Indian Air Force - News & Discussion # 12

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

Arey, I'd even like the protracted JF-17 and Al-Khalid discussions instead than the above.

I'm arguing in favour of cancelling the C-17 purchase altogether because we're purchasing the C-130 already, and which are complemented by 30 Il-76s already. This is because : for intra-India distances, the C-17's cost of operation is not justified; a few more C-130s and Il-76s will do the job more cost-effectively for smaller distances. Which part of this don't you understand ? Why does USAF, UK and other C-17 users keep using (and ordering more) C-130Js ? 1, 10 or 100 troopers to Kansas or Kent, shouldn't they use their existing C-17s only ? Why bother purchasing new C-130Js then ? (don't say because of Rolls-Royce engines).

If IAF gets the opportunity to halt a coup attempt in some African republic (like it once successfully did in the Maldives), may be then a C-17 would be better than 2 or 3 C-130s or Il-76s. That opportunity is not in the foreseeable future now.


This is amazing. I tell you it's to do with size, not range, & having a variety of types for different roles, & you come straight back with arguments about long distance operations, & demanding to know why, if I'm right, existing C-17 users buy anything else. Read what I wrote! Do you not read any of what you're replying to, or do you just fail to understand it?

You're arguing with yourself. You're not responding to what I write, but conducting an entirely imaginary debate, which you attach to my posts. Bizarre.

That's it. All over. You're going on the ignore list. You're not worth wasting any more time & pixels on.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

See, just because the PAF chief says so, doesn't mean that Cold Start is not functioning. His opinion is his own only. He'd better not formulate his forces' policies based on this "free-wheeling" assumption. Like I said, IAF always assumes the worst-case scenario.

You're arguing with yourself. You're not responding to what I write, but conducting an entirely imaginary debate, which you attach to my posts. Bizarre.

That's it. All over. You're going on the ignore list. You're not worth wasting any more time & pixels on.

What he really means :- Harrumph ! I can't tolerate any doubt on anything that has a stamp of the You-Kay, be it Rolls-Royce engines or my Queenie's brush. You, are drawing to a nigh pixellate for me now, (though I'll surf anonymously and get a sneaky peaky on your posts) !

Member for

14 years

Posts: 1,031

Not able to figure out, an inducted JF-17 is still BVRless?

No big deal about that. even the LCA will only get the BVR capability during the period between its IOC (currently scheduled for sometime around December 2010) and its FOC. So when the first LCA squadron is inducted it will not have any BVR weapon but the R-73 will be its primary weapon.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 458

It took years for the Brits to get the Tornado radar installed... ;) There are many other examples of updates during production. Nothing unusual.

Member for

14 years 9 months

Posts: 211

Your responses, and increasingly personalized at that "bias is clouding your responses", indicate a somewhat desperate attempt to deflect attention from what I originally said, and which point you still have been unable to counter.

So lets get to that.

Namely - China owns the JF-17 and it can sell it to other nations without Pakistans involvement.

That is all I said. That point remains.

As to why Peru bought the MBT-2000, could be a variety of reasons. Cost effectiveness for one vis a vis more expensive Western, Russian and the more capable Chinese designs (some of which may not even be up for export). Clearly though, they purchased the MBT 2000, not the "jointly developed" Al Khalid.

The same may yet apply for sales of the JF-17, or rather its Chinese designation.

You asking questions that are not usually disclosed to public. So why ask, you know no one in this forum is likely to have knowledge on Chengdu sales strategy.

I dont even have knowledge on Hongdu sales strategy, inregards to K8, all I know is Egypt, Venzeula, Bolivia and more bought plane. But nothing is written about these nations decision to purchase.

MAIN POINT
One thing you cant deny is, if Chengdu blocks out Pakistan from sale of JF 17, they will still have to pay Kamra their take of profits. It was a joint venture built from scratch, both parties contributed, unlike Type 90/mbt 2000, which was a existing design radically improved. Why would Chengdu take all responsibility and cost to market plane on own, when it is a joint venture. I cant see Chengdu ripping of Kamra, can you?

Edit, just read posts after your comment, even others have highlighted that we need to know contract, at moment all my pieces are based on assumption and think yours is too.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 180


What he really means :- Harrumph ! I can't tolerate any doubt on anything that has a stamp of the You-Kay, be it Rolls-Royce engines or my Queenie's brush. You, are drawing to a nigh pixellate for me now, (though I'll surf anonymously and get a sneaky peaky on your posts) !

Dude, just be a bit polite and at the very least read his post.

Its about the volume of the aircraft. C-17 has a fuselage diameter of 6.8 meters versus Il-76 having a diameter of 4.8 meters.
C-17 specs.
IL-76 specs

Basically that implies that some stuff which cannot be transported on IL-76 without dismantling can be done by C-17.

Anyway, I have never been sure how you make these judgements on what IAF needs and what it doesn't....:rolleyes:

Regards,
Ashish

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 480

Dude, just be a bit polite and at the very least read his post.

Its about the volume of the aircraft. C-17 has a fuselage diameter of 6.8 meters versus Il-76 having a diameter of 4.8 meters.
C-17 specs.
IL-76 specs

Basically that implies that some stuff which cannot be transported on IL-76 without dismantling can be done by C-17.

Anyway, I have never been sure how you make these judgements on what IAF needs and what it doesn't....:rolleyes:

Regards,
Ashish

I agree..unless Abhimanyu knows for certain there is nothing the IAF want delivered that cannot be fitted on the existing aircrafts,then we cannot say that the C-17 is needed or not.

As someone said,the Arjun cannot be transported on the existing transports..to argue like some people that it can be sent on rail is stupid.Air is much faster than rail.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 4,441

Anyone got any information about the LCH specification? What is it supposed to and able to achieve?

Member for

14 years

Posts: 1,031

Anyone got any information about the LCH specification? What is it supposed to and able to achieve?

What a 5.5 ton all-up weight gunship should achieve. Being derived from the Dhruv means somewhat similar performance, but obviously drag, weight distribution are different and so the Auto FCS will be different as well. Also was supposed to be able to fly 25 kmph faster than a Dhruv and the streamlined shape will go towards helping it reach that goal due to reduced drag.

And the added requirement (and very important) of being able to carry a useful weapons payload at high altitudes where the current crop of gunships will struggle. Having read a test pilot's report on how well the Dhruv did at Siachen, and how much control margins he had and how much reserve power he had even at that altitude, its clear that the LCH will inherit much of that performance.

Mission roles will include recon, scout, escort of convoys, escort of transport, CSAR and support helicopters, COIN, anti-tank, anti-personnel and anti-UAV operations. For which it has a 20 mm Nexter cannon and will be equipped with Mistral AAM, rocket pods, and an as yet undecided anti-tank weapon. Given that it has an all-up weight of 5.5 tonnes, when it does reach its design intent empty weight of 2500 kgs, it should be able to carry around 2.8 tonnes including fuel and crew. Excluding fuel I'm guessing its payload will be around 1000-1200 kgs or so depending on how much fuel it can carry.

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 3,538

Air Force gives Gripen fighter a second chance

Sweden’s futuristic medium fighter, the Gripen NG, has been given a second chance in the US $11 billion contest to select a Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force. The MoD has asked Gripen International, which last month failed to send the Gripen NG fighter for trials in India on the dates allotted by the IAF, to send the fighter for trials in the middle of May.

Business Standard had reported, on 9th March, that Gripen International had sent older Gripen-D fighters for trials because the Gripen NG was held back in Sweden for improvements for the Swedish Air Force. Technically, that was a violation of the terms of the competition.

But senior IAF officers have told Business Standard that they would not allow a legalistic interpretation of rules to narrow their options. Explains a senior air marshal who is involved in the decision-making, “We have a time window until the middle of this year, during which each of the six fighters in the tender are undergoing three stages of trials and inspections. As long as the Gripen NG is ready for trials within that period, we will evaluate the aircraft. All six vendors will have a level-playing field.”

Besides the Gripen NG, the other fighters being evaluated by the IAF are: the F/A-18 Super Hornet; the F-16IN Super Viper; the Dassault Rafale; the Eurofighter Typhoon; and the MiG-35. While all but the MiG-35 are already in service, the Gripen NG is still under development. Just a single “demonstrator” aircraft has been built to prove its capabilities. Next year, Gripen will build the first Gripen NG prototype.

Gripen International has welcomed the MoD’s decision. Gripen’s India campaign head, Eddy de la Motte, told Business Standard, “Our plan was always to bring the (Gripen NG) demonstrator to India. The Swedish government’s sudden tasking is being completed right now. We will soon be ready to go to India and we will provide the IAF with maximum opportunity to evaluate the fighter.”

The first of these opportunities will come next week, when an IAF team travels to Sweden to evaluate the Gripen’s firing of a “Beyond Visual Range” air-to-air missile. It is learned that Gripen International will make the Gripen NG demonstrator available to IAF pilots, should they wish to fly it in Sweden next week. If the IAF accepts the offer, it will be the first time an Indian pilot flies the Gripen NG, albeit with a Swedish “safety pilot” in the rear cockpit.

While Gripen International expresses confidence in their fighter, it now faces trials in conditions hotter (and, therefore, more unfavourable) than all the other contenders. IAF sources reveal that the Gripen-D performed well in last month’s trials; despite that, the Gripen NG will be put through the full battery of tests, including high altitude testing in Ladakh.

The Gripen NG is significantly more capable than the Gripen D. It has a more powerful GE-414 engine; it carries more fuel and, therefore, has greater range; and, with 10 hard points for weaponry, the Gripen NG has extra teeth. It will also come with a new AESA radar, electronic warfare equipment, and upgraded avionics.

Senior IAF officers, while happy with these features, also highlight the Gripen NG’s downside: a high level of US electronics, weaponry, and the GE-414 engine. And the F-16IN and the Gripen NG are the only two single-engine aircraft in the contest, which places them at a disadvantage in terms of
reliability.

Source

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 1,019

#####Last warning, stick to the topic!#####

Its about the volume of the aircraft. C-17 has a fuselage diameter of 6.8 meters versus Il-76 having a diameter of 4.8 meters.
C-17 specs.
IL-76 specs

Arey, who denied that C-17 is not bigger, or that it can carry much more cargo than an Il-76 ? I'm saying that for relatively shorter intra-India distances, a C-17 would be less economical than a couple of Il-76s, or a couple of C-130Js. Say, if cargo/troops have to be supplied to the northeastern front : better use two Il-76s or two C-130Js, than a single C-17. As a civilian example, airlines that have bought the A-380 wish to operate it on long-hauls. Our own rotund Mallya, who has ordered 5 of these, wishes to operate them in the Mumbai-London or Bangalore-London circuit --- and not Mumbai-Delhi, although it can be loaded at all times in that busy route too.

Try to understand C-17 is an intercontinental airlifter. It's economy of operation is best leveraged at ultra-long hauls, and never at local hauls. That's why US and UK use it extensively for transportation to their ops in Iraq and Afghanstan. They don't use multiple C-130Js for that, even though it too can fly the distance. So, if you'd bothered to read the African coup example I gave earlier, IAF can use a single C-17 than multiple Il-76s or C-130Js in such a case. But since, India does Not have ops at intercontinental distances -- and won't in the foreseeable future -- a C-17 is near useless.

Our Il-76s and new C-130Js can do the job for now.

Basically that implies that some stuff which cannot be transported on IL-76 without dismantling can be done by C-17.

OK, the dismantling angle now. I don't think IAF ops require no dismantling of aircraft parts; they carry entire choppers and tanks on their Il-76s (and will in the spanking new C-130Js too). Unless they're carrying fuselage parts a la Volga-Dneper, the Indian armed forces won't need the C-17.

Anyway, I have never been sure how you make these judgements on what IAF needs and what it doesn't....:rolleyes:

Sirji, I don't understand how you accept whatever IAF seeks to purchase, without questioning the originally intended utility of a particular hardware in it's country of origin. I've said (if you'd bothered to read earlier) I am all for C-130Js and P-3 Orions, but definitely against C-17s and Aegis.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 180

Yes, please suggest that to swerve, who is now sulking like a kid.

Arey, who denied that C-17 is not bigger, or that it can carry much more cargo than an Il-76 ? I'm saying that for relatively shorter intra-India distances, a C-17 would be less economical than a couple of Il-76s, or a couple of C-130Js. Say, if cargo/troops have to be supplied to the northeastern front : better use two Il-76s or two C-130Js, than a single C-17. As a civilian example, airlines that have bought the A-380 wish to operate it on long-hauls. Our own rotund Mallya, who has ordered 5 of these, wishes to operate them in the Mumbai-London or Bangalore-London circuit --- and not Mumbai-Delhi, although it can be loaded at all times in that busy route too.

Try to understand C-17 is an intercontinental airlifter. It's economy of operation is best leveraged at ultra-long hauls, and never at local hauls. That's why US and UK use it extensively for transportation to their ops in Iraq and Afghanstan. They don't use multiple C-130Js for that, even though it too can fly the distance. So, if you'd bothered to read the African coup example I gave earlier, IAF can use a single C-17 than multiple Il-76s or C-130Js in such a case. But since, India does Not have ops at intercontinental distances -- and won't in the foreseeable future -- a C-17 is near useless.

Our Il-76s and new C-130Js can do the job for now.

OK, the dismantling angle now. I don't think IAF ops require no dismantling of aircraft parts; they carry entire choppers and tanks on their Il-76s (and will in the spanking new C-130Js too). Unless they're carrying fuselage parts a la Volga-Dneper, the Indian armed forces won't need the C-17.

Sirji, I don't understand how you accept whatever IAF seeks to purchase, without questioning the originally intended utility of a particular hardware in it's country of origin. I've said (if you'd bothered to read earlier) I am all for C-130Js and P-3 Orions, but definitely against C-17s and Aegis.

I don't want to accept whatever IAF buys. But given your attitude, their demands appear far more reasonable. I wish you would read your own post about the number of things that are questionable.
You are hardly in a position to decide the following

I'm saying that for relatively shorter intra-India distances

Quote Swerve where he argues about distances. Or apologize.

a C-17 would be less economical than a couple of Il-76s, or a couple of C-130Js

Produce figures to that effect.

better use two Il-76s or two C-130Js, than a single C-17

Explain why its better in terms of (now this are only the parameters a novice like me can think of) : Cost of flight-per-hour, cost of maintenance per hour, Trained aircraft crews, Aircraft availability, Load carrying capacity NEEDED by IAF versus that currently available ....

It's economy of operation is best leveraged at ultra-long hauls, and never at local hauls

Quote one operator of C-17 saying that. I am not taking your word for it.

They don't use multiple C-130Js for that, even though it too can fly the distance.

Aren't you blowing a hole in your own argument...:rolleyes:
If C-130Js can fly the same distance, then there is no need for C-17 intercontinental or not.

But since, India does Not have ops at intercontinental distances -- and won't in the foreseeable future --

Explain. What about our base in Tajakistan?? What about our UN ops?? What about our exercises with foreign air-forces??

I don't think IAF ops require no dismantling of aircraft parts

You don't think?? What about air-defence systems that would need to be transported in theatre?? Arjuns that are wider than T-72?? What about Brahmos TEL say??
You don't think?? When do you ever ....:rolleyes:

the Indian armed forces won't need the C-17.

Right....

################################

I respect Swerve a lot more than most members.
He has been around a longer time.
He has been way more civil in his discussion about an armed force that he has no dealings with.
He knows a lot more about defence stuff in general.

So frankly you should be the one doing the apologies.
Your behavior basically makes other Indian members of this board hang their head in shame .... :mad:

Regards,
Ashish

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 1,615

Abhi, are you sure that C-130 & IL-76 can move all present & near future-planned cargo for Ind armed services without the need of dismantling? Or do u just 'think' that to be the case? Someone did mention Arjun earlier.

On another note, when talking you sometimes dont seem to take into consideration ind future plans. Sure C-17 might not be needed today but then they are not coming tomorrow. Are they? These things take years before the actual delivery. Have you ever thought why India is planning to add 3 carrier bat groups or going towards nuke subs? I mean it could operate a much larger number of dest/frig/normal subs-than it presently has-instead of carriers or nuke subs, & still could protect indian shores equally well. But no. Ind as an emerging global power needs better equipped forces with much greater reach & influence in future, & power projection is an abs requirement for that. Im sure Indian planners are thinking years in advance, so they wont have to convert airliners into cargo vessels, lets say 15 years down the line, should the need arise.

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 621

Guys, Looks like the argument is going beyond substance.. I believe IAF knows what is wants.. So lets move on to something which doesnt waste bandwidth.;)

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 875

I couldn't agree more, 20 pages are up, thread closed.
M'Pacha