“‘Times of India’ newspaper”-newspapers are not famous with their technical accuracy.

LOL, you said it.

Interesting article

Indian concern

“While India cannot justifiably object to it, the increasing involvement of Pakistan in the counter-insurgency operations is a matter of serious concern from the point of view of India’s national security,” Mr. Raman says.

“The clandestine co-operation between the armed forces of Sri Lanka and Pakistan, which has been there even in the past, picked up momentum after an unpublicised visit by Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan, then Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, to Colombo in September 2003,” Mr. Raman says.

India had never objected in the past to the close military-military relations between Sri Lanka and Pakistan, but Gen. Aziz Khan’s secret visit upset Delhi, Raman says.

This is because Gen. Aziz Khan “had co-ordinated Pakistan’s proxy war against India through various jihadi terrorist organisations [and] played an active role in the clandestine occupation of Indian territory in the Kargil”

Civilians targetted

“Under the influence of the Pakistani advisers, the Sri Lankan Government’s counter-insurgency operations are becoming increasingly ruthless,” Mr. Raman says. “There have been many instances of targeted killing of innocent civilians through actions on the ground as well as from the air.”

“This will only drive more Tamils into the arms of the LTTE,” he fears.

“Since Mr. Rajapakse took over as the President in November last year, more innocent civilians have been killed by the Sri Lankan security forces than in the [recent] past.”

“Pakistan, which has already been playing a discreet role in assisting the Sri Lankan security forces in their operations against the LTTE even before Mr.Rajapakse became the President, has further increased its involvement in the counter-insurgency operations [since November 2005],” Mr. Raman says.

Pakistan has 500km Babur and is developing a 1000km version. These will be on PN vessels.

Your right, with a range like that, we probably dont even need to leave port! 😀

The Babur, with all due respect, is primarily a land attack missile. An AShM version will be “interesting” but given its subsonic profile, target dispersion would be a problem. And the IN has hard kill and soft kill ability against an AShM. Unlike the PN, which would be hard pressed to combat a sea skimming subsonic missile salvo, let alone a supersonic one. 😉

And propoganda apart, its as of yet unclear as to how many Baburs will be deployed by Pakistan or its capable of manufacturing. In contrast, the Brahmos, Klub-S, Moskit, and the C-80X series are all in regular production. These are far more potent weapons than the Babur. 😉

IAF’s attrition rate is dropping despite its high flying hours, a positive trend consistent over the past couple of years . Although there is some mistake here about the # of aircraft which is actually 9 with the loss of 8 pilots.

But that apart, this part is interesting.

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=317495&sid=NAT

To another question, Mukherjee said the cost of indigenous SU-30 Mki Aircraft is higher that of imported SU-30 Mki Aircraft.

But, as the indigenous content would increase in the later phases, the average cost of indigenously manufactured SU-30 Mki Aircraft is estimated to be less than the imported ones, he said.

As I had noted earlier, all the tom tomming of expensive “local Sukhois” vs “cheaper imported ones” based on a handful of reports was speculative.

Even now, I would advise folks to wait for the actual report.

But the Def Mins comments do buttress my original point, that the speed of production being ramped up, led to cost escalation in components being supplied from abroad and the OEMS for the initial phases! The MKI program was to originally end in 2017-18, now its 2014. That basically meant that the OEMs had to compress their TOT schedules AND component/ machinery supply all around, including manufacturing facilities in India.

Attrition details:

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/53811.php/Nine_IAF_jets_crashed_8_pilots_died_in_last_one_year

Go search up on propellor technology, you can keep on denying.

I already posted far more on propeller technology than one needs for a basic understanding. But wait, from your side we’ve had more gems on the lines of 80 propellors beat 79 etc without even taking into account hydrodynamic loading and many other factors that drive the choice of propellor.

No, that’s not what I think is the reason of Scorpenes induction. I read plenty about IN’s plan to dominate the Indian Ocean and of modernizing its navy. You were obviously pissed of at my post, so trying to pick on my post. Maybe you should stop guessing what I’m thinking and stick to minding your own business?

I pointed out a flaw in your post with regards to your claim of IN inducting the Scorpene because it was the fanciest etc, I merely noted that it was inducted because it fit best into a long term submarine production plan. This has little to do with “minding my own business”. If you post claims on a public board, surely you do expect responses, especially when you refuse to heed polite clarifications and continue to muddle ahead with even more misleading comments.

wow, insinuating I’m stupid, lol.

LOL indeed. Your posts do far more damage than any statement made by me. 😮

Another new method. Read my freaking post. I didn’t say that a 7 blade propellor is automatically less noisy than a 5 blade propellor. The 7 blade propellor on kilos are developed using newer technology than the 5 blade propellor on Indian kilos. But hey, if you don’t think a sub using 80s propellor technology is nosier than the same sub using 90s propellor technology, maybe the Russians should drop pump jet propellors and go back to 5 blade propellors.

More drivel! First the Indian subs at refit are getting six blade propellors. Now please inform us all what 80’s technology was used to design these versus the 90’s technology for the 7 blade ones …
Its because of silly assertions like these that your arguements take a knock.

I never stated that nor do I believe that the Russians can’t make a sub quieter than Agosta, but a 90s kilo (or even a 2006 kilo) is not quieter than Agosta.

Oh wow. A new strawman, Kilo of 2006 vs Agosta. Your original point was that the Russians couldnot get adequate specs about their subs vs “quet targets”, and now its off on another tangent..sigh!
Next it will be Amur vs Agosta, as can be expected, no data will be presented to back up your assertions.

getting relative accoustic readings should be easier than getting exact accoustic readings. And secondly, the Russians aren’t like the Americans who have their MPAs buzzing around different oceans tracking submarines. The Americans got a lot more data on the accoustic readings of submarines.

More nonsense. Russia, a nation with decades of sub-building experience, now needs MPA’s to keep itself abreast of advances in quietening technology and how its equipments performance needs to keep apace. Sigh.

No…I just like to know whom I am debating with and in this case, I think I shall stop here, because you do appear to be the quintessential energizer bunny on such topics on the internet, and go on and on and on and on…
I dont have the time or energy…so sayonara..

really, I haven’t visited this forum since my last post. And before that, the post before that. Interesting how you reply to my posts so fast.

If you dont visit this forum and spend all your energies elsewhere, this forum is indeed lucky, unlike the others on the net which have you hammering big round nails into square shaped holes and vice versa.

Americans are practicing against quieter subs.

Why? If diesel subs, including Russian ones were such clankers, then they wouldnt eh?

do a google search if you don’t believe me.

What, more ABCD person is expert from blah di blah forum?

I think the fact that BR put Sea Dragon not satisfying IN for tu-142 is plenty of evidence.

Oh wow. Now is BR, the IN?

The fact is that the IN chose the Sea Dragon for its Mays and is proceeding ahead with that program.

The Sea Dragon for the IN’s Tu-142’s was too expensive and time-consuming. Russian insistence on a high price also put paid to that effort.

So they are going for a polyglot mix of Israeli and Indian components.

Things have transformed dramtically in 2 months!?

Given the amount of errata in that article, it wouldnt matter if it was a day old or a decade old.

Not to mention that they are the only USAF on the planet

That too! 😀

Post edited!

[QUOTE=packard]Indian air force ‘lacks planes’
By Nagendar Sharma
BBC News, Delhi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5094234.stm

Only half the fleet is available at any given time
Nearly 20% of Indian Air Force (IAF) pilots are doing desk jobs because of a shortage of planes, the BBC has learnt.

Classified documents seen by the BBC show that in all about a third of the IAF’s 2,500 pilots have been assigned ground and administrative duties.

Of these, 450 fit and trained pilots simply lack planes, the documents say.

Growing numbers of IAF pilots have been refused permission to quit in recent months. The Indian Air Force had “no comment” on the BBC’s findings.

The IAF has about 790 aircraft in total, including 340 fighter planes.

Only half the fleet is available at any given time while the rest are being serviced, the documents show.

By 2010 the air forces’ transport fleet will be reduced by nearly 40%.

The IAF, which currently has 34 squadrons, plans to reduce that number to 28 by 2013.

Poor utilisation

Some of the pilots put on ground and administrative jobs by the force spoke to the BBC.

They said the jobs they had been given contradicted claims by senior officials that pilots who wanted to leave the IAF could not do so as it would create a shortage of pilots.

“Whatever the authorities might say, the fact is that the air force is overstaffed in terms of pilots,” one of the pilots, who has served in the IAF for 15 years, told the BBC.

This was despite the IAF spending millions of rupees on pilot training, he said.

Another serving pilot with more than a decade of service said: “In every air force station, you would find fully competent and medically fit pilots posted to various ground administrative jobs.

“The average utilisation rate of pilots in terms of flying hours per month is very low, as much as five to six hours a month,” he added.

Earlier this year, the chief of the Indian Air Force told the BBC he was aware that some pilots wanted to leave his force, although he said the numbers were much lower than reported.

Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi put it down to India’s booming civil aviation industry and the lucrative salaries being offered by commercial airlines.

The air chief marshal said he did not begrudge the high salaries being offered to his pilots by private airlines. But he said he could not release pilots unless they were not required by the IAF.

If you werent dancing around with joy, one might point out the following facts:

1. The BBC claim of five- six hours is for pilots on staff deputation, ie those who are not currently flying at squadron level. In the IAF, pilots are usually give command postings every two- three years, to prepare them for command positions. Theres more to leading a squadron, an airbase, a “wing”, then just flying. During this period, the pilot flies only as much as to retain certification on type. That the BBC has misunderstood this is no surprise.

Secondly averaging out pilot sorties even amongst these pilots, or even the total pilot pool is meaningless. Since pilot hours vary by type and by seniority. A rookie pilot can be expected to meet squadron standards which in the IAF again vary by type and are benchmarked moreorless at 180/ hrs per pilot annually. Once he attains his spurs and is familiar with the type, he will often exceed the minimum standards, and with seniority will often pull more hours exceeding the minimum limit. For instance, IFR equipped aircraft can fly far longer per sortie, than those without. A Sukhoi can criss cross the whole of India during the duration of one flight itself.

2. The IAF’s active fighter pilots fly 20-22 sorties per month, which is higher than the PAF’s 15 sorties per month. The data, from the IAF and the PAF is given in post # 51.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=989144&postcount=51

3.The IAF’s currently high pilot to airframe ratio is an advantage, it has more pilots to fly a pool of airframes, and the excess manpower being pulled from dembobbed squadrons allows for it to boost technical manpower as well, if it chooses to.

So Packard/ Mirko Filipovich, nice try, but no candy. :rolleyes: