BlackArcherI had read that Russians got good engine performance by compromising on life span of engines.
Has this changed since?
I’ve always wondered about Flankers and Fulcrums in prolonged combat – intensive usage chews up engine life. Does that mean after a couple of months, you have squadrons of grounded aircraft?
Old Soviet tactical model was based on attrition – a MiG-21 was not expected to last long in combat hence no need for long engine life. They applied same rulings to tanks and other equipment.
The latest RD-33MK Sea Wasp engines for the MiG-29K/KUB fleet has an engine life of 4000 hours, which is respectable and means that the MiG-29K will require a single engine change throughout its life. That, while giving 7% higher thrust.
Even the TBO (Time Between Overhauls) has improved on these, so its not true that performance for Russian engines is at the cost of engine life.
Even for the RD-33 Series 3 engines that India is getting for the MiG-29UPG upgrade program, the TBO and service life has been increased, as attested to by the MoD in India
Advancement of Mig-29 Engine
Lok SabhaThere is no proposal for advancement of engine of MiG-29 aircraft which are powered with RD-33 Series – I and Series – II engines. These engines are no longer in production. To meet the future requirement of replacement engines for the MiG-29 fleet, an Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) has been signed between the Government of India and the Government of Russian Federation for license manufacture of RD-33 Series – III engines at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). RD-33 Series – III engine is the latest version of RD-33 engine and has higher Total Technical Life (TTL) and Time Between Overhauls (TBO). HAL has signed a general contract with the Russian side for Transfer of Technology (TOT) for license manufacture of these engines at HAL.
BlackArcherIAF takes delivery of its first C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft
India has officially received its first Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport, becoming the eighth nation to operate the type.
New Delhi will receive four more C-17s this year, and the remaining five in 2014, says Boeing. This will make New Delhi the second largest operator of the C-17 after the USAF.
After taking delivery of the aircraft, the Indian air force crew departed for India.
…
In addition to the C-17s, New Delhi is also likely to buy six additional C-130J tactical transports, doubling the Indian air force’s fleet numbers of the type to 12 and has options for six additional C-17s.
BlackArcherhow does the JF-17 with 2300 kg of internal fuel have 552 km of additional combat range over the Gripen C/D that has 2270kgs of fuel? Surely that figure for the JF-17 is wrong or includes drop tanks and full internal fuel.
The RD-33 was never considered to be a fuel sipper anyway, whereas the F-404 is quite frugal, so what gives the humongous additional combat range for the JF-17? Notice, their ferry ranges are nearly the same. Something’s wrong with that data.
BlackArcherFundamental commonality… 20 years of work developing and testing variations and changes, as well as materials, etc. This is all part of the “past experience” you cite… without this work it would have taken far longer than “2006-2009” timeframe you cite. MiG already had worked out most (if not all) of the changes you cite before the 2004 (not 2006) Indian order as part of the carrier deal.
The time-frame you give covers only the final phase of all this developmental work, which did include keeping the materials, structure, avionics, and powerplant current with those developed for other MiG-29/33/35 variants.
Note other aircraft to receive different and much more powerful engines during their production lives without major changes in their airframe…
A-4 Skyhawk: went from the 7,700 lb J65 of the A-4B to the 11,200 lb J52 of the A-4M.
A-7 Corsair II: went from the 11,350 lb TF30 of the A-7A to the 15,000 lb TF41 of the A-7E.
F11F Tiger: went from the 7,700 lb (10,500 lb with afterburner) J65 of the F11F-1 to the 9,600 lb (14,800 lb with afterburner) J79 of the F11F-1F.
F-14 Tomcat: went from the 12,350 lb (20,900 lb with afterburner) TF30 of the F-14A to the 16,800 lb (27,000 lb with afterburner) F110 of the F-14D.
You do realize that arguing with JSR is a total waste of time? Let him believe that the MiG-29K was somehow developed in just 3 years. No one else cares for what his opinion is anyway.
BlackArcherIndia evaluating the EMALS from General Atomics for IAC-2, INS Vishal
The Indian Navy — one of just nine navies that operate aircraft carriers — is thinking high-tech in planning its second indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal. The admirals are deciding whether INS Vishal, still only a concept, should launch aircraft from its deck using a technology so advanced that it is not yet in service anywhere: the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS).
Getting a fully loaded combat aircraft airborne off a short, 200-metre-long deck is a key challenge in aircraft carrier operations. The INS Viraat, currently India’s only aircraft carrier, uses Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) since its Harrier “jump-jets” take off and land almost like helicopters. INS Vikramaditya, which Russia will deliver this year, uses Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery (STOBAR). The Vikramaditya’s MiG-29K fighters will fly off an inclined ramp called a “ski-jump”; and land with the help of arrester wires laid across the deck, which snag on a hook on the fighter’s tail, literally dragging it to a halt. This system will also be used on the first indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, which Cochin Shipyard plans to deliver by 2017.
But INS Vishal, which will follow the Vikrant, might employ a third technique that India has never used — Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery, or CATOBAR. Perfected by the US Navy since World War II, this has a steam-driven piston system along the flight deck “catapulting” the aircraft to 200 kilometres per hour, fast enough to get airborne. With greater steam pressure, significantly heavier aircraft can be launched. US Navy carriers launch the E-2D Hawkeye, a lumbering Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft that scans airspace over hundreds of kilometres.
EMALS, the new-generation catapult that the Indian Navy is evaluating, uses a powerful electro-magnetic field instead of steam. Developed by General Atomics, America’s largest privately held defence contractor, EMALS has been chosen by the US Department of Defence for its new-generation aircraft carriers. The first EMALS-equipped carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford, will enter service by 2016.
In Delhi Last Thursday, General Atomics briefed thirty Indian Navy captains and admirals on EMALS. Scott Forney III, the senior General Atomics official who conducted the briefing, told Business Standard that tight US controls over this guarded technology required special permission from Washington for sharing technical details of EMALS with India.
Senior Indian naval planners tell Business Standard that INS Vikrant, India’s next 40,000 tonne aircraft carrier, will use STOBAR to operate its complement of MiG-29K and Tejas light fighters. But Vikrant’s successor, the 65,000 tonne INS Vishal could well be a CATOBAR carrier that launches larger and more diverse aircraft.
“While current fighters like the MiG-29K can operate with STOBAR systems, our options will increase with CATOBAR. We could operate heavier fighters, AEW aircraft and, crucially, UCAVs (unmanned combat air vehicles). A UCAV would require a CATOBAR system for launch,” says one admiral.
The navy is closely following UCAV development in India and abroad. On May 14, the X-47B UCAV that Northrop Grumman is developing for the US Navy became the first UCAV to be catapulted off an aircraft carrier, the USS George HW Bush.
Naval planners believe that, with INS Vishal likely to enter service in the early 2020s, they should plan on operating UCAVs from that carrier, as well as an AEW aircraft, and medium and light fighters.
“We could greatly expand our mission envelope with UCAVs, using the pilotless aircraft for high risk reconnaissance and SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences). Mid-air refueling would let us keep UCAVs on mission for 24-36 hours continuously, since pilot fatigue would not be a factor,” says a naval planner.
General Atomics has emphasized the EMALS’ ability to launch multiple aircraft. It has told the navy that EMALS causes less wear and tear on carrier-launched aircraft since electric power can be delivered more accurately than steam. It also launches aircraft quicker; requires less personnel to operate; and its high acceleration allows launches in still conditions, when STOBAR aircraft carriers must sail at 20-30 knots to generate “wind-over-deck,” needed to create the lift required for take off.
“We have completed 134 test launches across five classes of aircraft, including the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter; the F/A-18E Super Hornet; the C-2A Greyhound (delivery aircraft); the T-45 Goshawk trainer; and the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye,” Forney briefed the navy.
While the navy is impressed by the EMALS’ capabilities, there is apprehension that buying it may prove difficult. It would be a “single-vendor” procurement of a system that is untested in operational service, making it hard to validate General Atomics’ claim of being cheaper in the long term.
But industry watchers point out that cutting-edge equipment like EMALS is what New Delhi wants from US-India defense relations. “The EMALS enhances India’s strategic capability. If New Delhi deems this a priority for collaboration, the US might well sanction the release of this technology,” says Manohar Thyagaraj, of the Observer Research Foundation.
BlackArcherAs per IDRW.org the new Interceptor missile will be called PDV and is distinct from PAD and AAD missiles that are part of Phase 1 of the BMD program. Not sure what they then mean by saying that when PDV is tested successfully, the Phase 1 of the program will be complete. Also not sure about the timeline for providing ABM cover to Mumbai and Delhi by year end.
V.K. Saraswat Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, told The Hindu , That the next interceptor missile test will be conducted at a higher altitude of 100-150 km in July it would be the most important one. “We have developed a new interceptor missile for it.”
Sources close to idrw.org have informed us that new Interceptor missile will be named the PDV , which is a advanced variant of Prithiv interceptor missile , In Current Phase – I Advanced Air Defense (AAD) missile and Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) forms a combination which are used to intercept enemy ballistic missiles . but PDV new missile will be replacing PAD and will have performance improvement .
PDV is a two-stage missile and both the stages will be powered by solid propellants. where else PAD was also a two-stage missile but first stage was solid fueled motor while the second stage was Liquid fueled, it will also have IIR seeker . once PDV is tested successfully , Phase-I of India’s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) will be completed and Mumbai and Delhi will likely get PDV and AAD cover against missile defence by year end .
Phase-II will cover development of two new missile (AD-1 and AD-2) interceptors that can intercept IRBMs, new missile will be similar to the THAAD missile deployed by the U.S.A. These missiles will travel at hyper sonic speeds and will require radars with scan capability of over 1,500 km (930 mi) to successfully intercept the target and likely will be ready for deployment by 2016.
BlackArcher*Agni-V with MIRV and canister launch capability- work is on-going and is at design stage
*Second launch of Nirbhay LRCM soon
*New Interceptor missile developed for the BMD programme
*INS Arihant’s nuclear reactor to go critical in a few weeks
*More flight trials of Astra AAM and Nag ATGM as well
all this info as per Dr Saraswat of the DRDO
Weapon system to be fitted with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles
The configuration of Agni-V, India’s long-range nuclear weapons capable ballistic missile, is set to be changed to make the 5,000-km weapon system deadlier and capable of attacking multiple targets.The modification is to enable fitting Agni-V with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs), V.K. Saraswat, Director-General of the Defence Research and Development Organisation and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, told The Hindu . Another test in the present configuration of the three-stage missile would be conducted later this year.
Besides imparting canister-launch capability, Agni-V would be equipped with MIRVs. “Work on that is going on and it is at design stage.”
The resounding success of the maiden flight test of Agni-V in April 2012 catapulted India into a select league of nations having the technological prowess to develop Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, he said.
The Agni series will form the bulwark of land version of India’s nuclear deterrence triad.
Meanwhile, the reactor on board the indigenously-built nuclear powered submarine, INS Arihant, is expected to go critical in a few weeks. The powering of the system should happen in a week or two, Dr. Saraswat said.
(Once that happens, the 80-MWt (thermal) reactor would be in a position to deliver power to the platform and sea trials of Arihant would begin subsequently when the submarine is expected to move at the designed speed, go to the diving depth, attain maximum speed and perform all safety and emergency operations).
New interceptor missile
Referring to the home-grown Ballistic Missile Defence programme, he said the next interceptor missile test to be conducted at a higher altitude of 100-150 km in July would be the most important one. “We have developed a new interceptor missile for it.”
Another crucial DRDO missile test this year would be a “repeat launch” of ‘Nirbhay’. During the maiden trial of the subsonic cruise missile, the flight had to be terminated midway after it strayed from its trajectory. Dr. Saraswat attributed the problem to a manufacturing defect in the navigation sensor. Flight tests of air-to-air Astra and anti-tank Nag missiles would be also conducted.
BlackArcherIgnoring the Indian troll, let me just quickly sum up the DSI benefits:
PS: The discussion started when Goldust wrote: “Don’t forget JF-17 is the first operational jet having DSI”.
And EELightning wrote: “It isn’t.”
And I asked: “Just wondering what other operational fighter had dsi intakes.”
Then the Indian trolls showed up sniggering and BSing about x,y,z. Do you see us doing the same to their threads? that’s why Indians have problems with almost every single neighbor in the Subcontinent.
keep off the bs. stay on the topic and don’t get personal or insult any nationality. this isn’t your PakDef where you can say whatever you want about Indians and get away with it.
BlackArcherProve it. F-35 AA-1 prototype didn’t fly till after JF-17 PT-04 prototype did. Same year, but later :eagerness:
F-35 didn’t need to fly with the DSI- the F-16 already did it 10 years earlier in 1996 and proved the concept as being sound.
BlackArcherThe original article on the F-16’s DSI was with on my hard drive, so posting the text, since the CodeOne magazine article doesn’t seem to be available now.
The only major advantage the DSI gave was over variable geometry inlets, not fixed inlets. Fixed inlets don’t have any moving parts anyway, so there is no cost advantage of a DSI intake over a fixed intake as on the Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, Tejas, etc. Since none of these fighters need to reach Mach 2+, the fixed intakes works fine for them. For Mach 2+ fighters, a variable inlet system is required, and that is complex and requires more maintenance, in which case a DSI is more suitable.
The unassuming fuselage bump at each inlet on the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter performs miracles that only aeronautical engineers can fully appreciate. At high aircraft speeds through supersonic, the bumps work with forward-swept inlet cowls to redirect unwanted boundary layer airflow away from the inlets, essentially doing the job of heavier, more complex, and more costly approaches used by current fighters.
DSI Flight Tests
The overall inlet design, called a diverterless supersonic inlet or DSI, moved from concept to reality when it was installed and flown on a Block 30 F-16 in a highly successful demonstration program. The flight test program consisted of twelve flights flown in nine days in December 1996. The first flight on 11 December addressed initial envelope clearance and functional checks. Subsequent flights addressed performance characteristics of the unique inlet design in both level and maneuvering flight. Rapid throttle transients during these flights confirmed the compatibility between the inlet and engine.
The flight tests covered the entire F-16 flight envelope and achieved a maximum speed of Mach 2.0. The modified aircraft demonstrated flying qualities similar to a normal production F-16 at all angles of attack and at all angles of sideslip. Lockheed Martin test pilots performed two inflight engine restarts and 164 successful afterburner lights, with no failures. Fifty-two afterburner lights were performed during hard maneuvers. No engine stalls or anomalies occurred during the test flights.
The new inlet showed slightly better subsonic specific excess power than a production inlet and that verified the overall system benefits of eliminating the diverter. Test pilots remarked that military power settings and thrust characteristics were very similar to standard production F-16 aircraft with the same General Electric F110-GE-129 engine. Considering the overall goal of the flight test program was to demonstrate the viability of this advanced inlet technology, the results were excellent.Fighter Inlet Design Basics
Tactical aircraft pose a formidable challenge for inlet designers. A fighter inlet must provide an engine with high-quality airflow over a wide range of speeds, altitudes, and maneuvering conditions while accommodating the full range of engine airflow from idle to maximum military or afterburning power. The inlet designer must also consider the constraints imposed by configuration features, such as nose landing gears, weapon bays, equipment access panels, and forebody shaping. The design must produce the lowest drag, lowest weight, lowest cost, and highest propulsion performance. It must also meet stringent low observable requirements.Historically, inlet complexity is a function of top speed for fighter aircraft. Higher Mach numbers require more sophisticated devices for compressing supersonic airflow to slow it down to subsonic levels before it reaches the face of the engine. (Jet engines are not designed to handle the shock waves associated with supersonic airflow.)
These compression schemes involve the conversion of the kinetic energy of the supersonic airstream into total pressure on the compressor face of the engine. Speeds over Mach 2 generally require more elaborate compression schemes. The F-15 inlet, for example, contains a series of movable compression ramps and doors controlled by software and elaborate mechanical systems. The ramps move to adjust the external and internal shape of the inlet to provide the optimum airflow to the engine at various aircraft speeds and angles of attack. Doors and ducting allow excess airflow to bypass the inlet.
Inlet designs for fighter aircraft must also account for a layer of low-energy air that forms on the surface of the fuselage at subsonic and supersonic speeds. (These layers also form on the inlet compression surfaces.) This layer of slow moving, turbulent air, called a boundary layer, can create chaos when disturbed by the shock waves created by the inlet. The result can be unwanted airflow distortions at the engine face. If the shock wave/boundary layer interaction is severe enough, the engine will stall. The boundary layer thickens with increased speed and increased forebody distance, the length from the nose of the airplane to the inlet itself.
Designers of supersonic aircraft deal with this boundary layer phenomenon by redirecting the layer before it reaches the engine and placing the inlet away from the boundary layer in the freestream, where airflow is unaffected by the boundary layer phenomenon. On the F-16, a structure called a diverter provides a 3.3-inch gap between the fuselage and the upper lip of the inlet. The size of the gap equates to the thickness of the boundary layer at the maximum speed of the F-16. Other fighters remove boundary layer airflow with combinations of splitter plates and bleed systems. The latter redirect the unwanted airflow through small holes in the compression ramps to bleed ducts within the inlet. The DSI bump functions as a compression surface and creates a pressure distribution that prevents the majority of the boundary layer air from entering the inlet at speeds up to Mach 2. In essence, the DSI does away with complex and heavy mechanical systems.
DSI Origins
The DSI traces its roots to work done by Lockheed Martin engineers in the early 1990s as part of an independent research and development project called the Advanced Propulsion Integration project. The concept was developed and refined with Lockheed Martin-proprietary computer modeling tools made possible by advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics, or CFD. CFD is the science of determining a numerical solution to the governing equations of fluid flow and advancing this solution through space or time to describe a complete flow field of interest—in this case, the flow field of a fighter forebody, inlet, and inlet duct.
CFD, considered a branch of fluid dynamics, provides a cost-effective means of simulating airflow. The development of more powerful computers has furthered CFD advances to the point that it has become the preferred means of evaluating aerodynamic designs.Basic research of the inlet concept continued through the mid-1990s. Traditional wind tunnel testing of small plastic inlet models built with stereolithographic techniques augmented a CFD-based development process for the DSI. Engineers made enough technical advances during this period that two US patent applications were filed, one dealing with the overall design and the second dealing with the integration process of the new technology. (Both patents were granted in 1998.) The diverterless inlet designs built and tested with this combination of CFD and small-scale wind tunnel models formed a database of inlet configurations that would subsequently prove valuable to the Lockheed Martin JSF design.
Full-Scale Test Inlet
The DSI flight-tested on the F-16 in 1996 was designed on computer workstations using three-dimensional solid models. It was developed with minimal airframe impacts and maximum use of existing hardware to reduce design and manufacturing costs. The F-16’s modular inlet design allowed development of a DSI-equipped inlet module without significant impacts to the aircraft forebody or center fuselage. As with the existing inlet design, the new inlet module formed part of the forward fuselage extending from the inlet leading edge to the interface between the forward fuselage and center fuselage. The compression surface was attached to the existing forward fuselage below the cockpit without affecting the rest of the forebody or the chine. New duct lines were developed to form a transition from the new inlet aperture to the existing duct.The upper surface of the F-16 inlet module forms the floor of the forward fuel tank. This fuel tank is located directly behind the pilot. The lower surface of the fuel tank floor forms the upper surface of the F-16 inlet duct. This fuel tank floor offered an ideal starting point for the structural layout of the new inlet module since it is an assembly that can be procured directly from the F-16 production line. The diverter support beam was also retained and, in combination with the fuel tank floor, formed the primary means of attaching the new inlet module to the forward fuselage.
The inlet module consisted of 300 parts, which included 113 machined parts and eighty-three formed skin panels. The bump, more accurately termed a fixed, three-dimensional compression surface, was formed from graphite epoxy at LM Aeronautics facilities in Palmdale, California. Most of the substructure consists of aluminum. The inlet module was built and installed at LM Aeronautics facilities in Fort Worth, where the flight tests took place.
LM Aeronautics JSF Design Adopts DSI
The DSI concept was introduced into the JAST/JSF program as a trade study item in mid-1994. It was compared with a traditional “caret” style inlet. The trade studies involved additional CFD, testing, and weight and cost analyses. The new inlet earned its way into the JSF design after proving to be thirty percent lighter and showing lower production and maintenance costs over traditional inlets while still meeting all performance requirements.The flight tests on the F-16 validated the aerodynamic properties of the inlet, which will be validated further on the upcoming flights of the Lockheed Martin JSF demonstrator aircraft in 2000. The flight test also proved that the analytical performance and inlet flow stability predictions from the CFD analysis matched operations in the real world. The JSF program further refined the production version of the DSI design using these CFD tools.
The DSI inlet used on the JSF has evolved through several design iterations. The shaft-driven lift fan on the STOVL JSF required the use of a bifurcated duct with one inlet on each side. The initial version was essentially the same design used on the lower surface of the F-16 rotated up onto either side of the JSF forward fuselage.
This design had a cowl that was symmetrical about the centerline of the bump. This version of the inlet appears on the X-35 demonstrator aircraft. Later CFD analysis and testing led to refinements of the design to improve its performance at high angles of attack by shifting the upper and lower cowl lips to take advantage of the side-mounted location and to improve high angle-of-attack performance. This later version has been fully tested in the wind tunnel and will be used on the EMD and on production aircraft.
At high aircraft speeds through supersonic, the bump in the inlet works with the forward-swept inlet cowl to redirect unwanted boundary layer airflow away from the inlet, essentially doing the job of heavier, more complex, and more costly diverters used by current fighters. The flight test program consisted of twelve flights flown in nine days in December 1996.
BlackArcherIt is possible the Chinese tested DSI before the Americans did :eagerness: DSI was applied on JF-17 in 2006.
and it was tested on the F-16 way back in 1996. A full decade before the JF-17. We know where the first idea for this came from and that was Lockheed Martin, not China.
BlackArcher7. DSI intakes were one of a number of modifications made to improve the performance of the JF-17, after the PAF deemed it needed to be improved to be competitive against IAF FLANKERs. Originally, the JF-17 had fixed inlets just like the F-16.
so now the JF-17 is competitive against the IAF’s Flankers is it, thanks to DSI ? :highly_amused:
ergo, the Typhoon and Rafale must be non-competitive against the Flankers since they still don’t feature DSI.
BlackArcherlooks like Japan’s Shin Meiwa US-2 amphibian may be the favourite to win the competition for a sea-plane for the IN
Japan and India to discuss sea plane sale
Tokyo: Japan is close to signing an agreement to supply amphibious planes to India, a report said on Monday, in what would be the first sale of hardware used by the military since a weapons export ban was imposed on Japan.
During a four-day visit to Tokyo by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, starting later Monday, the two sides are set to firm up plans for Delhi to purchase the US 2, a domestically-developed aircraft used by Japan’s armed forces.The sale, reported by the Nikkei business daily, would be the first of a finished product made by Japan’s homegrown defence industry since rules were imposed restricting the export of weapons systems and other equipment. It would also mark a strengthening of the alliance between Japan and India, which both see rising China as a threat to regional stability.
..The US-2, which was developed by ShinMaywa Industries Ltd and has been sold to the Japanese navy at a price tag of roughly ¥10 billion ($99 million), has a range of 4,700 km and can land in seas with waves of up to three metres (nine feet).
“If the US-2 is exported to India for civilian use, that would be the first case of exports of Japanese-developed weaponry used by the defence ministry for civilian use,” a trade ministry official in charge of arms sales told AFP.
ShinMaywa opened a sales office in New Delhi last year and has been promoting the plane there, a spokesman for the company said.
“We hear there is some demand from the Indian government but decline to comment further as we have yet to reach a contract,” he added. The Nikkei said India is looking to acquire at least 15 of the aircraft.
BlackArcherThanks for that info Austin. I had read somewhere that the Tu-142 may go through another structural life extension upgrade, but can’t find that news report now.
Anyway, Defence Min AK Antony has inaugurated the first fighter station of the Southern Air Command at Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu. It will host Su-30MKI detachments and will eventually get a full Su-30MKI squadron. Next base in the south will be Sulur, with Tejas Mk1 fighters.
A full-fledged air station, the first fighter plane base of the Indian Air Force in the southern peninsula, was dedicated to the nation here by Defence Minister A.K. Antony on Monday.
The establishment of a premier fighter base at Thanjavur assumes importance in the current geopolitical scenario and in view of the threat perception in the oceanic region around the peninsula, Mr. Antony said at the function. Assets envisaged for this futuristic air base would be able to provide maritime security cover to all strategic and vital installations in this region. He expressed confidence that the IAF, with its newer inductions like Su-30 MKI and UAVs and committed air warriors, would be able to protect the territorial waters and borders from any kind of threat.
….
Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, Chief of Air Staff, said a full Sukhoi-30 squadron would be established in Thanjavur by 2017. “We have extensive plans to equip the airbase with more assets. There was a small issue of relocation of village people in the expansion of the airbase. The Defence Minister discussed the issue and an alternative location has been given to them and compensation will be paid soon.”
Sign In
