Nick_76Wollen is an IAF man and a head of HAL. Quit making a fool out of yourself by bringing in your Chinese rah-rah Indians bad attitude to this thread with claims of nationalism and what not, when talking of a distinguished combat pilot and aviation professional. The article above was published in a professional mag in India and reprinted with permission on BR. Wollen pulls no punches in his assessment of the LCAs project management cons either- note his prescient comment on the Kaveri and accurate prediction of timelines.
Apart from Wollen, Air Marshal P Rajkumars book is also available – the Tejas story, and it clearly catalogues how the LCA project was funded and took off only in the 90’s, and unlike your silly insinuations, clearly catalogues external assistance, from OEMs to consultants. A few wind tunnel models at NAL dont translate into anything tangible either, By the same standards, the HF-24 follow on models were also LCA preproduction design models. There are models at NAL made at considerable expense which are merely representative of industry standard projects and which NAL undertook to ensure design knowledge build up.
Nick_76Flex, still no word on whether or not that array is AESA from the online site of ‘Take-Off’, the journal itself maybe more specific. However, it reiterates it’s for a “type/variant of Bars” for the Su-30MKI and Indian press last year claimed the last batch of 40 MKIs would be delivered with AESAs. Perhaps Nick76/Abhimanyu or others can shed more light on it.
What Indian reports? Indian press will be surprised (90% of them) to know that there is a radar on the MKI to begin with.
OK, btw, that is definitely a type/ variant of Bars, not the original Bars as seen in Flex’s pictures.
Are you sure its for the MKI?
Because, what that pic shows, is that the metal thingmajigs beneath the antenna, i think they are the phase shifters are now more broad and rectangular, no longer tapering. And the production quality has improved as well. Or it could be the angle pic was taken, but the thin orange brown metal rivet like thingies that are in between the antenna and the backend are now less visible thanks to the increased number of the items above. In earlier pics, you could see the tapered metal prongs in batches, with the orange bars behind them and visible.
The fact that the report says “type/ variant of Bars” is also significant, otherwise it would have just been Bars.
I dont think its AESA, because an AESA would be shown as an integrated antenna and this looks like the same Bars but an evolution, this is definitely (IMO) a PESA but there are changes to the underlying design.
Nothing conclusive though. IMO, there is more likely of Bars recieving an Irbis style upgrade now to TWTs and receiver/ SP than a brand New AESA.
For one, there is no report of a NIIP AESA being ready to begin with.
AESA will come as a MLU, I think.
Nick_76
Nick_76I think from the news sources the IAF is no longer interested in LCA powered by 404..
Gee, which is why I mentioned the Ge414!
So which flat rated engine is available in market today????
Why dont you tell us? As far as I can see, I was very clear about the choice of a greater thrust engine since flat rated engines are not available off the shelf!
On another note what will be implication of TWO tonne increased weight for a small bird like LCA! Does a more powerful engine able to achieve the required flight characteristics??
Hello!! The LCA already achieves the intended flight characteristics in most criteria. What is being planned for is the intended weight increase after accounting for all the new gizmos and stuff the IAF has asked for, plan now for later! The Ge 404 series IN20 is expected to achieve minimum requirements, ie slap bang on the ASR, but the IAF wants more.
Will it be like the famous statement of Admirals Thomas Moorer, chief of naval operations, and Thomas Connolly, his deputy for air about F-111
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,828470,00.htmlJust add Putindom also here…
Edited. If these sort of ad hominems remain part of your act, your presence here will end
Nick_76Nick, Nothing amiss???
I think there is a lot here that is beyond logic/comprehension. Didn’t IAF or ADA realise that packing a small airframe like LCA with all this stuff would would increase its weight and require a more powerful engine? Im sure all the avionics of F-15 can be packed into F-16 (just imagine the advantages with logistics and billions of $ saved), but there are reasons as to why USAF operates both types. As Abhimanyu put it earlier in this thread, ‘In short, the IAF wanted a Mirage-2000’s weapon-load and fuel-range — in the airframe of the size of a MiG-21.‘, and Im beggining to think that this might be true.
Hello? Where were you all these days? Havent I and many other posters posted about the ASR revision again and again? About the Mirage 2000 being the “ideal” for the IAF & how the IAF wanted M2K performance from the LCA airframe and how challenging the task was for ADA?
Of course, I can well imagine fellows like that Burrra whatever from KSA, ignoring the facts in his intent to troll, but you are a serious chap! Take a look at a few threads previous, and you’ll see reports from the Scientific Advisor and a Navy Admiral about the LCAs development, mentioning the same thing! Now when & where these requirements began to pop up is a discussion by itself, but over the past few years, the IAF has finally made a commitment to the LCA, but after making a substantial revision to its specs in some ways.
The problem is of course, to an extent the IAFs inability to draw up a proper requirements map of what they wanted from the LCA, but to an extent what they have asked for is achievable, but after a lot of effort. The IAF wants a fleet of “desi” Mirage 2000s in a manner of speaking..in terms of some KPs, even though range and payload will still be lesser. But far more than the earlier point interceptor role that was envisaged in 1990.
Now here is very important question.
LCA is one of the smallest fighters in the world. Now if its overall (normal takeoff) weight is to be increased by up to 2000 kg, what sort of impact would that have on its range/combat radius. How about the impact of installing a more powerful engine on its range (while the fuel remains the same)? If LCA is one of the most densely packed aircraft as well (as the latest article posted by Buraidah claims), how do you creat more space for fuel? CFTs? But that would be a lengthy process, add more weight, and cause drag. Small aircraft always suffer from these problems (weight, power, range etc) due to their small size, and LCA was meant to be the smallest in this category. It is precisely these rumours which make people think that perhaps someone in India does not want to see LCA in IAF service…in numbers. I won’t be surprised, if tomorrow IAF raises an issue about its range not being adequate.
CFTs are one of the ways, but in terms of fuel consumption, dont think the payload and range will be affected drastically. IFR is also being added for the same. Remember, its all about trading payload for performance, and with 230 MKIs, 126 MRCAs, 50 odd Mirage 2000s and 63 MiG-29s- each with a modern avionics fit, not to mention at least 40MiG-27 Upg and twice that number of Jags, the LCA will not be required to be a heavy duty bomb truck.
With 2 WVR and 2 BVR missiles, plus a centerline tank + 2 others, and IFR, the LCA can be a very useful A2A asset. With a LDP (special pylon), 2 LGBs, 2 WVR Missiles, and 2-3 fuel tanks ..the LCA can be a decent strike platform as well. And in either case, the LCA will be superior to the current backbone of the IAFs strike fleet, the Jag/ MiG-27 Combination. Neither for instance has the option of TFR, which the LCA will have, or for that matter radar imaging.
What the IAF wants of the LCA is what it wants of everything it inducts, worldclass performance in terms of avionics, and airframe performance, in every respect. That allows them flexibility in using it as they see fit. Yes, to a degree they are irresponsible, in that they constantly ask for the moon.
Now its a moot point whether the LCA even requires many of the items being added to it, cheaper and simpler alternatives exist – but the harder path has always been asked by the IAF, and since they are the customer, ADA has to move viz the same.
Nick_76Abhimanyu, I dont know what issues IAF has with LCA, and just like most others I can only speculate. As for JF-17, I know its has an empty weight of around 6,400 kg (persumably with all the sensors). As you said, LCA is smaller than JF-17, is claimed to be one of the lightest weight fighters in the world, and is said to incoporate one of the highest proportion of compisites. Now if LCA weighs 6,500 kg after addition of sensors, something appears to be amiss.:confused:
Nothing amiss. The IAF upgraded its requirements for the LCA to include a fully internal comprehensive EW suite with multiple jammers, the LCA has to have an IRST as well, and the MMR has moved from a circa ~100 km system to a full Zhuk ME class one. To add to that the IAF wants full IFR plumbing, an OBOGS, and the superstructure beefed up to allow more multipurpose pylons capable of carrying fuel / weaponry – these all have resulted in the LCA weight increase. The airframe design can take it, but the engine thrust will also have to keep pace.
Per IAF itself, the basic Ge404 LCA is enough as a Mig-21 replacement – original ASRs, but they think the LCA is capable of more and want more. ADA has agreed provided IAF is reasonable and takes the first Ge equipped tranches – which the IAF is.
One question. If LCA is designed for Kaveri (an engine with higher thrust), does this mean it’s not optimised for F404, and hence all these rumours about the power issues? Or if the current LCA is optimised for F404, does this mean changes to intakes/ducts will have to be made to accomodate the higher thrust Kaveri?
Simply put, the Ge404 is not flat rated, whereas the Kaveri was (to be) and hence it cant provide the correct amount of thrust in a few operational envelope points such as hot and low. So when the engine cant maintain constant thrust, simple option is to get more airflow and a heavier thrust engine – thats where the Ge414 and EJ series come in.
Nick_76India signed the MiG-29 upg recently..
Zhuk ME on IAF MiG-29 Upgrade:
From the net, BR etc
Range against a target with RCS 5m2 in detection mode is 150km
Tracking range against such target is 130km.(Source: Milparade article about the Zhuk-ME radar by Anatoly Kanashchenkov – Director General and General Designer of the Phazotron-NIIR Corporation Yuri Guskov, Deputy Director General and First Deputy General Designer)
For Zhuk-ME equipped with a slotted array antenna, the surveillance envelope is: – in azimuth: ±85O
– in elevation: ±60°
– in roll: ±120°
[…]
The target acquisition range for fighter-type targets (d = 5 m2) is as follows:
– head-on targets: 150 km (for the 980-mm antenna the range increases by 50 percent, as against the 624-mm antenna);
– targets in pursuit: 60 – 65 km.
The radar’s tracking range is 0.83 to 0.85 of target acquisition range, while the target acquisition range in close-in combat is 15 to 18 km.
SAR resolution of basic Zhuk-ME radar is 5×5 meters (there is information that first Yemenite MiG-29SMT with same radar have SAR resolution of 10×10 meters), it will be improved to 3×3 meters and finally to 1×1 meters for MiG-29K/KUB of Indian Navy
Source:
New Airborne Radar To Equip Upgraded MiG-29SM
(News from May 2006)Quote:
According to him, export-oriented Zhuk-MEs now have a resolution of 5×5.MiG-29K ACCEPTS REAL OUTLINES
RSK “MiG” HAS GENERATED INDUSTRIAL COOPERATION ON the SHIP FIGHTERVladimir Kazarnov
(News from January 2005)
Quote:
Radical changes were undergone by structure of the onboard equipment. As the basic sensor control the “Zhuk – ME” already delivered on export in structure MiG- 29SMT. “Zhuk-ME” simultaneous attack of four air targets and mapping of a terrestrial surface with the resolution of 5 m (in the future – up to 1 m) acts BRLS provides. RSK “MiG” has already received such nine radars for a complete set of serial planes. In a variant for MiG-29K one “Zhuk” is collected and three are under construction more – it is required for OKR so much. The first copy is established on stand GosNiIaS created for adaptation BRLS with other elements of an onboard complex.Furthermore:
Red Star, February 2005
Radar from “Fazotron-NIIR”
/Red Star/
Quote:
Corporation “Fazotron-NIIR” completed flight tests and began the series production of onboard multifunctional multimode pulsed-Doppler radar (RLS) “Zhuk-ME”, intended for the installation to the carrier-based fighters MiG-29K. general director – the design project leader of corporation “Fazotron-NIIR” Anatoliy Kanashchenkov emphasized that onboard radar “Zhuk-ME” in the course of flight tests completely confirmed all declared characteristics. This radar will be established on the carrier-based fighters MiG-29K, the supplied NAVY of India, and also on the multifunctional destroyers MiG-29SMT.“We are ready to propose to customer two modifications of radar “Zhuk-ME” – with the slot array and with the phased antenna array. On the destroyers MiG-29K will be established the radars with the slot array. They relatively inexpensive and at the same time have very high combat characteristics. According to our estimation, the relationship is “effectiveness – cost” in them optimum”, said A. Kanashchenkov.
Radar “Zhuk-ME” in comparison with regular BRLS has one and a half times long range of the detection of aerial targets (to 120 km), it makes it possible to accompany 10 targets and to simultaneously attack 4 of them. In the radar “Zhuk-ME” is in practice realized new regime “air-surface” and regime of cartography of locality. Radar today ensures in the regime of cartography the permission of 5×5 of meters, but already soon it will be to 3×3 of meter, and then also to 1×1 meter.
RAM:
Why Aren’t the Stealth MiGs Flying?
Quote:
Reports in the highest ranks of the U.S.A. Department of Defense, which were made during the presidential election campaign of 1980, served as the push for the creation Soviet stealth aircraft ((NEVIDIMYY SAMOLET)). True, not without the prompting of then president Carter, Secretary of Defense Brown informed the public that the U.S.A. had attained significant successes of defense significance and could build an airplane that was practically invisible to PVO systems.The Soviet Union took immediate notice of this announcement. In that same 1980, the government resolved to perform corresponding experimental design work. The Moscow Zenit Machine Building Plant (MMZ) (now the Russian Aircraft Building MiG Corporation) undertook the creation of stealth tactical fighters.
The Americans hid the airplane using the creation of a nearly undetectable shape ((MALOZAMETNAYA FORMA)). Our scientists and engineers proceeded from the fact that any well streamline airplane is already undetectable. And therefore, they began to study the fighter’s radar signature ((RADIOPORTRET)). A production process ((TEKHNOLOGIYA)) for the lowering of detectability was developed based on the application of a thin-layer radar absorbing ((RADIOPOGLOSHCHAYUSHCHIY)) material.
In 1982 – 1983, 10 assorted institutes were working on the creation of such a material, including also the Academy of the Chemical Protection Troops (VAKhZ), in accordance with a government resolution. VAKhZ specialists were the first to make an experimental batch in large enough quantity to cover an airplane. They treated a serial MiG-23 aircraft with a spray gun with the material they had obtained. After this, there were tests of the MiG-23 on the ground and in flight. The level of radar detectability of the tested MiG was 8.6 decibels lower than the level of detectability of a standard MiG.
Tests of the stealth MiG took place at the 21st Institute of the General Staff’s Directorate of Radioelectronic Countermeasures and Automated Control Systems (REhP ASU) insofar as it possessed a more complete radar measuring complex than air force institutes.
In 1984, Zenit set about the creation of a second low-detectable fighter, but of a different modification – a MiG-23ML, using six various types of material to cover it, which were developed by the All-Union Institute of Aviation Materials (VIAM). Tests of the new fighter, which were performed in August – December 1985, showed that its radar detectability in “X” band in the forward and rear hemispheres was 10 decibels lower than a normal MiG.
At the next meeting, where air force representatives were absent, the chief of the General Staff’s REhP ASU directorate was unable to remain silent about Zenit’s achievements, but he declared that 10 decibels is by far not enough.
In 1985, the air force was to have allocated funds for radar-absorbing coatings for its airplanes. But as far as the given research area went in relation to REhP ASU, the air force Chief of Staff never learned of the existence of the experiment stealth fighters…
In 1987, the developers from Zenit were planning to make a stealth MiG-29, but Zenit never received the money for the stealth MiG-29, and work on it was stopped.
In 1992, the Zenit MMZ was reformed into the MiG Aviation Scientific and Production Complex (ANPK). The ANPK management decided to start work in the external marketplace, providing services for the reduction of the detectability of its fighters. The commercial structure MiG-Service was to have organized this work. MiG-Service found the money for continuation of the work for the construction of a stealth MiG-29. The ANPK developers proceeded to labor over the fighter in company with the EhnergoIVTAN NTO ((Scientific and Technical Section)). In fact, staff from the very same VIAM laboratory, which had created the coating for the MiG-23ML, transferred to IVTAN. However, the measurements performed in 1992 at the General Staff’s test facility showed that it was unable to reach the required level of detectability. The developers suspected that the NTO did not comply with their requirements for the coating material.
In 1994, in the process of the structural reorganization they moved brigade 1016 from one department to another, but along the way it was “lost.” That, by the way, did not interfere with the management entrusting in 1997 the non-existent brigade with bringing the work on the MiG-29 to a triumphant conclusion.
Once again being occupied with the MiG-29, the developers found out extremely unpleasant news. The domestic enterprises ceased production of the necessary bindings for the materials, from which the coatings are made. But the ANPK developers found a way out. Together with the St. Peterburg State University for Telecommunications and NVP Panatron they developed the Lak-3-10 coating from bindings that were not in short supply. In 1999, tests of a MiG-29 with the new coating showed that its detectability had decrease by 13 times.
In the worldwide market place our undetectable MiG-29 would not have a competitor. A team of five men can apply the coating in 2 weeks. A good owner would long ago already have coated several aircraft for testing, organized an advertising campaign, and would have tried to sell the “stealth.” But in the MiG corporation, it looks as if no one cares.
Other stuff………
Somehow I think the MiG-29s will remain air superiority focused, while the Mirage 2000s upgraded will pick up more of the EW and strike tasks. But with an Mirage 2000-5 level upgrade, as recently signed, the IAFs Mirage 2000’s will be amongst the most potent fighters in Asia and are easily the equal or superior avionics wise, to the Block 50/52 F-16s in PAF service or even the PLAAFs birds.
Nick_76Except that Israel has never had that simple choice. Israel is dependent on the USA, & the USA vetoed Israels “strategic relationship” with China. That was completely predictable. Israel has had to find a new friend, & has found it in India, which so far is proving a much more reliable customer.
What you call a “no-brainer” was, in retrospect, no such thing.
Senior israeli arms rep at a trade show:
“we sell to india, europe, we know our items will get IP protection, in india we have many license production deal [sic]”
“with china, what we give comes tomorrow as theirs and it spoils our reputation”. Looks like they discovered the fampus J-11 “process” as well. :rolleyes:
Nick_76Steve,
Good posts – and please do chip in on topics of interest. Ignore flamers/ irritants if you must, but great having you here.
Nick_76See, all I could “glean” from your post is the suggestion (and a constructive one at that), is that HAL passes are available and that HAL’s middle and even top level management is accessible to discuss about the PAK-FA, its contribution, prospects, and the like. This would make us know hitherto unknown aspects of HAL’s contributions in it, that are otherwise unavailable to the media and general public. Otherwise, an “acre” of (contrived) criticism and abuse does not make for a smooth read.
Oh good , well done! If thats all that you could get from my post and you needed my post to do that…go buy yourself a choc and pat yourself on the back! I have to wonder now which country you are from..you have all the time in the world to debate killing IQ cells (mine and this forums) with ad hoc repeated nauseous claims but you didnt even know HALs top management is able to talk about the PAK-FA…
Geez, they will talk about ALL their programs..if the general public and media are like you, no wonder we dont have any informed statements!
Now that your suggestion is in the public domain, I’m certain that people like me, for whom this is a know for the first time, will make use of it when they get the opportunity.
Please do!! At least that is better than hitting us all over the head with your repetitive copy and paste!!!!
The above mentioned tasks are likely to be handed to HAL for a “riveting analysis”, which would mean doing an “insightful” examination of the various aspects of the finalized Russian airframe, that would have already been constructed.
Woo hoo! Now you know more than HAL and RUssia itself! Has it struck you that there are many organizations in India which have resources available to assist in finetuning the PAKFA which they will?? Nope! For you, the world ends at HAL and the copy paste rubbish which you pick up from AFP, Reuters or what not…
As per the first hand report of known defence journalist Mr. Shiv Aroor, the chief of United Aircraft Corporation Mr. Alexei Fedorov confirmed that the design of the PAK-FA has been frozen and the production will begin. In 2006, the IAF’s initial QSRs were actually returned by Russia on the grounds that the design had been finalized already.
LOLOL!! Shiv Aroor – who wouldnt know the PAK-FA design and its technology unless somebody colored huge circles around it with crayola and gave it to to him!! Dude – are you good for ANYTHING apart from spewing out what others say??
As per older Indian reports, the APK-FA is known to have been under development since the five years before the MoU that was signed in Jan. 2007. These efforts from 2002 have not seen any Indian participation or active involvement, or even passive observation or knowledge shared, because they have unilaterally been Russian. Indian ASRs have never been catalysed upto the stage when the plane has begun heightened full-scale production. Heightened, because Russia has set a target of 2015 for induction of the PAK-FA into the services of their air-force. The Chief of IAF, Mr. Major has also expressed confidence in its induction into the IAF by 2017 — just 8 years after its first flight that is scheduled in 2009.
Your ignorance of how the real world works is staggering! FYI, the MKI had been in the works technology wise, well before the FSU split – but that doesnt mean that when the program finally kicked off with seriousness, India couldnt step up or others didnt either. What we have now, is merely a preprototype design effort for the PAK-FA, the final version will have indian and other involvement at many levels. That is a given. It is dependent upon India as to how much it wants to pick up – that has been communicated to India as well. Now make of that as you well!
Thus, it is unlikely that HAL will make any contributions in the PAK-FA that wil even shift its fundamental basis of being solely a Russian aircraft, designed as per the ASRs of the Russian Air Force since 2002.
“Unlikely, will, should, would” – in other words you dont know much do you?? I am pretty sure here that I am dealing with a kid in his early 20’s who hasnt been out much and is unaware of what India or Russia have in reality, and hasnt even been around the block so to speak! Your experience in these matters consists of the internet!
Well, wakey wakey!! HAL and India (and perhaps Brazil now) have a lot of role to play in the PAK-FA – how much they pick up is upto them!!
And frankly – Russian ASRs are nothing to be afraid of – given how demanding they are given the exigencies of Russian environment, range and payload are likely to be critical factors, and I for one am far more happy with Russia’s demanding requirements for a heavy fighter leading the specs than the IAF’s “medium fighter will do” environment.
The above is exactly the crux of my argument — India does NOT bring anything unknown to the Russian aviation industry. Thus, Mr. Pogosyan’s statements about India being a financier only, are but obvious.
India will contribute BECAUSE it is paying and the JV/ offsets angle – eitherways will make it so. No free lunch. India relies more on COTS, Russia more on homegrown Microelectronics. COTS is currently ahead in the game, so performance wise, India’s contribution will anything but lag what Russia has.
Russian news reports (like the one posted by medal64 above) rarely even mention India whenever they report about the PAK-FA. At most, they mention about Indian funding probably because as per medal64’s Ria Novosti report above, the pilot production has already begun in Russia even as India is yet to formally enter the programme.
Why should Russian reports brag about India? Get your idee fixe in order.
Now, with the development of a 4.5 G fighter plane like the Tejas, the ADA has also reached contemporary throes of modern fighter plane development. It can “embark” on a 5 G project like the MCA and has expressed great confidence in the capability to do so. Like the ADA, Russia too will be developing a 5G fighter for the first time, albeit with much more array of experience, but for the first time nonetheless. In such a case, it is my strong view, that ADA must be given preference by the IAF.
Oh please dont make me laugh!! ADA itself is focused on making the LCA operational. All this generation stuff is BS. The main aim is and SHOULD BE to get the LCA into service come what may!! THEN talk about the MCA or BCA or JCA or whatever.
The above mentioned workshare is unlikely to be part of designing the airframe, engine, avionics, and weaponry besides other technologies like stealth of the PAK-FA, as it has already begun prototype production. The HAL is highly likely to be relegated testing, reportage and consultancy at the sub-structural level only.
Please dont talk about things you dont know!! I can make out from your wonderfully illiterate precis above you dont have the first clue about what design entails and how it is actually split all the way to component level!!
And what HAL can and cannot do!!
Nick_76Seems like the MRCA might go the Boeing way after all..one the IAFs current insistence for AESA and that the declining $ vs euro means that the Rafale and EF have been priced steeply in a manner of speaking.
Now this Hawk mess and BAe might have a sticky situation on their hands.
Gripen NG could be a dark horse as well. But the payload + range of the F-18 EF might swing things its way.
Bringiton any idea about APG-79 RANGE and how many targets it can track?
Nick_76http://www.indianexpress.com/story/304010.html
NEW DELHI, APRIL 30: India’s newly acquired fleet of Hawk fighter trainers has been grounded for a second time after one of them crashed at the Bidar airbase on Tuesday afternoon while taking off on a training mission. Both pilots escaped unharmed.
While the entire fleet has been facing problems since the induction in February due to lack of spares, the grounding comes weeks after the IAF discovered that the new aircraft contained parts that were rusted and appeared to be old and used.
This came as a surprise as the trainers — 66 were bought in a Rs 8,000-crore deal inked in 2004 — are new and were inducted barely three months ago. In fact, only 10 aircraft have arrived until now from the assembly line in UK.
After Air Hqs informed the Ministry of Defence about the matter, the Defence Secretary has been asked to head for London on May 19 to raise the issue with top UK government officials.
As first reported by The Indian Express on March 23, the fleet had earlier been grounded, shortly after the aircraft arrived in January, due to lack of spares and technical problems.
Sources at Air Hqs said that the British High Commissioner has also been contacted and an official communication has been sent to the original manufacturers, the UK-based BAE Systems.
It is learnt that the problem with the Hawks pertains to certain parts like the undercarriage and the pitot-static tube —it gives the pilots feedback on airspeed and altitude — that IAF technical teams discovered were rusted.
The fleet will now remain grounded until the reason behind Tuesday’s crash is investigated. The IAF’s training schedule is likely to get affected as the first course on the new trainers was set to begin at Bidar in July.
While a court of inquiry has been ordered into the crash and human error is not ruled out, IAF sources say that initial investigation points to a fault either in the undercarriage or the yaw controllers that are used to stabilise the aircraft. The IAF says that both pilots were experienced instructors with several hundred hours of combat flying in their logbooks.
Officials from BAE Systems, who concede that there are “small issues” regarding the Hawk, say that it would not be correct to link the accident to the matter.
“A number of small issues have arisen with the Hawks that have been delivered and are in service with the Indian Air Force. We take resolution of these issues very seriously and are working closely with the IAF to resolve these, to both their and our satisfaction,” said a BAE spokesperson.
But IAF says that ever since their induction, the trainers have enjoyed a low serviceability rate of 40 per cent. This means that the aircraft spend most of the time on the ground rather than on training missions and at any given time, only 4 out of the ten trainers are fit for flying.
“The Hawks are not flying around much as they have a low serviceability rate. We would like an ideal serviceability rate of 80 per cent which would be normal for any newly acquired aircraft,” said a senior IAF officer.A major embarrassment was averted at the induction ceremony in February, which was presided over by Defence Minister A K Antony, after the IAF “barely managed” to get four trainers off the ground for the traditional fly past.
The British made trainers are meant to fill a vital gap in India’s fighter pilot training programme by replacing the MiG-21s that are currently being used to impart final stage training to fighter pilots. The Hawks were procured in 2004, more than two decades after the IAF asked for an advanced jet trainer to curb pilot losses during training.
Nick_76Apparently the plane suffered a tech fault at take off and crashed into a wall as the pilot/s aborted the takeoff.
Both pilots – one Brit, one Indian- are safe.
In other news. the IAF is very pissed off with BAE over the shoddy logistics.
Hawks have a 40% serviceability vs minimum 80% required.
The undercarriage and pitot tubes etc of new built aircraft are rusted!!
Even spares and aggregates supplied for assembly and use have been suspected to be second hand.
The HAWK deal, unless BAE pulls its head out of its rear, might hurt the Eurofighters chances for the MMRCA!!
Nick_76Any news on what the upgrade entails? Sounds terribly expensive (pricey frenchies!). How does it compare with the MiG-29 upgrade? Any chance of getting AL-31ish engines on the M2k? 😎
Regards,
USS.
Tell me about it..frickin expensive all right!!
Probably new engines if any..will be the same M53 series ones. No radical change.
Most effective stuff will be in terms of avionics — check up on M2K5 Config, and new weaponry. more hardpoints as well to bring up the number of A2A missiles to 6-8 in all..
Nice EW fit too, internal.
Nick_76India signs deal to upgrade 51 Mirage fighters
http://outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?gid=73&id=566274
As part of steps to keep the country’s air power capability at optimal level, India has signed a billion-Euro deal to upgrade its 51 Mirage Multi-Role Fighters.
Dassault, the French original equipment manufacturer, has agreed to upgrade the Indian Air Force’s Mirage 2000 fleet, Defence Minister A K Antony told Lok Sabha today.
Antony said the Request For Proposal (RFP) had been issued to Dassault on April 9 after clearance of the Cabinet Committee on Security.
IAF is currently flying three squadrons of the Mirage fighters and under new plans, Indian Mirages will be upgraded to the level of French Air Force Mirage 2000-5 with superior avionics and extend their lifespan by another 25 years.
This is the second major upgradation deal signed by India in recent weeks. Earlier, IAF had entered into an agreement with Russia’s MIG-RAC for upgradation of 63 MIG-29 air superiority fighters in a deal worth 964 million dollars.
The upgradation of the country’s frontline fighters is being taken up by the government against the backdrop of alarming depletion in the IAF’s squadron strength which has plunged from 39 fighter squadrons to just 32.
No wonder the IAF rep to the Std Cmmitte on def was pretty smug…
With the 4th MKI squadron raised, an additional Jag sq raised, plus the Phalcons, new radars, new SAMs (Akash + Spyder) and now the MiG-29 and Mirage upgrades…the PAFs fitful F-16 modernisation has been addressed. Within another 6 years, there’ll be a whopping 230 MKIs in service to boot. And the PAF-FA is meant for another 190 aircraft run..! Then the 126 a/c MRCA- all RFP submitted by 2day, plus the six squadrons plus of the LCA..
Making a lot of noise about falling numbers works in loosening the purse strings
Sign In
