Originally posted by BruteGorilla
HAL also tinckered on a two-seat trainer version of the Ajeet (modified Gnat) It had a lengthened fuselage and a tandem dual-cockpit design. It was never produced. First prototype was built in 1982 which crashed in same year. The second prototype flew a year after but the programme faded out. Finally Hawk was chosen as AJT :rolleyes:

It could well have failed with the order being cancelled (hey, we’re talking about India here), but i do know of three Ajeet IIs. E2414, E2426 (which indeed crashed in december 1982) and E2427. The two surviving ones have been seen with 2sqn as late as 1991, possibly as hack.

Originally posted by SabreAce
Gnat trainers were developed by HAL but it does’nt say what happened to them, on the BR site.

:confused: HAL made some modifications to the basic Gnat airframe (some strengthening and pylons IIRC) and called that Ajeet, while from that Ajeet a training version (the Ajeet II) was developed of which 18 were appearantly built.

The Gnat trainer as was used by the RAF was a Folland design though.

What if i forgot to pay the gravity bill?

Size-wise the Mi-8 is roughly comparable with an CH-3E or other ramp-Sea Kings, or CH-46, or Merlin.

A CH-53 is a lot bigger.

If there’s anything i can do to help from this side of the pond, please let me know. I’m thinking of it’s career with 322sqn, and i’ve done a bit of writing here and there, including some bits in English.

If it weren’t for McDD to put very strong red boxes halfway through the nose as bumpers…

Tu-22M3’s are refuelling-capable. They are all equipped with the retractable KAZ-833 probe in the nose, which occasionally was closed shut because of SALT but in fact could be made operational again at any given time – just like the removal of the probes on the noses of Tu-22s and Tu-22M2’s never meant anything as they could be replaced in half an hour or so. It won’t be a problem for Indian Backfires to be refuelling-capable, if at least the Russians allow them to. Still, with only 6 tankers available i don’t think India has sufficient refuelling capability anyway.

While Matt’s figure on an unrefuelled subsonic range for the M3 of 6800 km is correct, it’s actual combat radius is just some 2200km with a supersonic dash on closing and leaving the target area. Which is hardly more than the M2 could pull off – but then again, you’re talking Globalsecurity data which should never be taken for gospel. The double payload and increased speed are the more obvious advantages of the new engines of the M3 versus the M2.

Garry,

When used in Afghanistan they had replaced the Tu-16 in the bombing role. The big advantage over the slower Tu-16 was that they no longer required Mig-23s based in Afghanistan to escort them. Because of their speed and jamming equipment they were never intercepted by Pakistani F-16s. In fact there is doubt that they were even detected due to their jamming systems.

The Tu-16 flew bombing missions over Afghanistan until the very end. Obviously because it was more available (the Backfire was still in production, and still went mostly to more Cold War-focused regiments), but also because the Badger could carry and drop the nicely subtle FAB-9000 bombs to do some landscape restructuring in the Khost area. Backfires were also used, but nowhere near as much as the Badger. Two squadrons (some 20 aircraft) from Poltava were deployed to Mary-2 from December 1987 to January 1989, whereas Badgers were in theatre for most of the war.
ECM coverage for the missions close to Pakistan was not a task of the bombers themselves. For this, Tu-22P’s were deployed. It were these aircraft which reportedly completely blanked out the Pakistani air defence systems, not those of the Backfire itself. THe ECM-gear of the Tu-22M3 isn’t all that spectaculair btw – back then, even some of the Badgers (those with the thick SPS-tails in stead of a gun) had better systems, and could act as a light package jammer for a section of Tu-16s. The Backfire needed a Tu-22P Blinder-E for ECM escort.

Great idea.