21AnkushYeah, ‘endowment effect’. IN wanted Rafale with Gorshkov but got nothing more than TopSight-E (bride’s cap). lol
you’re not stating the facts here- the IN evaluated the Rafale M (there is a pic on this forum that I posted, with then CNS Admiral Arun Kumar, posing in front a Rafale M after an evaluation flight), but at that time, the capabilities of the Rafale M (F1) were not nearly as good as the ones we see now (F3 level). It didn’t justify the much much greater cost of acquisition and so the IN chose the Rafale. It was not forced into it- thats simply hearsay that the IN was forced to buy the MiG-29K.
I’ll ask Shiv Aroor to ask the retd. Admiral Arun Kumar if he could do a write up on that evaluation.
21AnkushJust look here ….
I don’t think thats true. the HF-73 never went past a wind-tunnel model and some R&D studies. it never even approached IOC or service with the IAF. the HJT-36 (the IJT Sitara) recieved its designation BEFORE it flew in prototype form and before the IAF placed orders for it. the HTT-40 (the basic trainer for the IAF was named before its even designed or flown. the Tejas has gone way past most of these stages and there was still no talk of the HF- designation. I just thought it would be called the Tejas LCA..
Not really … I miss the sleeker lines of the single seater !
I feel differently Deino..the longer canopy and the new forward fuselage really looks great on the Fulcrum’s original planform.
21AnkushIN to buy 29 more MiG-29K/KUBs. these were the options that the IN had alongwith the first 16 MiG-29K/KUBs, to be bought at the same price as the first batch. the options had to be converted into firm orders by 2012 to get the same price as the initial batch.
NEW DELHI: Decks have now been cleared for India to order another batch of MiG-29Ks after the specially-designed maritime fighters underwent successful flight-deck trials from Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in the Barents Sea on September 28-29.Defence ministry sources said the fresh order for 29 more MiG-29Ks from Russia for around Rs 5,380 crore (around $1.12 billion) will “soon” be sent to the Cabinet Committee of Security for the final approval. These jets will be in addition to 16 MiG-29Ks already contracted through the initial $1.5-billion Admiral Gorshkov package deal, which earmarked $974 million for the aircraft carrier’s refit and the rest for the fighters, inked in January 2004.
While the military asymmetry with China is quite stark, aircraft carrier operations is one particular arena in which India is ahead of its much larger neighbour. Grappling it may be with only 11 Sea Harrier jump-jets now, India’s solitary aircraft carrier, the 28,000-tonne INS Viraat, has just undergone an 18-month life extension refit to ensure it can run smoothly for another five years.
China, in contrast, does not have an aircraft carrier. But it’s furiously working to build them, apart from refurbishing the former Soviet Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag and seeking to buy Su-33 carrier-borne fighters from Russia.
India, of course, will get the fully-refurbished Gorshkov only by early-2013, with New Delhi and Moscow likely to agree to a revised refit cost of around $2.6 billion. The first four of the contracted 16 MiG-29Ks, however, will touch down in India in October-November this year.
Though the fresh order for 29 more MiG-29Ks was cleared by Defence Acquisitions Council, chaired by defence minister A K Antony, quite some time ago, it was hanging fire since the fighters developed for India were still to be tested for take-offs and landings on an aircraft carrier. “India wanted the MiG-29Ks to be proven in carrier-deck operations before inking the follow-on order for 29 more fighters…it was critical. Now, only a few weapon trials of MiG-29Ks are left,” said a source.MiG-29Ks will operate from both 44,570-tonne Gorshkov — rechristened INS Vikramaditya after India has already paid $602 million for its refit — as well as the 40,000-tonne indigenous aircraft carrier being built at the Cochin Shipyard, which should roll out by 2014-2015.
Armed with eight types of air-to-air missiles, including extended range BVR (beyond visual range) missiles, as well as 25 air-to-surface weapons for land-attack missions, the MiG-29Ks will provide the Navy with a lethal punch on the high seas. The jets will also be capable of mid-air refuelling from IL-78 tankers as well as other MiG-29Ks under `buddy-tanking’. While 12 of the first 16 fighters will be the single-seat `K’ variants, the other four will be twin-seater `KUB’ trainer versions. Similarly, four of the next 29 jets will be `KUB’ trainer versions.To prepare for MiG-29Ks, 10 Indian naval pilots have already undergone training on them, even as shore-based training facilities have been established at INS Hansa in Goa. Moreover, some naval pilots have also trained on the MiG-29s flown by IAF, while a few others have done courses in the US on combat manoeuvres undertaken from aircraft carriers under a $26 million agreement.
All this is needed since Indian naval pilots do not have the experience of `conventional’ fighters like MiG-29Ks, which land on ship decks with arrestor wires. The `unconventional’ Sea Harrier jump-jets in use land vertically on INS Viraat.
21Ankushone more pic of the IN MiG-29KUBs. cross-posting from BRF. note the large auxillary fuel tanks. IMO, the best looking Fulcrum ever !
21AnkushFinally ! I was always left wondering as to why the Tejas didn’t get a HF designation when all other indigenous programs had one..
21AnkushI wonder if the upgraded MiG-29s will get the digital FBW developed for the MiG-29K and MiG-35 as well or will the analog FBW of the MiG-29A be kept ? a digital FBW alongwith an autopilot would reduce pilot workload and allow for almost totally carefree handling although I’m quite certain that even a plain MiG-29A has a flight envelope that is pretty much carefree with very few limitations on what parameters the pilot shouldn’t exceed..probably won’t because of the quantum of work involved in retrofitting such a FBW into the older designs.
21AnkushInstead of this, the IAF can employ NAL’s Hansa tandem seater, which is the equivalent of the HTT-32 Deepak in terms of specs. Besides, it is far more modern, tested and in use in flying clubs in India and abroad. IAF can surely use this to begin pilot training.
After the Hansa, pilots can be trained on subsonic IJT Sitara, which is infact a replacement of the ageing HTT-16s. After that, pilots can finally graduate to supersonic Hawks.
the Hansa is designed to 3G/-1G, because its meant to train civilian pilots in aero-clubs, not for aerobatics. even a basic trainer for the air force is designed for 6G/-2G. please get your facts right before going on and on and on with ridiculous tirades agains the IAF.
21AnkushIAF upgrading 6 more airstrips in Arunachal Pradesh. There seems to be a great sense of urgency all of a sudden, after so many decades of neglecting infrastructure along the Chinese border. those incursions by the PLA and their helicopters and the media pressure has really jolted the Congress govt. it seems, finally allowing for infrastructure upgrades.
Indian Air Force is upgrading six airstrips in Arunachal Pradesh bordering China to improve its capabilities to move troops there quickly, Air Chief Marshal P V Naik said on Thursday.
Naik said these airstrips, called Advanced Landing Grounds (ALGs), would be to augment the IAF’s air maintenance in the border state on the pattern of the three new ALGs made operational in Ladakh region in Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] and in the western region bordering Pakistan in the last two years.
The IAF has opened the Daulat Beig Oldi, Fukche and Nyoma ALGs in Ladakh since May last year. Among the new ALGs in Arunachal Pradesh to be upgraded are Along, Walong and Machuka.
“It is long overdue. These should have been done much earlier. But we got a go-ahead only now and we are undertaking this particular task,” he said.On whether a repeat of Sino-Indian war of 1962 was possible, he said, “I do not think it is possible now”.
“I am confident, are you?” he said, when asked if he was confident of warding off the Chinese threat.
“I am sure there should be no lack of confidence in our public as far as preparation of our country or armed forces is concerned for any eventuality,” he said.
21AnkushI would think that trend will continue, and if we go by the logic of recent acquisition it do seem to be favoring the west (C 130, A330 MRTT, Cancelled Attack Chopper RFI to include Boeing and Bell, C 17 being the choice of strategic airlifter, CH 47 being considered to replace Mi 26s etc.).
Are you aware of the fact that the Finance Ministry has opposed the IAF’s selection of the A-330 MRTT instead of the Il-78 Midas tanker transport on the grounds of cost ? I think that safely rules out the Typhoon which will definitely be the most expensive of all the MRCA candidates as well as the one with the least bit of A2G maturity.
21AnkushMig-35 growth path is certainly not superior to any of the MRCA contenders. The MIG-35 sadly do not have any export customers and even the Russians are not to bothered. Even if they buy a handful of these birds they will not be first priority for future upgrades, meaning that the IAF will probably have to pay out of its own pocket for upgrading these birds at a future date.
but to be honest, the same can be said for the Su-30MKI as well. I don’t think that the upgrades that are being planned for the Su-30MKI are being paid for by Sukhoi or the RuAF or even the Algerian AF or Malaysian AF. they will be IAF specific and if the IAF funds any avionics developed for the Su-30MKI upgrade, they’ll get royalties when any of the Su-30MK customers seek those upgrades (similar to how UAE will make money on royalties for the F-16 Block 60).
in fact, elements of the PAK-FA’s avionics (either Russian or Indian) could be adopted or adapted for the MiG-35 in the future as upgrades. and if the Russians offer to transfer all of the MiG-35 production line to India with almost complete ToT (the RD-33 Series 3 engine is already going to be licence manufactured in India), it could be very deeply modified indigenously with UAC’s help.
21AnkushGiven that Su-30MKI is the better heavy attack striker then any MMRCA contender by virtue of the cheer size of it and you have plenty of’em, wouldn’t it be better to round it up with an a/c with emphasis/superior A2A ?
so that the Su-30MKI can be devoted to do what it do best.
as of now, its main role is Air dominance. tactics and training in this role are set, since the Su-30 has been in IAF service for more than 8 years now and an average of 1 squadron is added every year. plus, there are over 100 MiG-27s and 100 Jaguars in service as of now, so I don’t see the main role for this fighter changing any time soon.
its got an upgrade path that has been worked out by the IAF and the Sukhoi bureau, including an AESA set which will be incorporated at the time of the MLU. maybe when the MRCA starts entering in large numbers and then is followed by the PAK-FA, we’ll see more and more strike oriented loadouts on the MKIs.
21Ankush@Ankush
Hm, I’m not sure if this plan of yours is going to work. In fact, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t. Even the USAF launched a massive air campaign against Iraq, before letting strikers in.
Either way, IAF will need to achieve at least local air superiority, if it wishes to hammer the ground targets, as would have PLAAF, or PAF, or any other AF. Sure you can hit 150 meters high TV transceiver, power station and such with cruise missiles. But, if you go after tactical targets, you will need at least some degree of air control.
So, yes everyone needs best interceptor/striker, but such thing doesn’t exist. I think a good fighter is more important to India, than a good striker, though.
Cola, the IAF cannot wait for a few days till a semblance of air-superiority is achieved and then go in for attacks on infrastructure and C^3 nodes. the enemy’s C^3 has to be degraded while a land battle continues. and so it will carry out missions to gain air-superiority, but at the same time, there will be largescale attacks meant to degrade the enemy’s C^3. local air-superiority will be enough for that- clear the way for stand off attacks. and in the big picture, its equally important in order to gain total air-superiority.
as for the USAF, they sent in stealth bombers to take out Iraq’s Command and control centers. the IAF will need to use its fighters because there aren’t any stealth bombers in its inventory- there will be losses, but thats always been the case- which is why in all wars, IAF went on the offense, and losses to ground fire have been higher than those of PAF which was generally on the defensive, giving an impression that somehow PAF won the war because of lower attrition, even while Pakistan lost.
thats why a half-baked Typhoon is not as good for the IAF till its multi-role capabilities are fully developed. otherwise it’ll become a case where the Typhoon will be the Air-Dominance fighter and the Su-30MKI will need to take up even more of the burden of standoff and precision strike that the Typhoon could not take up till its fully developed.
21AnkushWhat is the point of India buying the F/A-18 for its radar now? We know that India will have a AESA radar in a much more capable airframe which is the Su-30MKI. So why spend bucket loads on a aircraft which is aerodynamically and structurally poor?
the IAF has set some requirements for the MRCA based on its doctrines- if the Super Hornet meets those requirements, is considered affordable, it stands a chance. its upto the IAF and the GoI to decide what it wants. cribbing about “aerodynamics” isn’t going to change that fact- that if it qualified to be chosen, it obviously met the requirements that the IAF stipulated, and they’re the users, not internet posters.
F/A-18’s can not cope against PLAAF’s fleet of Su-27’s and J-11’s and J-10’s, not to mention the Su-30MKK etc etc…
whats so special about the J-10s that the SH cannot cope with it ? kindly explain. as for the earlier generation Su-27s, I really think you’re overestimating them and underestimating the SH. as for the Su-30MKK, its not the same as a Su-30MKI. it has an inferior radar to even the MKI, no TVC, not to even compare it to the F-18’s AESA. at least in BVR combat, it’ll pretty much finish any of these PLAAF fighters thanks to its RCS reduction features that none of the PLAAF fighters currently sport. and in WVR, with AIM-9X and JHMCS its no pushover with high-offbore sight compensating for its lack of acceleration. as for its nose-pointing ability, its actually praised for that.
India needs to buy cheap MMRCA aircraft and use the left over money to shore up its SAM system in the north, buy a few S-300’s or S-400’s. we can use the long range SAMS as our pikes and SU-30mki’s as our swords whilst short range aircraft like the Mig-35 or Gripen can act as shields (intercept roles).
you think that the MiG-35 is capable of taking on anything that the PLAAF will throw at the IAF just because its an aerodynamically superior platform or that its more suited just because its cheap ? regarding SAMs, isn’t going to happen, so no use talking about S-400s or S-300s. the IAF will get its LRSAM and MRSAM and the Maitri.
Does not make sence to spend the 10billion or any part of it purely to buy an AESA radar or Aim 120D. If America wants to be friends why can we not buy them and integrate them onto another aircraft in the future?
there a whole lot of other air-ground munitions that the F-18 carries and has been extensively tested with which make it known as a great strike fighter. the Typhoon unfortunately, even after so many years of service is only at the Austere level of A2G maturity and the partners can’t decide on a date for getting the AESA in service. how is it a good fit for the IAF’s needs, which include a fighter that can be as good at strike as at air-to-air roles ?
IMO, for the IAF’s needs, the Rafale is the best- a very capable fighter in both A2A and A2G roles.
21AnkushWhy then “IF the IAF achieves aerial superiority. PAF and PLAAF are not quite the same as the IraqiAF or the non-existent aerial resistance in Afghanistan…”, in post #261?
because while the IAF does want a MRCA fighter capable of being an air-superiority fighter, it also requires a potent striker- neither role is more important because its not like the Su-30MKI is only an Air-Dominance fighter- it can bomb as well and has a variety of weapons it can use for that.
anyway, the battle is not going to be the same as first gaining air-superiority and then bombing with impunity because PAF and PLAAF are no pushovers and gaining air-superiority may not even be possible at least in the case of the PLAAF. leaving infrastructure and command nodes alone while only concentrating on clearing enemy fighters is not going to happen- it will be done simultaneously. as it is, I have yet to see a single IAF statement that says its looking for a fighter that is either better at strike or at air-to-air.
in the first days of the battle beginning, the IAF will launch standoff attacks at communication nodes, radar stations, SAM sites, air force and army bases, etc. PGMs, LGBs and ALCMs will be used and any fighter that can carry them while being able to self-escort itself is obviously better than another that requires an escort because the density of PAF fighters is very high- lots of fighters over a small area with a decent radar coverage.
but at the same time, some MRCAs may be dedicated to air-superiority or escort missions, to clear enemy fighters from a battlespace before other pure strikers like Jags or MiG-27s go in for bombing runs or to protect vital installations from air strikes or may be required to escort AWACS – there is not going to be a clear division of roles wherein the MKI only does Air-dominance missions. the MKI is capable of a whole lot more and their air-crews train for more than just air-to-air battles. for instance, IAF Su-30MKIs are also tasked with destroying enemy SAM sites and carry pods that allow for recon better than any other IAF platform.
21AnkushAlright, thanks for the clarification.
Still expensive to maintain though if you are to believe the Thais.
they are expensive to operate and maintain- its a big fighter by any standards. however how would the Thais know about the Su-30 ? you’re confusing them with the Malaysians ?
Sign In
