HuntingHawkComposites are just expensive trash and not worth the money you invest in them in my opinion. Mostly composites are LCA is still over weight. While the metal JF 17 is doing allright.
Jeez ! :rolleyes:
Here’s a start
HuntingHawkKindly elaborate that. How long what forceable future?
Why till the thunder arrives off course. That will take care of those damn injuns 😀
Yes, Italian Falco – similar size & vehicle performance to Indias Searcher IIs.
Of which, Pakistan has put into operation a massive number………4
whereas India has ordered a measly 100 for 750$ million with the first order being placed in 1996.
If you want to be screwed next by uncle sam, go right ahead, but I suggest taking precuations…there is alot of diseases about these days.
Looks like Pakistan has caught some if one goes by the continuing US airstrikes on Pakistani terrorists on Pakistani soil.
Would be funny if the PAF actually shot down those drones using US supplied F-16’s, but I guess it knows best when not to engage, a trait also observed in Kargil, when the PAF stayed away from a fight never coming to the rescue when Pakistani soldiers were being pounded from the air. I guess it knows when to stay away from a fight.
HuntingHawkPAD test video (06-03-2009)
Excellent video of the PAD interceptor tested on 6th March 2009….. Specially the target EOTS view….
Wow, an amazing video, was looking for a video like this for the AAD. Thanks
HuntingHawkAbsolute nonsense about the MKI. High up it may stay airborne for ~3 hours, without arial refuelling.
There it will be useless, when all intruders will stay low. Going after that intruders at low level the MKI is down to 90 minutes with limited use of AB and 4 AAMs only.Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
– at sea level, km 1,270
– at height, km 3,000
I didn’t mean to say that the MKI would be up there for 10 hours during a combat mission, what I meant to say was that the MKI with the highest endurance in the theater and refueling available would be better placed to do escort and other activities than other aircrafts available in the region.
I think you underestimate modern Radars in their look down shoot down capabilities and the advantages that height confers on you. And the MKI high up, need only share it’s situational awareness with other aircrafts (like the Bison) and need not necessarily engage an enemy aircraft.
Readiness rate is no issue, because a given number of aircraft will be over the target area only.
Readiness rate is an issue as it’ll let you decide the rate at which you want to conduct your missions.
If I have 10 MKI’s and the enemy has 10 F-16’s, and I can have 9 MKI’s in the air and the enemy only 7, it is going to be an issue
HuntingHawknot just that, the combat effectiveness factors are also skewed..as per that spread sheet, MiG-29s with BVR and HMS/R-73 in WVR are supposedly just a wee bit more effective than F-7PGs..:rolleyes:
The IAF dominates the PAF so heavily, it’s not even funny.
The MKI’s with refueling can stay in the air for 10 hours and could theoretically escort 2 strike packages one after the other depending on the mission profile. And with the recently concluded Red Flag exercise showing the MKI having a higher mission readiness rate than the F-15’s and Rafales present (The French didn’t bring all their equipment though), it’s really not even debatable if the Pakistani F-16’s which are nearly 2 decades old have a better serviceability rate than the MKI’s.
Really, the only option where I can see the PAF remain a viable enough force to just register a presence on the scene beyond day 4 would be to run and not engage any Indian aircraft directly, but to force Indian Commanders on the scene to change tactics to a more favorable one to Pakistan and maybe lure them into traps.
Frankly, my opinion is that India bombing a couple of terrorists camps in Pakistan isn’t going to solve the problem (The US regularly kills Pakistani terrorists anyways on Pakistani soil and I don’t see that making any dent to the terrorism infrastructure in Pakistan).
How India might solve that problem will probably derail this thread 😀
HuntingHawkI’d like to see a source for all the Serviceability percentage figures. An MKI with a serviceability of 70% ? Source ?. A JF-17 with a 95% serviceability rate ? (source? It just got handed over to Pakistan recently !).
All the Second hand (or is it third ?) ‘hand me down’ Pakistani Mirages have a availability rate of ~ 70 % ?
And why is not an Indian Mig-29 not going to have an advantage over a ‘Plain as they come Jane’ Pakistani F-16 (With no BVR, or any HMD for WVR).
In fact, even the Bisons could take on a Pakistani F-16 and expect to come on top. If there is war, will the PAF be still around on the fourth day ?
All the Pakistani aircraft’s in general have a higher availability rate than the Indian aircraft ? (That’s not unusual at all is it ? 😀 )
HuntingHawkhttp://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html
A final word, from India, on ‘YouTube Terry’
A kill ratio of 21:1 isn’t bad 😀
HuntingHawk6.Incidentally,Mission achievement ratio was higher than 90%, whereas the mission success rates were significantly lower for the USAF, inspite of us op some 20000 kms away!!
This was something that Vishnu Som touched on as well – that the MKI’s had a higher mission availability rate than anyone, including the Rafale’s !
Incredible, since, isn’t the Rafale supposed to be practically maintenance free ?
HuntingHawkIn some other interesting news…….
Indian Navy crews to move to Russia to start training on Chakra
Sandeep Unnithan
New Delhi, November 1, 2008Batches of Indian naval personnel are to shortly leave for the Russia’s far eastern port of Vladivostok to train on board the Chakra, (formerly the Nerpa) a Russian Akula-2 nuclear powered attack submarine which is to be transferred to India on a 10-year lease next year.
The Nerpa was launched at the Komsomolsk on-Amur shipyard in June this year after which she began harbour trials. Earlier this week, the shipyard announced that the submarine had been shifted out of the shipyard to a maintenance facility in the Primorye territory near Vladivostok for trials in the Sea of Japan.
The 12,000 tonne submarine, said to be the quietest and deadliest of Russia’s attack submarines, has a crew of 100 personnel is currently being operated by the Russian Navy.
The Indian crew, which has already been trained at a facility in Sosnovy Bor and later at the School of Advanced Undersea Warfare in Visakhapatnam, is to board the submarine in small batches based on their specializations.
The final acceptance team is slated to leave for Russia in March next year and the submarine is to be handed over to the Indian Navy in July for a likely commissioning date of August 15, 2009.
Both India and Russia have publicly denied plans to lease the submarine. Under the secret lease signed in January 2004, India agreed to pay $ 650 million which would go into completing the unfinished hull of the submarine laid down by the Soviet Union in 1991.
The Nerpa is being leased for 10 years to rapidly train personnel to man the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) a series of three indigenously built nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).
The first ATV has been completed and assigned a yet undisclosed name. The submarine is to be launched at the Shipbuilding Centre (SBC) in Visakhapatnam on January 26 next year to begin harbour trials.
HuntingHawkI’d really like to know what the contingent size of the French and the S. Koreans were versus the number of aircraft’s they fielded, because an Indian journalist – Vishnu Som (of NDTV) had this to say….
Hi Guys … I will let you know the broadcast date and time of my documentary soon … but just so that we are all clear … the Indian Air Force did outstandingly well in these exercises. Everything that has been posted is accurate so far and the focus on maintenance is important. In temperatures of more than 47 degrees centigrade … Sukhois kept rolling out with very few having to abort their missions. The availability of the jets was higher than both the French and the South Korean Air Forces.
As far as air to air performances are concerned … can I just say our pilots did splendidly. Yes, there were instances when they were shot down … but there were days when they were number one in the air intercepts charts. And yes, there was one evening when the Sukhois shot down more than a dozen jets in a single evening mission but before we all get too excited … I think its important to point out the following:
1. Sukhois were not flying independently. They were flying as part of a team.
2. Teams were broken down for specific roles. Missions were accomplished if the objective was carried out … not necessarily because a fighter-jock bagged an F-15 that evening.
3. The de-brief process is singularly professional. Pilots are told if they did something right and got something wrong. There is no massive cheer for pilots who shot down other jets.
4. There were significant numbers of EW E6 Prowler jets participating in the exercises.
5. Chaff and Flare deployment was a problem for the IAF because of objections … I think … from the FAA. The IAF doesn’t have training flares/chaff which are less intense. I believe they were trying to resolve this by imposing height restrictions for flare/chaff deployment though I do not know if that eventually worked out.
6. Most air to air engagements were BVR … the use of the IRST was negated.
7. The Garuds are shaping up nicely. They were paradropped into areas where they simulated pilot rescue missions. They are being trained to the same standards as our SFs, MARCOS etc though are yet to be fully equipped.
8. The fully loaded Il-78s pretty much took the entire length of the runway to take off in the super hot conditions.Cheers
Vishnu
Then later in another post, he say’s (on the Rafale)
There was no real assessment done on its merits though some commented on its relatively poor maintainability though that had more to do with a lack of available spares.
I’m a little surprised on how the Rafale fared in terms of ‘turnaround’ times and wonder if this has anything to do with the size of the French contingent VS the number of aircrafts fielded.
Later, Vishnu tells this about the IAF’s experience at Red Flag
Hi … I will have a word with Sujan. While he is correct in what he writes … I disagree with his emphasis.
These exercises went off extremely well for the Indian Air Force. The Sukhois were not flying blind at all. In the type of scenarios that the jets were deployed … and given the rigidity of Red Flag engagement rules … there were bound to be losses … and all sides participating lost jets which were asked to leave the area of operations if they were shot down.This was a great great opportunity for the Indian Air Force to operate in a realistic theatre of operations. The ground targets were very realistic. Whats more … this was a great chance to work within a large force engagement. There were more than a dozen jets in the air at once. Also … unlike in the past … the bulk of participating IAF pilots were young jocks … some just Flight Lieutenants and by and large they performed very well.
I think … without doubt … these exercises prove that the IAF is right there among the best operators …
I was among the first to look at joint exercises as an us versus them scenario in the past. The Americans don’t see it at all that way. They have now accepted that they are dealing with a professional operator. They are genuinely curious about the Sukhoi 30 and yes, the IAF was careful in operating the jet with restricted settings. Someone told me they were operating at 70 per cent of the capability of the jet but this was a general statement …
Cheers
All posts taken from here
HuntingHawkIt seems the BARS was present, but only in ‘training mode’
India’s Su-30MKI aircraft offers an especially attractive target. It carries the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design NIIP-BARS radar that so far has only been seen on the MKI. But it’s considered a variant of what NIIP developed for Russia’s new Su-35 multi-role aircraft and what it’s working on for the next-generation PAK-FA fifth-generation stealth fighter.
One long-time military analyst mused to Aviation Week that the event might provide insight, although it was no certainty. “I’ll bet your [intelligence] boys hovered up every little squiggly amp from BARS. [Yet] sometimes the [radar’s] training mode is just a software package that emulates the radar transmissions, but it’s actually not emitting.”
Indeed, to observers’ dismay, and no doubt to that of the U.S. intelligence community, the IAF flew with a number of handicaps, some of them self-imposed, some not.
Their powerful Russian-made radar was, in fact, emitting, says Choudhry, but operating only in the training mode which limited all its range and spectrum of capabilities. In addition, the IAF wasn’t allowed to use chaff and flares to avoid being targeted by surface-to-air missiles nor did its aircraft have the common data link. CDL brings a flow of targeting information into the cockpit displays that improves the accuracy and speed of data transfer and eliminates the need for most communications. The Indian air crews had to rely on voice communications which slowed the process and limited situational awareness.
Despite its limitations, the Su-30MKI’s radar was able enough to allow the IAF’s Sukhois to participate in a beyond-visual-range fight with U.S. aggressor aircraft carrying simulated AA-10C air-to-air missiles. Because there were so many foreign aircraft capable of offensive counter-air/escort missions (including French Rafales and South Korean F-15Ks), the Sukhois are flying fewer air-to-air missions than Indian team members had hoped, Choudhry says.
“It was almost what we expected,” Choudhry says. “Because we couldn’t use our chaff and flares, when we were targeted by SAMs we were shot down. And there was no picture in the cockpit to help our situational awareness so the workload on the [aircrews] was very high.” Nonetheless, “We came a long way. We trained hard. And the degree of difficulty was not unexpected.”
I have a feeling, they were mauled badly. 🙂
HuntingHawkSubmarine collision: found guilty, Navy Commander quits
New Delhi, August 11: The Commander of a Navy Submarine that was involved in an accident with a merchant ship in the Arabian Sea in January has quit the service after a Board of Inquiry held him responsible for the incident.
Sources in the Navy said the officer, who was posted to administrative duties in Delhi after the incident, decided to quit the Navy rather than face a Court Martial where he was set to be dismissed from service.
The Board of Inquiry, which was set up immediately after the incident, concluded that as Commander of the submarine, Kumar could not escape responsibility for the accident that caused damage to the fins, periscope and aerials of the naval vessel. Sources indicated that the second in command of the submarine would also put in his papers, taking responsibility for the failure.
HuntingHawkA scramjet that cruises at 17290 km/hr
An Indian double has caught global attention in the hypersonic race for cheap and cost effective launch technology.
Bidding for their rightful place among the world’s majors, two of the country’s premier agencies are in the advanced stages of proving scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) technology to meet their respective strategic needs.
While the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is working on the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) for launching satellites, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is dreaming about a Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator (HSTD) to carry a range of weapons faster and farther.
Both have set a 2010 deadline. And both are in the pre-fabrication stage. But ISRO has the edge as it has already carried out a seven-second experimental combustion of a test engine. To state that both the projects are progressing at somewhat the same pace won’t be far off the mark.
But there’s a remarkable design difference between the RLV and the HSTD. ISRO’s hypersonic plane, being built at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram, is a winged body while the HSTD is a sleeker structure. The only common architecture, perhaps, is the air intake scoop at the front through which atmospheric air will be sucked in before oxygen is separated from it to oxidise the onboard fuel.
This is how the scramjet bypasses the need to carry an oxidiser on board. In a conventional rocket, the fuel and oxidiser are stored separately and burnt in a regulated combustion of eight grams of oxygen to one gram of fuel. But in the scramjet, oxygen is isolated from the air, compressed and introduced to a stream of fuel.
To ensure that sufficient oxygen is ingested for a self-sustaining flight, the scramjet must get to supersonic speeds before going ahead with its designated mission of launching a satellite for ISRO or delivering a warhead for DRDO.
This speed is achieved by coupling the scramjet to a conventional rocket during the initial phase of the flight. “We will mount the RLV prototype on a sounding rocket (S9). The rocket will speed it up to Mach 5 before the body is allowed to surf and suck air for onboard combustion. This process fires the scramjet and propels the payload to the desired orbit at speeds between Mach 8 and 10,” says VSSC director K Radhakrishnan.
The DRDO plans to use a core-alone Agni stage (S1). The capsule containing the HSTD will ride on Agni to stratospheric heights. After the first stage separates, the capsule shifts to a horizontal alignment and opens up to allow the HSTD to skim the atmosphere and breathe air.“We’re in an advanced stage. The shock tunnel test will soon be conducted. Our plan is to have a 400-second flight by 2009,’’ says M S Sundareshan, technical adviser at the Defence Research and Development Laboratory, Hyderabad. The DRDL is currently firing its test engine in a ground facility.
“The initial results are promising. We achieved significant thrust value,” says Sundareshan, adding that achieving hypersonic levels is a challenge that no nation except the US has met. The DRDO needs such speeds for weapon delivery at very great distances. The job is now done by Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles.
But like space rockets, ICBMs are a very costly chemical proposition. “The hyperplane can fly in at fast speeds, fire the missile or launch the warhead and return. The reusability will reduce our costs significantly,” says DRDL director Dr Venugopalan.
Cost figures in ISRO’s calculus as well. “The cost of launching a satellite using conventional rockets like the PSLV or GSLV is $25,000 to $28,000 per kg. The scramjet can reduce it to $500. This will make any nation with such a technology a launch destination,” says Radhakrishnan.
One great attraction is that the RLV can be brought back and reused. “The conventional rocket is expendable. Each stage burns out as the payload soars. But the RLV will come back after its mission,” he says.
ISRO will land the RLV on the sea using parachutes. But a project to facilitate its landing like an unmanned aircraft is on the anvil. DRDO also plans to land it like an aircraft. “We’ve a few UAV projects going where this technology is being experimented with. It can be integrated with the HSTD,” sources say.
Another frontier that scramjet research has opened up is advanced metallurgy. “We’re talking about a craft that moves at great speeds, breaks off from the atmosphere and re-enters, weathering high temperatures and atmospheric friction. There are several new alloys being developed. Apart from their use in scramjet vehicles, this research will impact the whole gamut of strategic metallurgy,” says Dr G Malakondaiah, director of the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad.
India is experimenting with silica-carbon-silica and nickel-based alloys to cover the scramjet. Both alloys have high thermal resistance. A prototype using these alloys will be subjected to wind tunnel tests to gauge their strength against the vagaries of the atmosphere and beyond.
[Begin usual Blame game here]
It is but natural for anyone to wonder why two Indian agencies are developing the same technology in parallel, with so much, except the sophisticated nature of the end-use, in common. ISRO insiders blame it on the absence of a pro-active culture within DRDO’s portals; the latter finds fault with ISRO’s big brother attitude.“It’s the typical Indian defence story,” says one former top gun of ISRO. “In a way, it’s a blessing in disguise. Whoever proves it first will attract global attention. With the country inching closer to the concept of aerospace strategic forces, there will be a lot of give and take once the technology is proved indigenously,” he adds.
HuntingHawkMaybe they ran out of light grey paint 🙂
HuntingHawk
Sign In
