar 2009 16:45

what structural defects are they talking about, why these defects were not found in Indian migs

should we start considering su33 or su30 naval version, at least it is a bit more heavier but that goes to the payload capacity and we could mkize it

we would be considering more than 60 mig29k in future,but it is an old system and now more defects come

therefore should go for su33/35bm

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 14 Mar 2009 19:11

India's Mig-29s are safe

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 14 Mar 2009 20:44

m mittal wrote:Mig-35 for sure is doomed.

I guess now we can count out Mig-35 from 126 MRCA deal.

If we used every single adverse report about every single aircraft (or defence system for that matter), we'd not have any contenders for the contracts....

... just coz some news like this comes out, doesn't mean that the aircraft is out. Just the same way that Pakistan having F-16s will not kick out the F-16 from the MMRCA...

make no mistake, our IAF guys will definitely keep an healthily close eye on these happenings, and it will definitely be taken into account when the buy is made. But there will be no kneejerk exits - the MMRCA isn't american idol. IAF will make sure that they know the problem and will try and ensure that the MMRCA aircraft will not face that.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 14 Mar 2009 21:49

Parijat Gaur wrote:India's Mig-29s are safe

while India was crying and struggling with operating Mig-29s after soviet collapse, i used to wonder how Russians managed giganic fleet with tiny little budgets and bad state of defence industry. Even today the budget doesn't seem to be enough to for such a massive fleets with various types strategic bombers, air defence, air superiority, point air defence, deep strike, tactical yada yada in hundreds of numbers. US itself was struggling to sustain various types, hence standardizing on few types.

Div · Post by **Div** » 15 Mar 2009 08:38

Austin wrote:Our Mig-29 have been flying , no large scale grounding has taken place due to structural defects , none has so far fallen from sky due to structural defects.

The problem with Russian Mig-29 may have been due to lack of proper maintenance over the period of years , leading to corrosion and structural defects.

Their grounding may also be a precutionary step , as they lost couple of them due to structural defects

I agree that the Indian Fulcrums are probably not in any way close to the derelict state of some Russian units. But, this should be quite the warning about adding any new Migs...too late for the IN, but hopefully the IAF won't fall for the Mig-35.

Kapil · Post by **Kapil** » 15 Mar 2009 11:07

I think we have lost one Mig 29 due to a mid air fin seperation.
I am not sure about the details now ,but the pilot managed to eject and was not allowed to fighters again.
The russians blamed us for it and we blamed them.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 16 Mar 2009 04:15

Div wrote:
Austin wrote:Our Mig-29 have been flying , no large scale grounding has taken place due to structural defects , none has so far fallen from sky due to structural defects.

The problem with Russian Mig-29 may have been due to lack of proper maintenance over the period of years , leading to corrosion and structural defects.

Their grounding may also be a precutionary step , as they lost couple of them due to structural defects
I agree that the Indian Fulcrums are probably not in any way close to the derelict state of some Russian units. But, this should be quite the warning about adding any new Migs...too late for the IN, but hopefully the IAF won't fall for the Mig-35.

Structural defect probably mean materal fatigue. Maintnace may not have anything to do with it. It may be that some Russian migs have flows more hours. In any case, the russian stuff seems to be a bit unreliable. Both mig29 and the MKI's have had so many problems. IAF urgently needs to prochure a good, high quality fighter. A good bet could be the F-16. It is a proven and robust machine. India could even get the entire assembly line for the fighter.

Mihaylo · Post by **Mihaylo** » 16 Mar 2009 05:14

Rishirishi wrote:
Structural defect probably mean materal fatigue. Maintnace may not have anything to do with it. It may be that some Russian migs have flows more hours. In any case, the russian stuff seems to be a bit unreliable. Both mig29 and the MKI's have had so many problems. IAF urgently needs to prochure a good, high quality fighter. A good bet could be the F-16. It is a proven and robust machine. India could even get the entire assembly line for the fighter.

Highly unlikely that IAF would go for F16s for 1) Pakistan already has it and so are already aware of its capabilities 2) End User licence would likely by restrictive 3) The US can't be trusted as simple as that. For that matter, any US plane for the MRCA is not a possibility.

I'd rather see the Rafale in IAF colors.
Just my two cents.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 16 Mar 2009 05:42

100th AN-32 dedicated to nation after overhaul

Trip to Indian Air Force Museum

IAF not to ground its MiG-29 fighters for now

"We continue to fly our MiG-29s, which were inducted in the mid-1980s, from our airbases at Halwara and Jamnagar. We have our own method of regular maintenance and other technical checks, which are underway," a senior officer said on Sunday.

"Our checks are stringent since we operate our MiG-29s also from coastal airbases (Jamnagar) and Russian metallurgy is susceptible to salinity," he added.

In fact, India signed a huge $964 million contract with Russia in March 2008 for an extensive mid-life upgrade programme of its MiG-29s. Under it, six Indian MiG-29s are already in Russia for the refit, while the rest will progressively undergo it at IAF base repair depot at Nasik under transfer of technology.

"Our MiG-29s are already slated for a full life-extension and structural check. The project will be completed by March 2014," said the officer.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Mar 2009 07:39

Rishirishi wrote: IAF urgently needs to prochure a good, high quality fighter. A good bet could be the F-16. It is a proven and robust machine. India could even get the entire assembly line for the fighter.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/ ... es_071021/

The F-16 is known in Air Force circles as the “lawn dart” for its tendency to plunge back to Earth when its single engine flames out, and in most years, engine failure causes more accidents than any other factor. But pilot error was responsible for about the same number of F-16 accidents as engine failure in the past year.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 16 Mar 2009 08:57

Yup, the good old Indian defence forces!! Ok to fly suspect 29s. What do you think the response would have been if this had been LCAs? The Arjun with the slightest fault is a Dabba too. Yup, very demanding with local supply (no phoren trips, no Heineken in bed) but phoren maal is A-OK!!

God help us!

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 16 Mar 2009 09:37

Leaving the grounding of Mig-29s aside, Is it really wise to buy from a dying company like Mig. Quality of product is one thing but one also needs after sales support. Migs survival is solely dependent on IN's acquisition of Mig-29K and Mig-35 for MMRCA. Mig-29K won't be sufficient to keep Mig afloat and IF Mig-35 is not chosen for MMRCA then only god knows what will happen to IAF Mig-29s and IN Mig-29K.

I am not sure whether we have such deep TOT to manufacture each and every nut-bolt of Fulcrum.

Cheers....

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 16 Mar 2009 10:33

I think Russia has began process of merging Mig into UAC but large debt is a real worry for them. Still Russia has enough reserves to solve the problems.
http://www.kommersant.com/p1011717/MiG_liabilities/

MiG was incorporated in March of 2008, and 100 percent of its stocks will be transferred to UAC in 2009. The corporation builds MiG-29 fighter jets of various modification as well as MiG-31E. Its order portfolio is roughly $4 billion and the 2011 to 2012 options account for $2.5 billion.

MiG and Sukhoi merge
www.russianavia.net

Integration of the two basic companies in Russian aviation is a logical step forward in developing the strategy of United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) that envisages the merge of the assets of transport, civil and military aviation. As Pogosyan noted, today Sukhoi and MiG render over 60% of the total supplies of aviation equipment produced by UAC enterprises.

According to him, integration of the two companies is necessary for successful competition on the global market, and he sees his role as both integrator of the production and safeguard of the independence of the two companies and of the segments that each of the companies operates in.Sukhoi is already part of UAC. Entry of MiG in UAC is the next step of developing the Corporation. Pogosyan said that, before discussing how both companies will work together, it is necessary to solve MiG’s current problems. The brands will remain after the merge, as well as their product ranges, which will be complementary for a broader satisfaction of the contractors for this type of aircraft.

A military aviation business unit will be created on the basis of MiG and Sukhoi, according to Mikhail Pogosyan. This business unit will become the daughter structure of UAC. He also mentioned plans to create a managing company that will coordinate the work of this business unit, keeping the current executive bodies in each of the member companies.Today Su and MiG jet fighters hold 25% of the world market of military aviation, as Mikhail Pogosyan informed the press during Bangalore’s Aero India 2009. Pogosyan was appointed General Director of Russian Aircraft Corporation (RAC) MiG in December, 2008.

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 16 Mar 2009 23:54

rishirishi - what problems with the MKI?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 17 Mar 2009 01:12

It has some engine problems very long time back.

Also there were some issue or shortage with tires for the craft. Don't remember specifics. In the same lines, Russian vendors were causing issues not transferring the required equipments and spares to HAL. Russians make as much money selling their crafts as maintaining and supplying spares for them. Though I am not sure how much better the American crafts are in this respect.

skher · Post by **skher** » 17 Mar 2009 01:52

neerajb wrote:Leaving the grounding of Mig-29s aside, Is it really wise to buy from a dying company like Mig. Quality of product is one thing but one also needs after sales support. Migs survival is solely dependent on IN's acquisition of Mig-29K and Mig-35 for MMRCA. Mig-29K won't be sufficient to keep Mig afloat and IF Mig-35 is not chosen for MMRCA then only god knows what will happen to IAF Mig-29s and IN Mig-29K.

I am not sure whether we have such deep TOT to manufacture each and every nut-bolt of Fulcrum.

Cheers....

saar,clearly TINA (there is no alternative) factor is looming.Is it possible to upgrade MiG-29 & MiG-29k to Mig-35 standard? If yes,we should go for it and politely tell our friend abt our intentions & ask them to withdraw from the competition.

MiG-35 in MMRCA is pointless.

After Sukhoi's merger with MiG,will the spares problem be solved?
Can the MiGs be tweaked to accept respective or equivalent Sukhoi parts and function smoothly?

Which post-soviet country holds key to the MiGs/Sukhoi spares issue?

Since many of them are either near bankruptcy or have become heavily dependent on Russia for oil etc.,some economic 'aid' could make them feel happy to help.

Our JVs with Russia,for some reasons,seems to be stuck with paperwork.Otherwise,FGFA & MTA should been in testing phases by now.

The other option is quite radical,risky,demands political huge will but with long-term benefits.It involves paper-clipping of NRI and the best brainpower into the indigenous programs of LCA Mk.I/II/NLCA,UCAV and MCA.

Perhaps France,EADS and Israel would be happy to help and rake in the millions.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 17 Mar 2009 04:46

This just doesn't make sense, after investing thousands of crores in Hawk...

No more Hawks, IAF to have new trainers

...
While the IAF ordered 66 Hawk trainers in 2004 — the deal was signed in the last few weeks of the NDA Government — after a procurement procedure that lasted almost two decades, it has now shelved plans for an additional 40 trainers and has sent fresh Request for Proposals (RFPs) to six aviation majors across the world.
...

The fresh tender has been sent to six contenders — Italy’s Alenia Aermacchi for the M-346, the Korean T 50, the Chez L 159, the Russian YAK 130, BAE’s new Hawk and the MiG AT trainer.

...
The decision by the IAF to go in for a new trainer is also likely to affect the Navy’s plan to acquire 17 trainers. While the Navy was planning to order them as part of a follow-on order from BAE, it may now go in for the new trainer that will be shortlisted by the IAF.

...

vivek_ahuja · Post by **vivek_ahuja** » 17 Mar 2009 04:49

RaviBg wrote:This just doesn't make sense, after investing thousands of crores in Hawk...

No more Hawks, IAF to have new trainers

Looks like the IAF and the IA have decided to ensure that every arms company in the world reports profits with Indian money even if means that the respective TO&E of the country's air force and army looks like a bloody circus.