Indian Military Aviation

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Feb 2009 10:05

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 Feb 2009 10:21

SSridhar wrote:IAF reluctant for more Hawk trainers

So, they propose to carry on with only 66 airframes or add another new airframe to the already diverse inventory (The LCA/LIFT is still very far off)?

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 10:53

SSridhar wrote:IAF reluctant for more Hawk trainers

This is pure bullshit stuff from IAF.. if the news piece is true..

For the last 3-4years HAL had been touting a AJT programme which they called CAT.. they even had a CAT front fuselage + cockpit mockup at one of the AeroIndia shows.. AI05, i think..

then the IAF got Hawk and armtwisted MoD into a follow-on order.. and let CAT slip into oblivion..

The saddest thing is except a few jingo's, even HAL people forgot about CAT.. this AeroIndia - I asked Ten HAL people (most of them in suits with neck-tie, who seemed to be high-placed in HAL) and none of then knows about CAT.

for i = 1 to n,

BR question: Sir, what is the status of CAT? Have you put a proposal to GoI?
HAL answer: What is that? what programme?

BR question: Sir it is the in-house AJT design that HAL had..
HAL answer: Oh.. AJT.. yes.. we are already manufacturing the Hawk..

BR question: No. sir.. it is your own HAL design..
HAL answer: Oh.. you mean IJT.. we have two protos flying..

BR question: No. sir.. not IJT. In house AJT. you even had a mockup at previous AeroIndia..
HAL answer: Hm... I dont know.. Ask that person..

repeat..

So that is the story.. if IAF had cleared CAT proposal.. by now FSED would have been over.. Unless IAF wants the LCA-Trainer to be the AJT.. the next stage of training after IJT to be on LCA-Trainer.. which I do not think is an optimum training solution.

Update on IJT

Both prototypes have been salvaged.. Very minor damage on the Proto that belly landed before AI09.. Both are fitted with AL-55I and will start flight-testing soon.. So except the fact that IJT missed air-display at AI09.. not much affect on the IJT flight testing programme..

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 16 Feb 2009 12:10

rakall wrote:The saddest thing is except a few jingo's, even HAL people forgot about CAT.. this AeroIndia - I asked Ten HAL people (most of them in suits with neck-tie, who seemed to be high-placed in HAL) and none of then knows about CAT.

Sorry for this seemingly dumb question, but why do we need another AJT when we're inducting Hawks in such large numbers? Shouldn't we (HAL/DRDO) be focussing on more on projects like LCA/LCH/MRTA/IJT/FGFA which they're already neck deep into? I'm not against desi stuff here, but its almost as if we're obsessed to putting a finger in every pie. There's no doubt we'll be able to manufacture an AJT of interntional standards albeit with some delays, but why develop it just for the heck of it? Its not as if we have our own LMs, Boeings, GDs, Sikorskys and Bells. We have just one HAL aspiring to do everything that the above mentioned guys are doing since decades!

I say first complete the LCA, IJT, LCH and all other projects else that HAL's 'promised and tamtamed' about all these years. I say good they've forgotten the AJT, it will only mean one less 'tall claim' to hide their delays behind.

I'm sorry if i've hurt any sentiments here, but mujhse raha nahi gaya.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2009 12:19

DM, because the hawk is a pretty old design with not much scope for improvement and secondly but more importantly, IAF itself wants one.

did you read the article BTW ?
ideally, yes we would like to make everything inhouse.

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 16 Feb 2009 12:53

Dmurphy wrote:
rakall wrote:The saddest thing is except a few jingo's, even HAL people forgot about CAT.. this AeroIndia - I asked Ten HAL people (most of them in suits with neck-tie, who seemed to be high-placed in HAL) and none of then knows about CAT.
....
I say first complete the LCA, IJT, LCH and all other projects else that HAL's 'promised and tamtamed' about all these years. I say good they've forgotten the AJT, it will only mean one less 'tall claim' to hide their delays behind.

I'm sorry if i've hurt any sentiments here, but mujhse raha nahi gaya.

I absolutely agree with you. DRDO and HAL seem to have their hands fulls of everything under the Sun. Why not prioritise some of these and put them on higher gear instead of growing vegetables in high altitudes? Diffused focus can lead to more delays.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2009 12:59

I absolutely agree with you. DRDO and HAL seem to have their hands fulls of everything under the Sun. Why not prioritise some of these and put them on higher gear instead of growing vegetables in high altitudes? Diffused focus can lead to more delays.

an incredibly misinformed comment.

do you think the same set of people do both and that leads to "diffused focus" ??

growing vegetables in high altitudes, creating customised drinks that do not freeze in subzero conditions and rearing angora rabbits are very important projects for the soldiers stationed at those altitudes. just ask RayC about the veges being grown there with DRDO's help.

it may not be as glamorous as a tank or a fighter jet but that does not mean they are not important.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 13:26

TIDBIT

Looks like Upgraded Jags have 2052

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 Feb 2009 13:30

rakall wrote:TIDBIT

Looks like Upgraded Jags have 2052

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 16 Feb 2009 13:36

rakall wrote:TIDBIT

Looks like Upgraded Jags have 2052

Then why not LCA

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2009 14:07

rakall wrote:TIDBIT

Looks like Upgraded Jags have 2052

Looks like ?? Confirmed ?? Maritime Jags or all upgraded jags ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2009 14:13

maritime. 2032 was reported earlier.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2009 14:15

2052 on JAG.. that's a huge game changing move.. Makes it A-A along with mud-mover role...

How sure are we of this tidbit ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2009 14:17

yes, rakall boss, any more details would be much appreciated.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 14:18

Cybaru wrote:
rakall wrote:TIDBIT

Looks like Upgraded Jags have 2052

Looks like ?? Confirmed ?? Maritime Jags or all upgraded jags ?

All Jags upgraded under the HAL jag upgrade..

I said "looks like" because the person did not tell me it was 2052.. he kept evading the question..

I asked him "is it mechanically scanned array"..
He said "no.. it has phase shifers.. there are phase shifters here & here and so on".. basically "phase shifters" and the way he painted dots in the air matches with the way 2052 looks..

Thats why i said "look like".. and not "confirmed".

At Elta stall.. i got "we are supplying a variety of systems.. we cannot talk about"

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2009 14:22

All Jags upgraded under the HAL jag upgrade..

btw, won't the old boxy nose be difficult to fit an antenna in ?
do the upg jags show any mod in nose ? need to check.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2009 14:32

rock-all is this for the twin seaters ?

here's a vid of these : http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/7416/iaf-j ... power.html

of course, they don't sport the boxy nose, so that would make sense.

added later :
http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Sep ... ollingnews

The HAL is carrying out another development programme for the Jaguar fleet which includes additional features like an advanced radar system.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 14:36

Rahul M wrote:
All Jags upgraded under the HAL jag upgrade..

btw, won't the old boxy nose be difficult to fit an antenna in ?
do the upg jags show any mod in nose ? need to check.

No.. the jags dont have boxy nose anymore.. the Upgraded jags have a GFRP radome made by NAL's FRP division.

A Jag on static display (will try to post photo) was shown with a 1000lb LGB on the centerline..

Also overheard some ADE people talking that Jaguar has been designated as the platform for the first test of Sudharshan whenver it happens..

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2009 14:37

Do we have a new 8*10 or such dedicated screen for it in the upgraded pics ? I haven't found anything.

Mihir.D · Post by **Mihir.D** » 16 Feb 2009 14:40

Did you hear anything about plans to re-engine Jags?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2009 14:42

rakall wrote: A Jag on static display (will try to post photo) was shown with a 1000lb LGB on the centerline..

Also overheard some ADE people talking that Jaguar has been designated as the platform for the first test of Sudharshan whenver it happens..

But you only need LDP for that right ? Why would you need a radar for it ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2009 14:43

cybaru, I don't think that rad and sudarshan has a connection.

check the deccan herald link I posted. IAF is itself looking for rad equipped jags, for better SA I guess. makes sense.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 14:46

Cybaru wrote:
rakall wrote: A Jag on static display (will try to post photo) was shown with a 1000lb LGB on the centerline..

Also overheard some ADE people talking that Jaguar has been designated as the platform for the first test of Sudharshan whenver it happens..
But you only need LDP for that right ? Why would you need a radar for it ?

Actually the connection is between the last 2 sentences.. Jaguar & Sudharshan.. not with the radar part..

I was actually surprised that Jag has been chosen as the test platform for Sudharshan because it was not the most effective LGB platform from kargil experience.. Mirage was.. so that is what I meant by the Jag & Sudharshan connection.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2009 14:48

Ah ok... That makes sense... Thanks for clarifying.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 16 Feb 2009 14:51

He told The Hindu that the trainer which will be a derivative of the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas would be far superior to the Hawk and could be flying in five to six years.

RM, I don't wanna drag this discussion for too long. But it seems the first AJT COULD be up and flying in 6 years, the scientific advisor says. Thats without taking into account the testing phase, then time to include the eventual changes in the GSQR later on, so on and so forth. Thats assuming the HAL people at AI 2009 start recalling they had ever committed to such a project in the first place. I've seen someone say here on BRF that the IJT development team was briefly handed over the reigns the FGFA project for sometime because of shortage of manpower. I just want them to take one thing at a time. Though i quite agree with you on the vegetable farming needs.

And hey, great news about the Jags if they're true!

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 16 Feb 2009 14:52

rakall wrote:
Rahul M wrote: ...
btw, won't the old boxy nose be difficult to fit an antenna in ?
do the upg jags show any mod in nose ? need to check.
No.. the jags dont have boxy nose anymore.. the Upgraded jags have a GFRP radome made by NAL's FRP division.

A Jag on static display (will try to post photo) was shown with a 1000lb LGB on the centerline..

Also overheard some ADE people talking that Jaguar has been designated as the platform for the first test of Sudharshan whenver it happens..

Jaguar from Aero India 2009

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2009 14:54

Do you have a blow up of the nose ? Does it have a radiation symbol on it ??

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 16 Feb 2009 15:01

Cybaru wrote:Do you have a blow up of the nose? Does it have a radiation symbol on it ??

Cybaruji/Gurus, what does a radiation symbol mean? It has an AESA, like 2052?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 16 Feb 2009 15:03

Nah, it will just add to the mystery

. It may point to a radar on board that's all. Which and what type is anyones guess.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Feb 2009 15:04

DM, you are spot on with your concerns. I was only commenting on the need and yes, there is a need.

number 66 is by no means huge for IAF needs and IAF increasingly finds that the hawks don't fit the bill.
btw, the 5-6 years timeline indicates to me that they have taken their primary projects into consideration and that this a VERY conservative estimate.
if HAL accorded first priority to this thing, it would have been completed in at most half that time, may be lesser.

rad symbol means it has a radar. jag strike version didn't have rad previously.

rakall, could you say if this is for the twin seaters only ??

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 16 Feb 2009 15:19

Rahul M wrote:DM, because the hawk is a pretty old design with not much scope for improvement and secondly but more importantly, IAF itself wants one.

did you read the article BTW ?
ideally, yes we would like to make everything inhouse.

Some time ago, I was able to squeeze the BAe guys (after half hr talking) to give me the executive summary booklet for the Hawk 132... stuff and numbers that'd make Vivek's mouth water... been trying to scan it, but have been unable to... cost and large number of pages and lack of proper software to convert to pdf... if someone has any ideas, plz let me know.

Cheers

AmitR · Post by **AmitR** » 16 Feb 2009 15:20

Cybaru wrote:Do you have a blow up of the nose ? Does it have a radiation symbol on it ??

Here is the full resolution image, not sure what symbol you are looking for. Hope this helps.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Dl2LL-s7kPU/SZgGj ... G_0124.JPG

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 15:20

Rahul M wrote:DM, you are spot on with your concerns. I was only commenting on the need and yes, there is a need.

number 66 is by no means huge for IAF needs and IAF increasingly finds that the hawks don't fit the bill.
btw, the 5-6 years timeline indicates to me that they have taken their primary projects into consideration and that this a VERY conservative estimate.
if HAL accorded first priority to this thing, it would have been completed in at most half that time, may be lesser.

rad symbol means it has a radar. jag strike version didn't have rad previously.

rakall, could you say if this is for the twin seaters only ??

No.. all upgraded jags will get the radar & new radome - if that is what you mean..

If you mean the LGB part - I think they will upgrade all jags tp LDP/LGB compatibility..But IAF has been more comfortable using twin-seaters for LGB drops.. thats the way they did in Kargil with Mirages.. even though LGB load outs are frequently seen on single seaters.. they used two seaters in kargil attacks...

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 15:22

k prasad wrote:
Rahul M wrote:DM, because the hawk is a pretty old design with not much scope for improvement and secondly but more importantly, IAF itself wants one.

did you read the article BTW ?
ideally, yes we would like to make everything inhouse.
Some time ago, I was able to squeeze the BAe guys (after half hr talking) to give me the executive summary booklet for the Hawk 132... stuff and numbers that'd make Vivek's mouth water... been trying to scan it, but have been unable to... cost and large number of pages and lack of proper software to convert to pdf... if someone has any ideas, plz let me know.

Cheers

Just take pictures with a digicam and upload them..

or post it to me - I can convert it to a softcopy and return it to you.. Do you live in Blr by any chance?

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 16 Feb 2009 15:25

rakall wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Looks like ?? Confirmed ?? Maritime Jags or all upgraded jags ?
All Jags upgraded under the HAL jag upgrade..

I said "looks like" because the person did not tell me it was 2052.. he kept evading the question..

I asked him "is it mechanically scanned array"..
He said "no.. it has phase shifers.. there are phase shifters here & here and so on".. basically "phase shifters" and the way he painted dots in the air matches with the way 2052 looks..

Thats why i said "look like".. and not "confirmed".

At Elta stall.. i got "we are supplying a variety of systems.. we cannot talk about"

It was the same case here mate.... the old coot kept dodging my questions for 10 minutes, and i was asking him about teh 2052. Dang guy never let anything slip, not even the letter A. Couldnt even get to know if they were trying for the LCA radar thingy, and the only info came when Cmde Balaji mentioned the Elta+LRDE MMR.

Yup Rakall, I'm Blore based.... send me a mail, and I'll revert asap.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 Feb 2009 15:31

k prasad wrote:
Yup Rakall, I'm Blore based.... send me a mail, and I'll revert asap.

please post you email id..

or e-mail me

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 16 Feb 2009 15:37

people looking to use temp email ids might give this a try

m a i l i n a t o r

Google it

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 16 Feb 2009 15:39

ok... sent mail... delete ur previous post with email id for security sake.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 16 Feb 2009 16:21

Dmurphy wrote:Sorry for this seemingly dumb question, but why do we need another AJT when we're inducting Hawks in such large numbers? Shouldn't we (HAL/DRDO) be focussing on more on projects like LCA/LCH/MRTA/IJT/FGFA which they're already neck deep into? I'm not against desi stuff here, but its almost as if we're obsessed to putting a finger in every pie.

On a different note but same issue, why don't we handover some projects to NAL? It would be for better of everyone to have some competetion. Why not provide some competetion to HAL in the form of NAL? JMT.

Cheers....

sum · Post by **sum** » 16 Feb 2009 16:27

AmitR wrote:
Cybaru wrote:Do you have a blow up of the nose ? Does it have a radiation symbol on it ??
Here is the full resolution image, not sure what symbol you are looking for. Hope this helps.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Dl2LL-s7kPU/SZgGj ... G_0124.JPG

Link not working!!!

Btw, why was the radiation sticker only on the MKI and not the other planes like M2K and MiG-29(if it denotes radar integrated)?

I had posted same Q in the aero-India thread but no reply.