Indian Military Aviation

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 17 Mar 2009 04:53

Koreans lost a trainer bid recently, thanks to information withheld by Lockheed Martin.

Hope this is not some crooked American plan to appease the Koreans. Makes no sense, when we are already paying for the hawks. An LCA based trainer is also not very far away.

--Added later
Iraq is being rearmed - they too are going for the Korean T-50

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2009 07:27

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

No more Hawks, IAF to have new trainers

I would suggest making a mental note of this "news" item written by Manu Pubby. It is well worth following up such reports for a few years - which will reveal whether the "news" was an outright bluff, an attempt at a handwave, lifafa or revelation of truth.

It could be any one of these and could be leaked to try and create some kind of public pressure. What surprises me is that there is no mentions of HAL's twin engine combat attack trainer(CAT) that was desesigned as a Hawk replacement.

Defence reporting - like defence purchases is never clear black and white. There are always vested interests. That is why BRF member "reports" are so good. There is no agenda and there is no lifafa.

Maybe we need to make a separate thread for "oddball" reports that need longterm follow up.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 17 Mar 2009 07:33

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

No more Hawks, IAF to have new trainers

I would suggest making a mental note of this "news" item written by Manu Pubby. It is well worth following up such reports for a few years - which will reveal whether the "news" was an outright bluff, an attempt at a handwave, lifafa or revelation of truth.

It could be any one of these and could be leaked to try and create some kind of public pressure. What surprises me is that there is no mentions of HAL's twin engine combat attack trainer(CAT) that was desesigned as a Hawk replacement.

Defence reporting - like defence purchases is never clear black and white. There are always vested interests. That is why BRF member "reports" are so good. There is no agenda and there is no lifafa.

Maybe we need to make a separate thread for "oddball" reports that need long term follow up.

To me this appears similar to South Korea's futile attempt to drive down the cost of procuring second lot of F-15's by inviting competitive bids from other manufacturers.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Mar 2009 08:11

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

No more Hawks, IAF to have new trainers

I would suggest making a mental note of this "news" item written by Manu Pubby. It is well worth following up such reports for a few years - which will reveal whether the "news" was an outright bluff, an attempt at a handwave, lifafa or revelation of truth.

It could be any one of these and could be leaked to try and create some kind of public pressure. What surprises me is that there is no mentions of HAL's twin engine combat attack trainer(CAT) that was desesigned as a Hawk replacement.

Defence reporting - like defence purchases is never clear black and white. There are always vested interests. That is why BRF member "reports" are so good. There is no agenda and there is no lifafa.

Maybe we need to make a separate thread for "oddball" reports that need longterm follow up.

maybe a thread where we save these articles that seem spurious ? like the one by Huma Siddique on the Gripen being taken out of the MRCA race, or the ones by Vivek Raghuvanshi about Israeli radar/weapons on the Mirage-2000 upgrade..most are unsubstantiated..

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 17 Mar 2009 09:53

I think that CAT of HAL is dead due to lack of interest from any quater. The only viable Indian solution is now LCA based trainer. If one notes IAF has already ordered 4+12=16 twin seater LCAs. So IAF will have 8+16=24 Single seaters with around 16 twin seaters LCAs. I think that as IJT matures it will take up lot of roles of Hawk and twin seater LCA with F404IN20 engine can take up rest of higher end roles while providing additional flexibility.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 17 Mar 2009 10:00

shiv wrote:
It could be any one of these and could be leaked to try and create some kind of public pressure. What surprises me is that there is no mentions of HAL's twin engine combat attack trainer(CAT) that was desesigned as a Hawk replacement.

.

Yes.. there is no mention of CAT in this report.. after the problems with Hawk, LM2500 etc etc -- we still dont seem to understand the importance of "nurturing" indigenous efforts..

Anyway - one of my interests at this year's AeroIndia was to find out 'what happened to CAT'... Sadly.. very very sadly -- no one at HAL seems to have a knowledge of it.. close to 25persons at HAL pavilion I asked -- no one.. NOT A SINGLE SOUL.. remembers that HAL ever had a CAT programme.. At AI05 they had a fullscale front fuselage & cockpit mock-up.. now no one knows about it -- even the media manager of HAL.

Why MOD or IAF cannot be proactive is a question probably we wont find an answer for in decades to come.. if CAT had beeen cleared by AI07 -- by the end of Hawk production run, we could have had our own AJT..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2009 10:31

rakall wrote: Anyway - one of my interests at this year's AeroIndia was to find out 'what happened to CAT'... Sadly.. very very sadly -- no one at HAL seems to have a knowledge of it.. close to 25persons at HAL pavilion I asked -- no one.. NOT A SINGLE SOUL.. remembers that HAL ever had a CAT programme.. At AI05 they had a fullscale front fuselage & cockpit mock-up.. now no one knows about it -- even the media manager of HAL.

Why MOD or IAF cannot be proactive is a question probably we wont find an answer for in decades to come.. if CAT had beeen cleared by AI07 -- by the end of Hawk production run, we could have had our own AJT..

That is truly sad

Here are pictures of the CAT cockpit and CAT brochure from Aero India 2005

vishal · Post by **vishal** » 17 Mar 2009 11:51

India, US to ink arms deal worth Rs 10,700 crore

Extract: The United States has given the go-ahead for a $2.1 billion sale of eight Boeing Co P-8I maritime patrol aircraft to India -- the largest arms sale by the US till now.

On March 12, the State Department informed the US Congress that it had decided to clear the sale after factoring in 'political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations'.
::
::
The Indian navy, its first international customer, opted for the patrol aircraft after reviewing its various rivals, including the EADS Airbus A319.

Boeing has said it would deliver the first P-8I in 48 months of sealing the deal and the remaining seven by 2015.

vavinash · Post by **vavinash** » 17 Mar 2009 13:41

The current govt cannot sign this deal. Lets wait till the next one comes to power. I hope they send it for an indefinite review and in the mean time order a few A-319 based MPA's. I simkply don't trust US.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 17 Mar 2009 17:51

vavinash wrote:The current govt cannot sign this deal. Lets wait till the next one comes to power. I hope they send it for an indefinite review and in the mean time order a few A-319 based MPA's. I simkply don't trust US.

Funnily enough - it appears that this is exactly how all defence deals in India are delayed

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 17 Mar 2009 19:10

I think that CAT of HAL is dead due to lack of interest from any quater. The only viable Indian solution is now LCA based trainer. If one notes IAF has already ordered 4+12=16 twin seater LCAs. So IAF will have 8+16=24 Single seaters with around 16 twin seaters LCAs. I think that as IJT matures it will take up lot of roles of Hawk and twin seater LCA with F404IN20 engine can take up rest of higher end roles while providing additional flexibility.

On second thought, an LCA based trainer may be too expensive compared to the established brands in the market. All those trainer for which RFP was sent are selling at 16-22 mil a piece. With LCA costs nudging up to 30-35 mil, amortizing the additional development cost in transforming and making it a cheap trainer, LCA-LIFT may not be competitive in terms of cost or reliability.

Twin seat LCAs would be used to train the LCA specific squadrons. Assuming eventual minimum 6 sqds of LCA would be in service, IAF cannot spare this for all those going for Migs, Sukhois, Jags and Mirages. It will not, and can not double as a generic advanced jet trainer. Again cost would play a major role - a single or twin engines LCA would be much costlier than 22 mil.

I saw an global security article saying India was planning for a total of 160 AJTs and then reduced it to 66 due to money constraints. Since these are just trainers, there is no strategic constraints buying it from Mr.X or Mr.Y. Money certainly doesn't seem to be problem these days..

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 17 Mar 2009 19:26

Why issue RFI to BAE?

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 17 Mar 2009 19:39

On second thought, an LCA based trainer may be too expensive compared to the established brands in the market. All those trainer for which RFP was sent are selling at 16-22 mil a piece. With LCA costs nudging up to 30-35 mil, amortizing the additional development cost in transforming and making it a cheap trainer, LCA-LIFT may not be competitive in terms of cost or reliability.

Twin seat LCAs would be used to train the LCA specific squadrons. Assuming eventual minimum 6 sqds of LCA would be in service, IAF cannot spare this for all those going for Migs, Sukhois, Jags and Mirages. It will not, and can not double as a generic advanced jet trainer. Again cost would play a major role - a single or twin engines LCA would be much costlier than 22 mil.

wouldn't it be possible to downgrade LCA for role of AJT. I mean Koreans use T-50 which in many ways similar to LCA weight, dimensions and uses same engine.

LCA in AJT role need not have EW Systems, Radars, BVR or PGM Integration,Targeting Pods. any foreign content in avionics can be replaced by cheaper indigenous ones. this does bring down costs.
if we go by our previous defence R&D costs, they are way way low as compared to west.

two simple advantages of tejas in AJT Role
1. There will be commonality in airframe etc , mass producing will bring down unit cost.
2. order will be an encouragement to defence industry and boost to LCA program.

I saw an global security article saying India was planning for a total of 160 AJTs and then reduced it to 66 due to money constraints.

I wonder if that many aircraft are required for just one role i.e AJT. I don't think they employed that many Mig-21 trainers for AJT in past.

skher · Post by **skher** » 17 Mar 2009 20:45

Kailash wrote: I think that CAT of HAL is dead due to lack of interest from any quater. The only viable Indian solution is now LCA based trainer. If one notes IAF has already ordered 4+12=16 twin seater LCAs. So IAF will have 8+16=24 Single seaters with around 16 twin seaters LCAs. I think that as IJT matures it will take up lot of roles of Hawk and twin seater LCA with F404IN20 engine can take up rest of higher end roles while providing additional flexibility.

There is curious amount of silence regarding Sitara. Very little reports and very few press releases.So some newbie questions follow.

.Is it possible to make a very downrated and small version of Kaveri for IJT?
At least,here being underpowered isn't a problem

.

.Is CAT related to IJT? If not,how different and why necessary?

.why have both CAT and IJT at same time?

On second thought, an LCA based trainer may be too expensive compared to the established brands in the market.

That's egg-and-hen type of question...if no LCA trainer....cost goes up...and limited nos. "forced down throats"..costs go up even more.Only if LCA and all its variants are mass produced will costs go down. Perhaps the reason why Soviets(not vvery rich in 1960) made 10,158 examples of MiG-21.

A 1,000 examples of LCA, LCA trainer and NLCA would do very nicely and only then will cost come down.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 17 Mar 2009 20:52

Cost will fall if more LCA are ordered as AJTs. Also for purely AJT role, lot of equipment like radar and advanced avionics can be deleted reducing costs. Not to mention that even Kaveri engine can be used.

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 17 Mar 2009 22:18

inductinl lca as a trainer is an excellent idea and will solve many purposes but if they dont go for it then korean t-50 is next best option say ,its similarities with some f16 components ,it costs around $20mn while bae hawk costs around 20mn pounds.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 17 Mar 2009 22:51

Gurujan ke liye question. Going by what we have with regards to kaveri, i.e., we have an engine that cannot meet the ASR for our fighter program totally but does meet 90%of the requirements. How difficult will it be to build an AJT around kaveri given our experience with IJT and success with kaveri.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 17 Mar 2009 23:21

Cost will fall if more LCA are ordered as AJTs. Also for purely AJT role, lot of equipment like radar and advanced avionics can be deleted reducing costs. Not to mention that even Kaveri engine can be used.

Kaveri is the obvious choice for the engine - the amazing side effect is that the engine will also mature along with LIFT. ADA should hard-sell the idea at this time. Also IAF should have a major change in mindset - a "Go Desi" revolution.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Mar 2009 23:46

suryag wrote:Gurujan ke liye question. Going by what we have with regards to kaveri, i.e., we have an engine that cannot meet the ASR for our fighter program totally but does meet 90%of the requirements. How difficult will it be to build an AJT around kaveri given our experience with IJT and success with kaveri.

No matter what India HAS to be very realistic and not emotional in its approach to building major systems. Even the IJT was built - in record time one may add - around an engine they knew from the start would not do. Then came the selection of the Russian engine that did not exist. Leading to delays from both side.

To answer the question it is doable.

I would suggest get something out - a min_config, then improve it - version control.

these guys seem to want THE best, leading-edge, state-of-the-art. And, very little is achieved. Low ROI.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 18 Mar 2009 00:29

Rafael's promotional video for Python-5 during AI-09

[youtube]ktQOLO4U5iQ&eurl=http://livefist.blogspot.com/[/youtube]

namit k · Post by **namit k** » 18 Mar 2009 01:02

nrao,Raj Malhotra,kailash etc,
lots of thing may change if tomorrows news has a headline that kaveri project is completed as per requirements,
IMO whole planning gets boosted exponencially,
the experienced project managers,planners @DRDO,HAL,DRDL, ADA, ADE, GTRE, ARDE, ERDL, IAT,
should think about it,i mean seriously enough.

we should have thread on what effects kaveri brings if completed AP Req, tommorow

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 18 Mar 2009 05:58

Namit, Unless you have some inside news of success, it will be a waste of time to sit and speculate.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 18 Mar 2009 06:54

ajay_ijn wrote:
LCA in AJT role need not have EW Systems, Radars, BVR or PGM Integration,Targeting Pods. any foreign content in avionics can be replaced by cheaper indigenous ones. this does bring down costs.
if we go by our previous defence R&D costs, they are way way low as compared to west.

two simple advantages of tejas in AJT Role
1. There will be commonality in airframe etc , mass producing will bring down unit cost.
2. order will be an encouragement to defence industry and boost to LCA program.

I saw an global security article saying India was planning for a total of 160 AJTs and then reduced it to 66 due to money constraints.
I wonder if that many aircraft are required for just one role i.e AJT. I don't think they employed that many Mig-21 trainers for AJT in past.

Ajay here is an article from BR about the role of trainers in any air force and specifically the IAF. There are NO copyright issues and I am posting in full

It was written shortly before the Hawk was inducted. You can figure out why high performance aircraft are not/should not be used for training

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... uresh.html

Advanced Jet Trainer - Indian Air Force
Wing Cdr KS Suresh VrC (Retd)
Acquisition of the Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) for the IAF is under consideration since early 80s i.e., for over two decades. Interestingly, in this time period, has seen nine different governments in New Delhi, and seven different Chiefs of the Air Staff. In May 1986, after evaluation of a number of aircraft by experts, Indian Air Force (IAF) short-listed two aircraft, the British Hawk and the French Alpha Jet as suitable for advanced jet training. If one could make an intelligent guess as to what qualities are required of an AJT, the list would perhaps read, “AJT should be a small agile aircraft capable of transonic (high sub-sonic) speed and suitable for imparting training in air combat techniques and air to ground weapon delivery. It should possess good climb performance, high maneuverability and adequate reserve of power for air combat. The AJT should be capable of accurate delivery of modern air to ground armament stores. In its secondary role, the aircraft should be usable for close air support, counter insurgency operations, etc”.

After completion of basic training (Stage I) on HPT-32 and later (Stage II) on Kiran or Iskra aircraft, lead-in fighter training is essential before a pilot graduates to high performance supersonic aircraft. Thus the need for an AJT to teach basics of tactical flying, air combat techniques and air to ground weapon delivery in a transonic aircraft. This would not only ensure that the transition of a pilot to front line fighters is in gradual steps and also that he is able to cope easily with the increments in aircraft performance. Till 1990, most of the lead-in fighter training in the IAF was taken care of by Hunter aircraft in a unit called Operational Conversion Unit.

Air Forces the world over have always had a lead-in fighter trainer, or AJT as we call it. The USAF has had T-38, Royal Air Force (UK) Gnat Trainer and now the Hawk, erstwhile Soviet Union L200 & L300 and the European Air Forces like France, Germany, and Belgium etc the Alpha Jet. No air force in the world had ever dispensed with this stage of training on a transonic aircraft. It is most unfortunate that the IAF has had to go in for a make do system and carry out advanced jet training using MiG-21 aircraft, which is not suited for the role of AJT. The IAF had to adapt the Mig-21 in the absence of AJT and no other suitable aircraft being available, after Hunters were phased out due to ageing.

“MiG-21 trainer” is a type trainer meant for dual instruction for conversion on to MiG-21 fighter. MiG-21 is a high performance supersonic aircraft and the transition to it from the Kiran class of aircraft is a quantum jump for an inexperienced pilot. It is like going straight on to post-graduation after 12th, without completion of a graduate course. IAF has modified the syllabus with a lot of extra sorties to make the learning process gradual to the extent possible.

AJT role being performed by a MiG-21 trainer is also not a cost-effective system, as the basics of tactical flying are being taught in a high performance aircraft. Operationally, the instructor has serious limitations in teaching, as the visibility from the rear cockpit of a MiG-21 trainer is very restricted. This hinders both tactical and air combat maneuvers. Further, since the rear cockpit is not raised and there is no facility to look over the front cockpit, the instructor cannot teach sighting techniques for ground attack.

MiG-21 aircraft is powered by an engine with reheat (afterburner) system. This is a system where controlled combustion of extra fuel takes place in the jet pipe behind the turbine to boost the basic thrust of the engine. Most modern aircraft are equipped with reheated engines. Any aircraft with reheat must be considered as two different aircraft, one with reheat for combat maneuvers and the other without reheat for cruise, loiter, etc. In the MiG-21, teaching air combat maneuvers without reheat has no value, as the maneuvering gets severely limited due to inadequate thrust. The exercises must be taught with reheat on, which is how the aircraft is flown operationally. Use of reheat not only enhances energy levels but also brings about a tremendous increase in fuel consumption. The net result is a drastic reduction of repetition of maneuvers per unit time. Further, this is coupled with high crossing speeds and greater distances after crossing, both factors severely limiting visual sighting and hence the teaching value.

A transonic aircraft with a non-reheated fan engine has a distinct advantage of repetition per unit time due to economy in fuel consumption. During air combat maneuvers, crossing speeds are lower and distance after crossing would be less making it easy for visual pick off. Thus the learning curve really goes up and makes the transition to fighters much smoother.

Several Committees from La Fontaine to Kalam have recommended induction of AJT on priority. But the acquisition of AJT by IAF got bogged down for one reason or the other. Finally, in the year 2000, Ministry of Defence (MoD) concluded that the British Aerospace (BAE Systems) Hawk jet trainers met all requirements of the Air Force. MoD then opened final price negotiations with BAE Systems. Both the previous Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal AY Tipnis and the Defence Minister Mr George Fernandes announced that a final decision on the Hawks would be announced in January 2001.
However, they seemed to have reckoned without the Financial Advisors to MoD. The advisors believed that the price of the Hawk was too high. Unrestricted training notes for the Defence Services show that a Financial Advisor to MoD must ask some very pertinent questions from the service interested in any new acquisitions. These include: whether the requirement is “real” and also if it can be reduced in quantity or even postponed! The delay of two decades in acquiring the AJT has surely made a mockery of the next vital question - that of the price. Surely a smaller number of AJTs today will cost an order of magnitude more than if they had been bought in 1985 or so. But reports indicate that negotiations between a high-level MoD team, headed by a senior Air Force officer, and BAE Systems broke down only on the issue of price. The difference between the two sides was reported in the press as around Rupees 5 million for each aircraft. This may have come down further during the latest discussions. Hopefully, the issue gets resolved and the IAF gets the much needed AJT soon.

The present system of training in the MiG-21 aircraft is neither optimal nor cost effective. The basics of tactical flying, air combat maneuvers and ground attack techniques are best taught in a transonic aircraft suited for the role. IAF pilots are missing out on a very important link in their transition. One only hopes that AJT does not remain a MIRAGE. There is also a great fear of the possibility of someone in authority telling the IAF, “You have managed for the last two decades without an AJT. Surely you can continue to do without” (Pavlov’s theory).

pkudva · Post by **pkudva** » 18 Mar 2009 22:03

I understand the deal has already been signed for P-8I on Jan 1-09. The Govt can still sign deals. The elections are not a cap on the functuning of the Govt as decisions have to be taken upto 30.3.09 so there is still time and lots of work can be completed before the closure of fiscal 2008-09.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 19 Mar 2009 05:21

IDR: Indian Air Force of the Future

By Air Marshal BK Pandey
Issue: Vol. 24.1

Air Marshal BK Pandey is former AOC-in-C Training Command, IAF.

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 19 Mar 2009 07:44

shiv wrote: Ajay here is an article from BR about the role of trainers in any air force and specifically the IAF. There are NO copyright issues and I am posting in full

It was written shortly before the Hawk was inducted. You can figure out why high performance aircraft are not/should not be used for training

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... uresh.html

Advanced Jet Trainer - Indian Air Force
Wing Cdr KS Suresh VrC (Retd)
Acquisition of the Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) for the IAF is under consideration since early 80s i.e., for over two decades. Interestingly, in this time period, has seen nine different governments in New Delhi, and seven different Chiefs of the Air Staff. In May 1986, after evaluation of a number of aircraft by experts, Indian Air Force (IAF) short-listed two aircraft, the British Hawk and the French Alpha Jet as suitable for advanced jet training. If one could make an intelligent guess as to what qualities are required of an AJT, the list would perhaps read, “AJT should be a small agile aircraft capable of transonic (high sub-sonic) speed and suitable for imparting training in air combat techniques and air to ground weapon delivery. It should possess good climb performance, high maneuverability and adequate reserve of power for air combat. The AJT should be capable of accurate delivery of modern air to ground armament stores. In its secondary role, the aircraft should be usable for close air support, counter insurgency operations, etc”.

After completion of basic training (Stage I) on HPT-32 and later (Stage II) on Kiran or Iskra aircraft, lead-in fighter training is essential before a pilot graduates to high performance supersonic aircraft. Thus the need for an AJT to teach basics of tactical flying, air combat techniques and air to ground weapon delivery in a transonic aircraft. This would not only ensure that the transition of a pilot to front line fighters is in gradual steps and also that he is able to cope easily with the increments in aircraft performance. Till 1990, most of the lead-in fighter training in the IAF was taken care of by Hunter aircraft in a unit called Operational Conversion Unit.

Air Forces the world over have always had a lead-in fighter trainer, or AJT as we call it. The USAF has had T-38, Royal Air Force (UK) Gnat Trainer and now the Hawk, erstwhile Soviet Union L200 & L300 and the European Air Forces like France, Germany, and Belgium etc the Alpha Jet. No air force in the world had ever dispensed with this stage of training on a transonic aircraft. It is most unfortunate that the IAF has had to go in for a make do system and carry out advanced jet training using MiG-21 aircraft, which is not suited for the role of AJT. The IAF had to adapt the Mig-21 in the absence of AJT and no other suitable aircraft being available, after Hunters were phased out due to ageing.

“MiG-21 trainer” is a type trainer meant for dual instruction for conversion on to MiG-21 fighter. MiG-21 is a high performance supersonic aircraft and the transition to it from the Kiran class of aircraft is a quantum jump for an inexperienced pilot. It is like going straight on to post-graduation after 12th, without completion of a graduate course. IAF has modified the syllabus with a lot of extra sorties to make the learning process gradual to the extent possible.

AJT role being performed by a MiG-21 trainer is also not a cost-effective system, as the basics of tactical flying are being taught in a high performance aircraft. Operationally, the instructor has serious limitations in teaching, as the visibility from the rear cockpit of a MiG-21 trainer is very restricted. This hinders both tactical and air combat maneuvers. Further, since the rear cockpit is not raised and there is no facility to look over the front cockpit, the instructor cannot teach sighting techniques for ground attack.

MiG-21 aircraft is powered by an engine with reheat (afterburner) system. This is a system where controlled combustion of extra fuel takes place in the jet pipe behind the turbine to boost the basic thrust of the engine. Most modern aircraft are equipped with reheated engines. Any aircraft with reheat must be considered as two different aircraft, one with reheat for combat maneuvers and the other without reheat for cruise, loiter, etc. In the MiG-21, teaching air combat maneuvers without reheat has no value, as the maneuvering gets severely limited due to inadequate thrust. The exercises must be taught with reheat on, which is how the aircraft is flown operationally. Use of reheat not only enhances energy levels but also brings about a tremendous increase in fuel consumption. The net result is a drastic reduction of repetition of maneuvers per unit time. Further, this is coupled with high crossing speeds and greater distances after crossing, both factors severely limiting visual sighting and hence the teaching value.

A transonic aircraft with a non-reheated fan engine has a distinct advantage of repetition per unit time due to economy in fuel consumption. During air combat maneuvers, crossing speeds are lower and distance after crossing would be less making it easy for visual pick off. Thus the learning curve really goes up and makes the transition to fighters much smoother.

Several Committees from La Fontaine to Kalam have recommended induction of AJT on priority. But the acquisition of AJT by IAF got bogged down for one reason or the other. Finally, in the year 2000, Ministry of Defence (MoD) concluded that the British Aerospace (BAE Systems) Hawk jet trainers met all requirements of the Air Force. MoD then opened final price negotiations with BAE Systems. Both the previous Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal AY Tipnis and the Defence Minister Mr George Fernandes announced that a final decision on the Hawks would be announced in January 2001.
However, they seemed to have reckoned without the Financial Advisors to MoD. The advisors believed that the price of the Hawk was too high. Unrestricted training notes for the Defence Services show that a Financial Advisor to MoD must ask some very pertinent questions from the service interested in any new acquisitions. These include: whether the requirement is “real” and also if it can be reduced in quantity or even postponed! The delay of two decades in acquiring the AJT has surely made a mockery of the next vital question - that of the price. Surely a smaller number of AJTs today will cost an order of magnitude more than if they had been bought in 1985 or so. But reports indicate that negotiations between a high-level MoD team, headed by a senior Air Force officer, and BAE Systems broke down only on the issue of price. The difference between the two sides was reported in the press as around Rupees 5 million for each aircraft. This may have come down further during the latest discussions. Hopefully, the issue gets resolved and the IAF gets the much needed AJT soon.

The present system of training in the MiG-21 aircraft is neither optimal nor cost effective. The basics of tactical flying, air combat maneuvers and ground attack techniques are best taught in a transonic aircraft suited for the role. IAF pilots are missing out on a very important link in their transition. One only hopes that AJT does not remain a MIRAGE. There is also a great fear of the possibility of someone in authority telling the IAF, “You have managed for the last two decades without an AJT. Surely you can continue to do without” (Pavlov’s theory).

from what i understand speed, afterburner, manuverability without reheat are major issues. So we would need Tejas with non-afterburning Kaveri or GEF404 and also good performance in transonic speed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Mar 2009 08:05

ajay_ijn wrote: from what i understand speed, afterburner, manuverability without reheat are major issues. So we would need Tejas with non-afterburning Kaveri or GEF404 and also good performance in transonic speed.

In fact you don't need a hotch-potch underpowered Tejas with new non-existing engines. The design of the Tejas is for a high performance aircraft and the manufacture of its parts is more complex (and expensive) for that reason. No point wasting all that effort for an AJT - that is like trying to make Mike Tyson into a Primary school teacher, or trying to put a 800 cc Maruti engine and extra seats in an F1 car and saying that this can be a family shopping/picnic type car..

You need a separate dedicated trainer aircraft. In fact it would be easier to do design a new one from ground up - but it requires national policy to do that. If you don't have a national policy to design a trainer from ground up, you can hardly get a national policy to do a hotch-potch fiddlle on the Tejas and call it "Advanced Jet Trainer"

manish · Post by **manish** » 19 Mar 2009 14:15

X-Posting from the Misc Pics thread since I thought the reply would be OT over there.

rahuldevnath wrote:
Why cant we stick to IL-76 equipped with PS-90s?
Even during the evaluation of An-32s back in 1980's C-130's were considered better. Il-76's as well were brought off because of various strategic importance, including the barter system prevailing in that time.

Considering, now, C-17's are much better than IL-76's.. (my oppinion), has STOL capabilities, and gives better interoperability with the NATO, especially US forces. The case is similar to IAF looking out for Airbus refuellers when we already have IL-78s

Saw a C-17 coming in to land at IGI yesterday. Dunno what the purpose of visit was. Perhaps it was a refueling stop on its way to AfPak or may be some joint training ops are/were planned with the US mil. If I could just stretch things a bit and hazard a more hazardous guess, may be it was a logistics/support mission for the upcoming MRCA trials of F-18IN/F-16IN

.....

C-17, I must admit is a nice sight to see. The thing is just gigantic and quite majestic. I was at AI-07 and was mucho impressed by its short take-off and landings. I was cursing myself for not having a camera handy yesterday.

But then again, there are the issues with operational capability, cost(AFAIK each Globemaster III costs $200mil+

), range, ceiling, payload(much higher than the IL) and the fit with IAF doctrine and operational procedure do matter as Doc mentioned in the other thread, which I think some of the gurus here are better qualified to answer.

Although I am no expert I am given to understand that the Ilyushin is no slouch in rough field/short field capability either. Also the Gajraj has been performing quite well in service with no major complaints, accidents or controversies as compared to the rest of the USSR sourced heavies(IL-38/Tu-142 etc - touchwood

). But I feel re-engining them with PS-90s or CFM-56 engines would go a long way in improving their range, sfc and payload. Actually, there was a presentation put up by someone(Prasun

??) that did a comparo of the engine options I think. I will look it up once I get on a PC which can access blogspot and other such haraam sites without the nagging filtering. I think our Phalcons and the Paki Il-78MPs too are getting delivered with PS-90As.

The C-17s seem relatively much quieter as compared to the Gajraj when they come into land(TOTALLY subjective - I have had the C-17 flying low overhead in a non-airshow env just a couple of times!! - it is just that the Gajraj stomping around is guaranteed to wake you up even from deep slumber so that is my SDRE benchmark here)

I consider myself to be lucky to be able to witness IL-76 takeoff/landings at least twice a day and I must say, the sight and the thundering roar of the Soloviev D-30 equipped Gajaraj warm the cockles of this jingos heart like few other things ever could

PS:
The new engines would be much cheaper to run and service as well, right? Also one question to gurus - wouldn't the civvie origin engines like the CFM56(for the P-8I as well) fall short of 'military grade' performance?I am guessing there would be issues with, say things like requirement for sudden surges of power for short take-offs, evasive maneuvers during torpedo runs etc - I do understand it is not powering an Su-30, but there would be an altogether different emphasis on frugal fuel sipping performance and low maintenance in case of a civvie engine right?Some gyaan would be appreciated. TIA

ajay_ijn · Post by **ajay_ijn** » 19 Mar 2009 17:25

Corrosion issue grounds one-third of Russian air force MiG-29 fleet

A third of the Russian air force's RSK MiG-29 fighters have been rendered non-flightworthy, due to corrosion found during ongoing safety inspections.

Russia's defence ministry says 190 aircraft from its air force inventory of 291 MiG-29s had been checked for corrosion by mid-March, with 91 found to be in need of repair.

Possible contributory factors to the corrosion issue include the poor and simplified maintenance that Russian air force MiGs received in the 1990s and early 2000s, and the widespread use of aggressive fluids for anti-icing and to prevent the build-up of ice.

Defence ministry experts say the corrosion is unlikely to be an issue for exported MiG-29s, because Russian operating conditions are more severe than those found in most other operating nations. An Indian air force inspection of more than 70 MiG-29s has already cleared the fleet of any corrosion issue, they add.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 19 Mar 2009 19:17

In fact you don't need a hotch-potch underpowered Tejas with new non-existing engines. The design of the Tejas is for a high performance aircraft and the manufacture of its parts is more complex (and expensive) for that reason. No point wasting all that effort for an AJT - that is like trying to make Mike Tyson into a Primary school teacher, or trying to put a 800 cc Maruti engine and extra seats in an F1 car and saying that this can be a family shopping/picnic type car..

You need a separate dedicated trainer aircraft. In fact it would be easier to do design a new one from ground up - but it requires national policy to do that. If you don't have a national policy to design a trainer from ground up, you can hardly get a national policy to do a hotch-potch fiddlle on the Tejas and call it "Advanced Jet Trainer"

When you compare the cost and effort of developing an AJT from scratch to using a stripped down Tejas, how does it fare?
Also this would be best encouragement for IAF to go for an imported trainer.

sum · Post by **sum** » 19 Mar 2009 19:44

Defence ministry experts say the corrosion is unlikely to be an issue for exported MiG-29s, because Russian operating conditions are more severe than those found in most other operating nations. An Indian air force inspection of more than 70 MiG-29s has already cleared the fleet of any corrosion issue, they add.

Didnt we have 66 MiG-29s (including attrition reserves)?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Mar 2009 19:46

I've mentioned before about Pilatus' turboprop PC-21,which is so good that it can simulate advanced aircraft like the F-18,etc.It can, according to several reports in aviation mags,replace an AJT and can be used as a one-stop trainer for almost any aircraft.The cost factor makes it even more attractive.Here is just one report.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... arner.html

DATE:02/12/08
SOURCE:Flight International
FLIGHT TEST: Pilatus PC-21 - Fast learner
By Peter Collins

-- snipped --

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Mar 2009 20:35

Kailash wrote: When you compare the cost and effort of developing an AJT from scratch to using a stripped down Tejas, how does it fare?
Also this would be best encouragement for IAF to go for an imported trainer.

I can only answer this from personal interaction with a now dead person - late Wingo Suresh (my cousin) who was director Flight Safety at HAL. After the AJT was designed and test flown within 24 months of the go ahead - he had told me that it would be equally easy to take the net step up and design an advanced jet trainer with 2 engines using the same infrastructure.

I guess he mustt have been among a bunch of people who pushed for the AJT concept leading to a mock up in Aero India 2005. But Suresh was dead by then.

Here is an article about the IJT written by Suresh shortly before his death
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/ ... uresh.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Mar 2009 21:31

Hmmmmmmmm..........

Mar 19, 2009 :: IAF likely to get first Israeli Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control Systems in May

Anurag · Post by **Anurag** » 19 Mar 2009 22:07

so that's the second one I take it!

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 19 Mar 2009 22:21

Philip wrote:I've mentioned before about Pilatus' turboprop PC-21,which is so good that it can simulate advanced aircraft like the F-18,etc.It can, according to several reports in aviation mags,replace an AJT and can be used as a one-stop trainer for almost any aircraft.The cost factor makes it even more attractive.Here is just one report.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... arner.html

Thanks for the article Philip Sir. PC-21 looks impressive but would IAF be even willing to check this out ? It has not sent any request for the evaluation test.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 20 Mar 2009 04:23

Philip, as much as possible, please only post relevant excerpts to which you explicitly want to draw attention, especially for articles as big as you have posted.

MiG's rejoinder to reports on Russia's MiG-29s being grounded

"Our attention has been drawn to some media reports on ‘grounding’ of MiG-29 aircraft in Russia. This is not only incorrect but misleading. The facts are that since the early 1990s, a substantial part of the Russian Air Force MiG-29 fleet has not been operated for different, primarily budgetary, reasons.

The Indian Air Force, which has been operating MiG-29s for over 20 years, has three operational squadrons with the type. According to well informed sources, the IAF has its own system of regular maintenance and stringent technical checks and its MiG-29s continue in frontline service even as the upgradation programme is underway in Russia. Apart from this, in January 2009 RAC “MiG”, for the purpose of prompt notification of the IAF, forwarded a methodic for inspection of critical zones of the aircraft fins.

As concerns the new MiG-29K / KUB carrier-based aircraft, these have been designed and produced in full consideration of the maritime conditions in which they will be operated. These aircraft have been suitably ‘marinised’ and there is no question of any defects in the airframe structure even during the aircraft long term storage.” Indian Naval aircrew are presently converting to this type in Russia."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Mar 2009 22:31

Air Marshal Pradeep Naik to be next IAF Chief

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 20 Mar 2009 23:02

NRao wrote:Air Marshal Pradeep Naik to be next IAF Chief

Hope that he is lca, akash in short indigenous effort friendly

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 22 Mar 2009 19:36

HAL plans to develop trubo-prop plane

"IAF is planning to phase out the HPT-32 'Deepak' aircraft by 2014. We are planning to develop a new turbo-prop for training IAF's entry-level pilots in the Air Force Academy (AFA)," HAL officials told PTI here.

The new aircraft, they said, would be equipped with latest training gadgets, head-up displays, ejection seats and retractable landing gears.

"It will have on-board computers and latest display equipment to helping the pilots to hone their flying-skills," officials said.

Unlike the HPT-32s, the new tandem-seat aircraft will have an air-conditioned cockpit allowing the cadet and trainer to have a "cool" flying experience, they said.

Powered by a single-engine, the aircraft will fly at a maximum speed of around 400 kms with a service-ceiling of 6000 metres.