Historical Fighter Planes of India.

Syd

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
74
Likes
53
Country flag
Is it so sir???? U stay there?? and r u a defense personnel??? dats gr888,,, becoz I am very much younger to u and I am honored that you have luved this thread,,, and yes there are many to come ,,,, I will post it today only ,,, I was bit busy for exams so cud not post ,,, also Plzzzz visit RAF museum and relive those memories,,, In our IAF museum there is a hawker hunter too but cudnot visit there as it is 1400 km away from my home,,,,,,
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back. I only visit DFI very ocassionally as I have many other things taking up my time even though I am retired.

Yes I have lived in the UK most of my life, though I was born in Kenya (East Africa) to Indian parents. I have many Indian cousins and gradually I am getting to know them. I have never lived in India though I have visited to meet family.

I am a civilian but I have worked in the defence industry for the last ten years up to 2012. I cannot say any more than that. I am an Electronics Engineer, having graduated in the UK in 1970, just as integrated circuits were coming onto the market. My final area of work was actually Communications both RF and digital networking. However I have close family who are into aeronautics and as an engineer have followed aircraft developments closely.

Keep posting your informative posts coming.
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back. I only visit DFI very ocassionally as I have many other things taking up my time even though I am retired.

Yes I have lived in the UK most of my life, though I was born in Kenya (East Africa) to Indian parents. I have many Indian cousins and gradually I am getting to know them. I have never lived in India though I have visited to meet family.

I am a civilian but I have worked in the defence industry for the last ten years up to 2012. I cannot say any more than that. I am an Electronics Engineer, having graduated in the UK in 1970, just as integrated circuits were coming onto the market. My final area of work was actually Communications both RF and digital networking. However I have close family who are into aeronautics and as an engineer have followed aircraft developments closely.

Keep posting your informative posts coming.
I am honoured that you like my posts as you are much more educated in this field than me. So you are Indian by race. that is great. Next I will post another Bomber which was very much made in India known as HAL Marut.
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658
2) HAL HF-24 MARUT:-

windows 7 screen shot
Total of 147 built for IAF,introduced on 17 June 1961 and retired in 1985.The Hindustan Aeronautics HF-24 Marut (Sanskrit: मरुत्, for "Spirit of the Tempest") was an Indian fighter-bomber aircraft of the 1960s. It was India's first jet aircraft, first flying on 17 June 1961. The wooden mock-up of the aircraft was flyable as an air-launched glider.
History

Marut was designed by the well-known German aircraft designer Kurt Tank and Indian engineers from Hindustan Aircraft Limited (now HAL Bangalore). A total of 147 aircraft were built, including 18 two-seat trainers. The basic design was developed by Kurt Tank's team during Tank's days developing jet aircraft in Argentina, which was to be called IA 43 Pulqui III, as a follow on for the Pulqui II. Tank departed Argentina for India carrying the Marut's concept with him. Although originally conceived to operate in the vicinity of Mach 2, the aircraft in fact turned out to be barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powered engines for the airframe.[2] After the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines. This would be one of the main reasons for this aircraft's early demise. It never realised its full potential due to insufficient power.
It was used in combat in the ground attack role, where its safety features such as manual controls whenever the hydraulic systems failed and twin engines increased survivability. All Maruts were retired from IAF service in 1990.
Given the limited number of Marut units, most Marut squadrons were considerably over-strength for the duration of their lives. According to Brian de Magray, at peak strength No.10 Squadron had on charge 32 Maruts, although the squadron probably did not hold a unit-establishment of more than 16. The Marut squadrons participated in the 1971 war and none were lost in air-to-air combat. However, 4 were lost to ground fire and two were lost on the ground. Three Marut pilots were awarded the Vir Chakra commendation.[3]
A retired model is parked outside HAL's museum in Bangalore and a mock up of the Hf 24 Marut can be seen in Kamla Nehru Park in the city of Pune, India.
Operational history

In the 1971 war, some HF-24 Maruts and Hawker Hunter aircraft were used to assist an Indian border post at the Battle of Longewala in the morning of 5 December 1971 by the Indian Air Force.[4]
In 1967, one Marut was used as a testbed for the Egyptian Brandner E-300 engine.[5]
[edit]Variants

Marut Mk.1 : Single-seat ground-attack fighter.
Marut Mk.1T : Two-seat training version.
[edit]Operators

India
Indian Air Force
No. 10 Squadron, Indian Air Force
No. 31 Squadron, Indian Air Force
No. 220 Squadron, Indian Air Force - last unit with the type, relinquished aircraft mid-1990[6]
[edit]Specifications (Marut Mk.1)

Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1976-77 [7]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 15.87 m (52 ft 0¾ in)
Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6¼ in)
Height: 3.60 m (11 ft 9¾ in)
Wing area: 28.0 m² (301 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,195 kg (13,658 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 10,908 kg (24,048 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Bristol Siddeley Orpheus Mk 703 turbojet, 21.6 kN (4,850 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 1,112 km/h (600 kn, 691 mph) at sea level
Stall speed: 248 km/h (133 knots, 154 mph) (flaps and landing gear down)
Combat radius: 396 km [1] (214 nmi, 246 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,750 m (45,100 ft)
Armament
Guns: 4× 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannon with 120 rpg
Rockets: Retractable Matra pack of 50× 2.68 in (68 mm) rockets
Bombs: Up to 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) on four wing pylons
data and Picture courtesy:- Wikipidia
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658

Marut BD842 is the 15th Pre-Production example inducted into service. Full production started after another another aircraft followed BD842.


This HF-24 Marut was displayed at the Presidential Review 1976 at Chandigarh. Note the blanked off nose outer cannon.
Image Courtesy:- Bharat Rakshak
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658
Some Articles I found on Marut in Bharat Rakshak written by different authors.
HAL HF-24 MARUT

WHEN THE WIND BLOWS

POLLY SINGH

HAL (Hindustan Aircraft (today Aeronautics) Limited) built the first of 30 license produced Harlow PC-5A trainers, 48 Curtiss 75A-5P Hawk fighters and 74 Vultee V-12-D attack bombers on 29 Jul 41. During the war HAL license produced or carried out major repairs/overhauls of nearly every Allied aircraft operating in the CBI Theater from the Catalina to the Lightning. HAL's design efforts began with the G-10 troop glider and finally fructified with the HT(Hindustan trainer)-2, a tandem low wing tail dragging basic trainer.

Experience with the license production of the Vampire and the Gnat led HAL to accept an IAF requirement of an advanced combat aircraft. Dr Kurt Tank (of Focke Wolfe fame) and his deputy Herr Mittlehuber were invited in Aug 56 to head the joint design team (Willy Messerschmidt having refused the offer and accepting the Spanish Government's (later taken over by Egypt, Syria and Yemen (UAR)) offer to head the design of the Helwan fighter HA-003). Flight trials commenced on a full scale two seat wooden glider to test low speed handling and the phugoid modes.

This aircraft completed 86 glides towed aloft by a DC-3 Dakota before a nose wheel extension failure in flight ended the program on 24 Mar 60. The glider had wool tufting on the left wing to visualize airflow effects via a fin mounted camera. The glider revealed only a two knot stall warning and the fitment of a saw tooth on the wing leading edge finally gave the HF-24 a massive 28 kt warning (also unacceptable by military standards).

Taxi trials of the HF (Hindustan fighter) 001 commenced in Mar 61 and first flight was planned for the end of the month. However, due to some confusion about elevator authority and the elevator trim position required to unstick, the aircraft failed to lift off and the take off was aborted and undercarriage retracted. A second attempt was made after repairs on 17 Jun 61 with Wg Cdr Suranjan Das at the controls (later tragically killed during an engine failure on take off on the first flight of the reheated variant (by GTRE) of the Orpheus 703 on 10 Jan 70). A second flight for the defence minister was flown on 24 Jun 61 with the serial BR 462 and the aircraft renamed the HF-24.
Originally planned to fly with the 3700 Kg afterburning Orpheus B.Or 12 (Bristol Orpheus) engine and let down by successive failures to acquire the RB-153, SNECMA Atar 09K-53. the super Atar M-53 and finally the RB-199, the HF-24 entered service and served for the rest of its 15 year career with the critically underpowered license built Orpheus 703. among the quirks that characterized the aircraft were the unique nose oleo design that allowed it to be extended prior to take off to increase the incidence for take off and the wooden spacer provided as a last minute fix by Kurt Tank between the pilots seat and the saddle tank. The aircraft also had a 100 rocket pack behind the pilot that would extend into the airflow prior to firing.The aircraft now named the "Marut" (Wind Spirit) entered service from Nov 69 with 10 Sqn (Daggers) and finally equipped three squadrons (10, 220 and 31) with an additional AD flight to train radar intercept officers. A total of 18 trainers designated Mk-ITs were also received. By the commencement of the 1971 Liberation war with Pakistan only two Squadrons (220 and 10) operated the type from Jodhpur and Uttarlai.
An emergency effort was made to clear the Marut for four gun firing but in the event Sqn Ldr Sapre of A&ATU (Aircraft and Armament Testing Unit) was killed when the aircraft rolled over into the sea off Jamnagar when he opened up with all four guns, Apparently the pawl in the roll control mechanism used to pop out with the vibrations and roll the aircraft hard over to the left. Although HAL found a solution for the problem, the aircraft was never again cleared for four gun firing (only the two lower guns were used with the other two having their ports blanked off).

Flying approx 200 sorties during the two week war, Maruts ranged 200 NMs into south Pakistan striking Hyderabad and Talhar airfields and interdicting railway systems at Mirpur Khas and Rohri. Maruts also helped finish the route of the Pakistani army's 22 Cavalry at Longewala. A Marut flown by Sqn Ldr KK Bakshi of 220 Squadron also shot down a PAF F-86 Sabre on 07 Dec 71 (Flg Offr Hamid Khwaja of 15 Squadron PAF). No aircraft were lost to air action although by the end of the war three Maruts had been lost to ground fire (two POW, one KIA) and one lost on the ground.
The aircraft continued in service till 1982 when it was replaced by the MiG 23 BN. The aircraft will be remembered for its superb handling being called the "Super Hunter" by its pilots. A promising design that could cruise supersonic at 40,000 feet, the Marut finally met a disappointing end thanks to un-kept promises and international politics that embroiled HAL and several successive engine vendors. Thus ended India's first true fighter design. It would be exactly 40 years since the Marut's first flight when another indigenous design- the Light Combat Aircraft would take to the Indian skies again on 04 Jan 01.

The third pre-production prototype in flight - the aircraft banks to the right, showing off the sawtooth in the wing.

Crowds throng the first Marut Prototype BR462 at HAL airport in Bangalore on the day of its first flight.
Courtesy:- Bhrat Rakshak
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658
HINDUSTAN FIGHTER HF-24 MARUT

PART I: BUILDING INDIA'S JET FIGHTER

BY K CHATTERJEE

Conceiving the Marut

The pursuit of self-reliance in aviation, led the Air Staff, to issue a requirement for a home-made multi-role fighter aircraft during the mid-1950s. The building of HF-24, or Marut (Spirit of the Tempest), as this aircraft was to be called, was the first attempt of its kind anywhere outside the major powers. At the time of the Marut's conception, the domestic aviation industry's only design experience amounted to the HT-2, a prop trainer. Whatever aircraft manufacturing capability existed resulted from the license production of the Vampire FB Mk.52s and T Mk.55s. To have considered building a Mach 2.0 capable aircraft, given such limited capabilities bordered on audacity.

The Marut was conceived to meet an Air Staff Requirement (ASR), that called for a multi-role aircraft suitable for both high-altitude interception and low-level ground attack. The specified performance attributes called for a speed of Mach 2.0 at altitude, a ceiling of 60,000 feet (18,290 m) and a combat radius of 500 miles (805 km). Furthermore, the ASR demanded that the basic design be suitable for adaptation as an advanced trainer, an all-weather fighter and for 'navalization' as a shipboard aircraft. It was directed that this aircraft be developed within the country. As an aside, it might be worth noting that the design philosophy and ASR for the current Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) is quite similar.

The task of meeting the ASR was assigned to Hindustan Aircraft Limited (now HAL Bangalore). However, in 1955 no infrastructure capable of supporting the programme existed in India. And there was scant appreciation on the part of the government of the technological hurdles that would need to be surmounted. In response to an Indian invitation, Kurt Tank (of Focke-Wolf fame) and his assistant Engineer Mittelhuber, arrived in Bangalore in August 1956. As head of the design team it was Kurt Tank who would give the ASR shape and substance.
Hindustan Aircraft, in 1956, possessed only three senior Indian design engineers and the entire design department boasted only 54 personnel. The prototype shop had 60 people on staff and the entire strength of the production engineering department amounted to just 13. Worse yet, no hangar space was available for the construction of prototypes, no machine shop existed for prototype engineering, and there were no test equipment, structural test rigs or a flight test laboratory.

In fact, the Hindustan Aircraft complex lacked even a suitable runway from which the new aircraft could begin flight testing. The entire infrastructure had to be built from scratch. Much effort was invested in building up a viable design and testing infrastructure. And by the time the first prototype of the Marut commenced its flight test programme in 1961, Hindustan Aircraft employed 18 German design engineers, a design department possessing 150 personnel, a prototype shop with 631 personnel including 39 supervisors, and a production engineering department with more than 100 personnel.

Building the Marut

Work on designing the new "Hindustan (Indian) Fighter" commenced in June 1957 and the aircraft was awarded the HF-24 designation. A full scale representation (wooden glider) of the projected fighter was ready by early 1959, less than a year after the last mock-up conference on 10 April 1958. A test program was initiated with this glider on 1 April 1959 by Wg. Cdr. Suri and Wg. Cdr. (later Gp. Cpt. retd.) Kapil Bhargava. The two-seat glider was towed by a C-47 Dakota and usually released at altitudes of between 12,000 and 15,000 feet (3660 and 4570 m). By the end of this phase of the programme on 24 March 1960, the glider had completed 78 flights. Assembly of the first HF-24 prototype (HF-001) began in April 1960, and eleven months later, on 11 March 1961, powered taxiing trials were initiated.
After a comprehensive three month ground test programme, HF-001, with the late Wg. Cdr. (later Grp. Cpt.) Suranjan Das at the controls, flew for the first time on 17 June 1961. This aircraft's first official flight took place a week later on June 24th, in the presence of the then Defence Minister, V.K. Krishna Menon. By then HF-001 had IAF roundels applied to it and had been assigned the serial number BR 462. By November 1961, a structural test airframe had been completed and was subjected to extensive structural and functional tests in rigs designed and fabricated at Bangalore. On 4 October 1962, a second prototype (BR 463) joined the flight development programme. The flight development team was headed by Wg. Cdr. Das who in turn was assisted by Sqn. Ldr. I.M. Chopra, largely responsible for stability trials, Sqn. Ldr. W.M. Tilak for armament and instrumentation development, and Sqn. Ldr. Dey whose concern was primarily with power plant development.

Search for a Suitable Engine

The design of the HF-24 had been based around the availability of the 8170 lbs. (3705 kg) afterburning Orpheus BOr 12 engine. Unfortunately, the British requirement for this powerplant was discarded and the Indian Govt. declined to underwrite its continued development. In retrospect, this was a very shortsighted decision on the part of the Indian Government. The manufacturer had asked for £13 million as development costs, not a large sum even by the standards of the 1960s. And the Government's decision not to underwrite the costs of the BOr 12 development was to haunt the Marut programme for ever. In the even that the BOr 12 was no longer an option, the design team was forced to adopt the non-afterburning 4850 lbs. (2200 kg) Orpheus 703 for the initial and interim version of the fighter. India now initiated what was to prove a lengthy and frustrating search for an alternative power plant to the Orpheus BOr 12.

In 1961 the MoD approached the Soviet Government with a view to the acquiring the Tumansky RD-9F, a small-diameter axial-flow afterburning engine used in the MiG-19SF fighter. Six RD-9Fs were imported late in 1961 and bench-tested at Bangalore. Discussions were held in Moscow during July 1962 over licence manufacture of this turbojet for the HF-24. In the end this came to nothing. The RD-9F was finally rejected in 1963 on the grounds that it was prone to surging. Furthermore, its overhaul life was unacceptably short and there seemed little likelihood of its compressor being developed beyond its Mach 1.4 stress limit, and negotiations with the Soviet Union were accordingly discontinued.

Rather than shelve the entire Marut programme, the Indian Government decided to order 18 pre-production aircraft powered by the Orpheus 703 in late 1962. The pre-production batch was followed by 62 similarly powered production examples, despite the lAF's initial reluctance. The IAF's reluctance stemmed from the fact that Orpheus 703 powered Marut offered only marginal improvement on the Hunter's performance. And the air force's reluctance contributed to the aircraft's protracted delivery schedules.

After the Tumansky RD-9F was rejected, the E-300 turbojet, designed under Egyptian Government contract by Ferdinand Brandner (an Austrian repatriate from the Soviet Union), was considered. The E-300 was a relatively simple lightweight engine with a nine-stage compressor and a two-stage turbine. The engine was expected to afford 10,580 lbs. (4800 kg) thrust with 40% afterburning augmentation. In 1962 it was believed that a version with a smaller afterburner, the EL-300 affording 9240 lbs. (4355 kg) thrust, could be developed for the HF-24.

So on 2 November 1964, a collaboration agreement was signed in Cairo. Twenty months later, in July 1966, the Indian Government furnished a specially modified pre-production Marut, designated HF-24 Mk 1 BX, to participate in the Egyptian engine development programme. This aircraft had a modified fuselage capable of accepting either the Orpheus 703 or the EL-300. Test flying of the HF-24 Mk 1 BX with one E-300 and one Orpheus began at Helwan, Egypt, on 29 March 1967 with Sqn. Ldr. I.M. Chopra at the controls. Until the EL-300 program came to a standstill after the June 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict, the HF-24 Mk I BX had completed 106 hours of flight testing in 150 flights. The EL-300, unfortunately, failed to live up to earlier expectations and with two power plants of this type installed, the HF-24 Mk 1 BX was unable to exceed Mach 1.1.

The Indian Government eventually became disenchanted with the entire programme and on 1 July 1969, the Indian test team was recalled from Egypt. The test aircraft, however, was presented to the Egyptian Govt. Meanwhile Bristol Siddeley proposed in 1964 to marry the high-pressure inner spool of the Pegasus to the Indian-manufactured Orpheus 703, thereby theoretically offering a performance similar to that anticipated from the abandoned Orpheus BOr 12. But the Indian Govt. was again reluctant to underwrite development costs. The issue was also somewhat confused by Indian hopes that the US government would provide support for the HF-24 programme. In 1964 U.S. technological aid was formally requested to help with the development of a suitable power-plant for what was to be the HF-24 Mk 2. In the event, the possibility of US aid was delayed by Indian negotiations with the Soviet Union for a MiG-21 manufacturing licence and was finally abandoned as a result of the Indo-Pakistan conflict in September 1965.

Marut joins the IAF

The first pre-production HF-24 Mk1 (BD-828) made its initial flight in April 1963 and was joined by BD-829 and BD-830 within the year. Two of the pre-production Maruts were handed over to the IAF at a ceremony on 10 May 1964 at Bangalore and taken over by the IAF's Aircraft & Armament Testing Unit (AATU). Joined by more pre-production Maruts, these aircraft underwent service and weapon system trials (the latter at the Armament Firing Wing at Jamnagar) for nearly three years before being suitably updated.

No.10 Flying Daggers Squadron which re-formed on 1 April 1967 became the first unit to be equipped with India's first indigenous combat aircraft. Of the 18 pre-production Maruts, three were retained by HAL for equipment and avionics development work. Two more were retained as test-beds for an experimental reheat system developed be the Gas Turbine Research Establishment at Bangalore. One became the HF-24 Mk 1 BX. The remaining 12 were handed over to the IAF. Close liaison between the IAF and the Hindustan Aircraft developed during the Marut' s service evaluation. The aircraft was progressively modified after it became clear that the IAF intended to employ it, in the lo-lo attack role.
As part of the modifications for the the ground attack role the planned Ferranti AIRPASS radar and provision for AAMs were deleted. The target ranging radar was also deleted and the Ferranti ISIS (Integrated Strike and Interception System) two-axis rate gyro gun-sight was standardized. About 1800 test flights had been completed by the time the first series production Mk1 aircraft was flown on 15 November 1967.

The Marut entered operational service with a conventional all-metal semi-monocoque fuselage area-ruled in the region of the wing trailing edge. The wings were of conventional torsion-box construction and carried hydraulically-actuated ailerons and trailing-edge flaps. Provision was made for manual reversion of both the ailerons and elevators, the rudder being manually operated at all times. The variable-incidence tail-plane was hydraulically operated with electrical back-up, and in the event of a hydraulic failure the trimmer switch actuated the electrical system and the correct degree of incidence was set manually. The hydraulically-operated cheese-type air brakes were mounted in the lower fuselage aft of the main wheel wells.

The engine air intakes, which feature non-adjustable shock cones, fed two Orpheus 703 turbojets which were installed side-by-side in the rear fuselage. Internal fuel capacity is 654 Imp gal (2 962 1) and was housed by a main fuselage collector tank, a wing center-section supply tank and two integral wing tanks. The pilot was accommodated on a Martin-Baker Mk S4C zero-altitude ejection seat beneath an aft-sliding blister canopy.

The cockpit was pressurized to a differential of 3.5 lb./sq in (0.25 kg/cm2) between 24,000 and 40,000 feet (7315 and 12,190 m). While much of the instrumentation was of British origin, it also included items from France, Sweden and the USA. Standard equipment included DFA 73 D/F, TA and RA Bendix receiver and 12-channel VHF system. Two VHF antennae were located in the fiberglass-reinforced dielectric fin tip and the radio compass was housed in the fiberglass dorsal airing.

The armament comprised 4 powerful 30mm Aden Mk.2 cannon with 130 rds/gun and an internally-housed MATRA Type 103 rocket launcher modified to accommodate 50 68-mm unguided rockets in 10 rows of five rockets each. The aircraft had four underwing hardpoints each stressed to carry 1000 lbs. (454-kg) bombs, napalm canisters, Type 116 SNEB rocket launchers, clusters of T10 air-to-ground rockets, or 100 Imp Gal (454 L) drop tanks. When production ceased, the Marut had around 80% indigenous content and all components were being manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics.

During the early years Maruts with the IAF suffered from one major problem, namely servicability - resulting mainly from the non-availability of spares. These chronic shortages affected the Marut fleet between 1965 and 1968, however as production picked up the situation improved markedly. But the aircraft had teething troubles that were not solved until 1970, and only a very meticulous reporting of problems, and the professionalism of the pilots and engineers, prevented any fatalities from occurring.

Brian De Magray, from No.10 Squadron, recalls that gun vibrations were so excessive that the gun-sightings had to be harmonized after every two gun-firing sortie. Vibrations during four-gun firings also caused the canopy to jettison. Wg. Cdr. Tilak lost his canopy twice. The reason for this was that the external jettison switch located in the nose was often electrically activated during trials. This problem was fixed before the Maruts found themselves at war, much to the relief of the pilots.

There is wide consensus about excellent handling characteristics of the aircraft. Most pilots who have flown the aircraft describe it as pleasant to fly and excellent for aerobatics with fine control responses. And its ability to out-accelerate the Hunter led one pilot to describe the Marut, with undisguised affection, as the Hunter Mk.II ! The Marut offered a stable gun platform and packed a formidable punch. While the Marut's pilots expressed an understandable desire for more thrust than the Orpheus 703 offered, they were unanimous in their view that the aircraft proved itself a thoroughly competent vehicle for the low-level ground attack profile.

The Marut was a robust aircraft with extremely good visibility for the pilot, and was aerodynamically one of the cleanest fighters of its time. With a very stable platform, the aircraft required no artificial augmentation or auto-stabilization. The Marut was originally to have been stressed to 10.5g but 8g was eventually considered to be adequate for the production model. The controls were provided with artificial feel and were effective over the entire speed range, the top limit being 620 knots (1149 km/in) IAS at sea level.

Throughout the December 1971 hostilities, the Marut squadrons enjoyed extremely high serviceability rates (in contrast to the late 1960s), this undoubtedly owed much to an improved spares situation and the original design's emphasis on ease of maintenance. It should also be noted that from January '71 onwards, an improved version of the Marut with a lengthened wing cord (giving it greater wing area and hence greater lift), numerous cockpit changes and a sophisticated ISIS gunsight, started entering squadron service.
Maruts constantly found themselves under heavy and concentrated fire from the ground during their low-level attack missions. On at least three occasions, Maruts regained their base after one engine had been lost to ground fire. On one of these, a Marut returned to base without escort on one engine, from about 150 miles (240 km) inside hostile territory. On another occasion, Wg. Cdr. Ranjit Dhawan, flying his Marut through debris that erupted into the air as he strafed a convoy, felt a heavy blow in the rear fuselage of the aircraft, the engine damage warning lights immediately glowing and one engine cutting. Fortunately, the Marut attained a safe and reasonable recovery speed on one engine. Consequently, Dhawan had no difficulty in flying his crippled fighter back to base. Another safety factor was the automatic reversion to manual control in the event of a failure in the hydraulic flying control system, and there were several instances of Maruts being flown back from a sortie manually.

Conversion to the Marut was a straightforward affair and future pilots received 10 hours ground instruction before first flight. Most pilots converting to the Marut came from Mystere, Hunter or Gnat units and until the HF-24 Mk.1T (two-seat conversion trainer) became available in 1975, had to check out on the Hunter T Mk.66. The Marut eventually equipped three IAF Squadrons. No.10 Squadron was the first to convert in April 1967, the No.220 in May 1969 and the No.31 in March 1974. Of the 145 Marut produced, 130+ entered squadron service.

Given the limited number of Marut units, most Marut squadrons were considerably over-strength for the duration of their lives. According to Brian de Magray, at peak strength No.10 Squadron had on charge 32 Maruts! Although the squadron probably did not hold a unit-establishment of more than 16.

Continued Development

With the completion of Kurt Tank's tenure in 1967, responsibility for Marut development had passed to S.C. Das and an all-Indian team which produced the Mk.1T tandem two-seat trainer. The two prototypes of the trainer (BD 888 and 889) were the 46th and 47th Marut airframes, and the first of these was flown on 30 April 1970 by the then chief test pilot, Wg. Cdr. R.D. Sahni.

The essential difference between the single and two-seat versions of the Marut was the removal of the MATRA rocket pack featured in the former to provide space for the second cockpit. The minimal airframe changes required for the Mk.1T resulted in low development costs and almost total spares interchangeability. The second prototype Mk.1T was flown in March 1971, and the first of these entered squadron service in early 1975.

The search for a suitable engine continued even after the Maruts went full ops. In September 1966, the MoD announced that flight testing had begun on the third pre-production aircraft (as HF-005) designated Mk.1A with an afterburning Orpheus 703 with an 18% greater boost than the original at 5,720 lb. (2 595 kg). By 1970, two more Maruts, designated Mk.1R, were brought into the afterburner development trials. Unfortunately, the programme suffered a severe setback when, on 10 January 1970, the first of two Mk.1R prototypes (HF-032) being flown by Gp. Cpt. Suranjan Das crashed just after take-off.

India's foremost test pilot was the unfortunate victim of this crash. At the time it was rumored that one of the engines had completely failed and that there may have been a partial failure of the second engine. However, the official inquiry attributed the accident to malfunction of the canopy locking system. The Mk.1R prototype had been fitted with a hinged clamshell-type canopy in place of the earlier sliding canopy, and the failure of the locks and the sudden opening of the canopy, resulting in rapid decay of speed at a critical stage, proved fatal.

This set the programme so back, that the final stages of the flight test programme, using the second Mk.1R (BD 884), were achieved only in 1973. This airframe had a modified wider aft fuselage. The Orpheus 703 afterburning system had progressed to provide a 27% boost, giving 6160 lbs. (2 794 kg) of thrust, but the performance increment that it provided the Marut was insufficient to result in a production order for the Mk 1R. By the late 1970s, HAL entered into discussion with Rolls-Royce about using the Turbomeca Adour twin-spool after burning turbofan to power the Marut. The projected Adour-powered fighter was designated as the Marut Mk 2.

The Rolls-Royce RB.153 was considered for a while, but Hindustan Aeronautics was neither able to accept the terms of the proposed contract nor, at the time, was ready to consider the major redesign of the fuselage that adoption of the RB.153 would have entailed. In the event that by the early 1980s, the Air Staff requirements for a TASA (Tactical Attack and Strike Aircraft) and a DPSA (Deep Penetration and Strike Aircraft) were fulfilled by foreign aircraft, the need for a upgraded Maruts became somewhat superfluous. And by the mid-1980s enough Jaguars and MiG-23BN/27s were joining the IAF, that the Marut programme no longer remained viable.

No.10 Squadron gave up its Maruts in August 1980 and by the following year enough MiG-23BNs were available to allow No.220 Squadron to begin conversion. The last unit to give up its Maruts was No.31 Sqn, whose aircraft were finally withdrawn in mid-1990. And so ended the saga of India's first, and until the LCA flies, India's only home- grown fighter programme. In retrospect, despite its audacity, the Marut progamme helped lay the infrastructure for an Indian aviation industry.


Five Maruts in formation over Rajpath

A pilot of the No.10 Squadron
Courtesy:- Bharat Rakshak
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658

Marut BD859 taxies past a line up at Jodhpur Air Force Station

HF-24 Maruts from the No.10 Squadron. Circa 1980.

Maruts, of No.10 Squadron [Winged Daggers], flying over Rajpath in New Delhi.

Marut in IAF museum
Courtesy:- Bharat Rakshak
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658
Now the 3rd in Bomber and ground Attack series.
3) Sukhoi SU-7:-

upload foto
140 introduced.Introduced in March 1968.The Sukhoi Su-7 (NATO designation name: Fitter-A) was a swept wing, supersonic fighter aircraft developed by the Soviet Union in 1955. Originally, it was designed as tactical, low-level dogfighter, but was not successful in this role. On the other hand, soon-introduced Su-7B series became the main Soviet fighter-bomber and ground-attack aircraft of the 1960s. The Su-7 was rugged in its simplicity but its shortcomings included short range and low weapon load.
Operational history

Su-7A fighter
The front-line[N 1] fighter version saw limited operational use in the Far East from 1958, but by 1959, a decision was made to proceed with production of the MiG-21, and less than 200 units were deployed. The Su-7A was retired in 1965.[2] They never saw combat.

Su-7B fighter-bomber
Su-7B and its variants became the main Soviet ground-attack aircraft of the 1960s. They were also widely exported (691 planes,[2] including also some trainers). However, the very short combat radius and need for long runways limited its operational usefulness. On the other hand, despite its notoriously heavy controls, the Su-7 was popular with pilots for its docile flight characteristics, simple controls and considerable speed even at low altitudes. It also had a reputation for easy maintenance. From 1977-1986 the Su-7s remaining in Soviet service have been replaced by Su-17 and MiG-27.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) used the Su-7 extensively in the 1971 war with Pakistan. Six squadrons, totaling in 140 aircraft, flew almost 1,500 offensive sorties during the war,[4] and undertook the bulk of the daytime attack efforts. The IAF managed to retain a very high operational tempo with its Su-7s, peaking at a sortie rate of six per pilot per day.[4] Fourteen Su-7s were lost during the war, mostly due to AA fire.[4] After the war was over, it was found that the aircraft had a high survivability, being able fly home safely despite receiving heavy damage. For example, Wing Commander H. S. Mangat's Su-7 was badly damaged by a Sidewinder missile fired from PAF MiG-19. The impact was so severe that half the rudder was missing, the elevators, ailerons and flaps were severely damaged, and half the missile was stuck in the chute pipe.[4] The pilot made it back to his base. The death of at least one Indian pilot can be attributed, at least indirectly, to poor cockpit design. A pilot set his seating at a dangerous position "because he found the bomb sight and the front gun sight easier to operate" while in that position, and was killed on ejection.
Specifications (Su-7BKL)


Data from Green,[3] Sukhoi[2]
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 16.80 m (55 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 9.31 m (30 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.99 m (16 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 34 m² (366 ft²)
Empty weight: 8937 kg (lb)
Loaded weight: 13,570 kg (29,915)
Max. takeoff weight: 15,210 kg (33,530 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Lyulka AL-7F-1 afterburning turbojet
Dry thrust: 66.6 kN (14,980 lbf)
Thrust with afterburner: 94.1 kN (22,150 lbf)
*Fuel capacity: 3,220 kg (7,100 lb)
Performance
Maximum speed: 1,150 km/h (620 kn, 715 mph, Mach 0.94) at sea level; 2,150 km/h (1,160 kn, 1,335 mph) at high altitude
Range: 1,650 km (890 nmi, 1,025 mi)
Service ceiling: 17,600 m (57,740 ft)
Rate of climb: 160 m/s (31,500 ft/min)
Wing loading: 434.8 kg/m² (89.05 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.71
Takeoff roll: 950 m (3,120 ft)
Landing roll: 700 m (2,300 ft)
Armament
2 × 30 mm Nudelman-Rikhter NR-30 cannon, 80 rounds each
Up to 2,000 kg (4,410 lb) on six hardpoints, typically including two 950 l or 600 l fuel tanks under the fuselage, and a combination of 250 kg (551 lb) or 500 kg (1,102 lb) bombs and 57-mm spin-stabilized unguided rockets in UB-16-57U pods. One 8U69 5-kiloton nuclear bomb could be carried on the left fuselage hardpoint. Some versions could also carry two 600 l underwing drop tanks.
Courtesy:- Wikipidia
 
Last edited:

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658
A WHALE OF A FIGHTER: THE SU-7 IN IAF SERVICE

Adapted from Pushpindar Singh Chopra's "A Whale of a Fighter", 1983

Introduction

The speed with which negotiations for the Su-7 were completed appear to have no precedent in the procurement policies of the IAF. Even former officers of the IAF are unable to explain the rationale for the purchase of this aircraft. While the Su-7 did enhance the Indian AF's strike capabilities, the selection of this aircraft despite its known shortcomings remains somewhat of a puzzle.

People within the IAF betray varying emotions towards the aircraft. In all fairness to the Su-7, the aircraft did serve the IAF with some distinction in the 1971 war. In the mid-60s, even as the MiG-21 was being received in increasing numbers, the IAF had sought a high performance offensive air support aircraft to replace the Mystere IVA and stiffen the strike force of Hunter F Mk.56s.





The HF-24 Marut status remained uncertain owing to the lack of a suitable power plant for this otherwise eminently suitable airframe. Delays in its production program led the Indian Government to evaluate the Sukhoi Su-7 tactical fighter in the summer of 1966.

Even as 36 Hunter F Mk.56A and 12 refurbished Hunter T Mk.66Ds were procured from Britain, an IAF test pilots team flew the Su-7 in the Soviet Union in mid-1967. This evaluation was followed rapidly by a contract for some 90 Su-7BM fighters and Su-7U two-seat conversion trainers at a reported cost of $100 million.

IAF pilots and maintenance personnel underwent conversion courses in the Soviet Union before the first aircraft arrived in crates by ship at Bombay. These were assembled at Santa Cruz and delivered to 26 Squadron which became the first squadron to operate the new type in March 1968.

Induction of the Su-7 by the IAF was extremely rapid. No.26 Sqn was followed by No.101 Sqn (ex-Vampire FR Mk 55) in July 1968, with No.221 Sqn (ex-Vampire FB Mk 52) converting to the Sukhoi in August. Two more batches of Su-7s were contracted for, taking total procurement to some 140 aircraft, and enabling formation of 3 more squadrons (No.32's Mysteres, No.108's Vampires, and the newly-raised No.222, the last-mentioned being formed in September 1969).





Thus, within 18 months, the IAF had raised six squadrons of supersonic attack aircraft which dramatically boosting its overall strike potential. The Su-7 force was earmarked the roles of offensive air support, counter-air, short term interdiction and tactical reconnaissance.

Although the Su-7 had an impressive performance, with a maximum speed of 1056 mph (1700 km/h) at 40,000 feet (12,190 m) and an initial climb rate of 29,900 ft/min (152 m/sec), its obvious handicaps were an overly modest radius of action and limited external stores carriage. The first Su-7s for the IAF, had two under-belly and two underwing hardpoints, but later deliveries consisted of aircraft incorporating two more stores stations underwing. The earlier aircraft were suitably retrofitted in India to include the additional stations.

For its warload-range capability, the Su-7 was considered an "oversize" aircraft by many in the IAF, the service having been used to more "compact" aircraft, the Gnat being of the other extreme! However, the Su-7 had two "firsts" to its credit, insofar as the IAF was concerned. It was the service's first combat aircraft with a full-fledged autopilot and also the first with a Jet Assisted Take Off ( JATO) facility.


A hastily-camouflaged Su-7 returns home after a sortie during the 1971 Indo-Pak War

A single seat Su-7BMK from No. 222 "Killers" Squadron in 1972. The squadron was deployed in the western theatre during the 1971 war

Apart from the initial batch of pilots who underwent type conversion in the Soviet Union, all subsequent training was conducted in India, primarily by No.221 Sqn which was designated as type conversion squadron for some years until enough pilots were "fully ops" on the Su-7. Thereafter, conversion training was carried out by the individual squadrons, most of the younger pilots had a minimum of 260-300 hours on Hunters or Maruts.

After the mandatory MCF (Mobile Conversion Flight) attachment, pilots were given four dual-check flights in the Su-7U before their first solo. As the numbers of Su-7s declined, the diminishing numbers of pilots who were posted to the remaining Su-7 squadrons fresh from the Hunter OCU underwent about 12- 15 dual check flights before they went solo.

The Su-7 at War: 1971

Although 15 air forces were operating the Su-7 as standard tactical fighter-bomber equipment by the early 1970s, it was to be the Indian Air Force that conducted this type's baptism in combat in December 1971. The sub-continent was plunged into armed conflict on December 3 with Pakistan's pre-emptive air strike that evening. Thereafter, from the fourth morning until the ceasefire on 17 December, the six Su-7 squadrons became responsible for the bulk of attacks by day, flying nearly 1500 offensive sorties, ranging from counter-air to short-term interdiction, close air support and tactical reconnaissance.

First counter-air missions at dawn on December 4th, were carried out by Su-7s with MiG-21s as top cover. No.26 Squadron struck at Chander, No.32 on Shorkot, No.101 on Pasrur and No.222 on Risalwala air bases. Loaded with two M-62 bombs each, the Su-7s swept in at extremely low lever and through intense anti-aircraft fire to deposit the bombs on the runways.

They satisfactorily achieved the immediate objective of neutralizing forward enemy airfields. Canberras by night, and Hunters by day concentrated on airfields further afield, including Sargodha, Murid, Chaklala, Kohat, Mianwali, Peshawar & Chakhamra and also bagged a number of aircraft on the ground. No.32's first action alone claimed two B-57s, one Mirage III and two Sabres at Shorkot. Just the time needed for the Su-7s to put in maximum effort against advancing enemy armour in the cauldron of the Chhamb.

The main task of the Western Army Command was to blunt the massive ground thrust against the Pakistan Army in the critical Poonch and Chhamb sectors, and the IAF concentrated on offensive air support (OAS) in this area of bitter contention. A Pakistani Corps, spearheaded by armoured brigades, advanced against Indian defences which had to be re-grouped behind the Mannawar Tawi river. As pressures increased, the number of close support sorties was stepped up and the Su-7 squadrons, having fulfilled their counter-air task, became the mainstay in this punishing role.

The OAS was mostly of a search & strike nature although, the battle area being on a narrow 10-mile (16 km) front, it was a short search & mostly strike. The limited airspace however meant only one mission could go in at a time: No 4 Tactical Air Centre (TAC), attached to the XV Corps, sent in four Su-7s every ½ hour, each mission spending about 10 minutes in the target area, bombing, rocketing, strafing troop concentrations and armour & artillery.



A Su-7 from No.221 Squadron. The squadron was deployed on the initially deployed on the Eastern front in 1971, transferring to the Western front on 12 December 1971.

The rate of effort exceeded all plans. Sorties were being launched at the rate of six per pilot per day! In the words of the Adampur Base Cdr, "Instead of our efforts tapering off after the first few days, they continually increased as the war progressed. The ground support organization worked virtually around the-clock. Battle damage to aircraft was promptly patched and enthusiasm was magnificent."

No.101 Sqn, 'The Falcons', were at the Chamb forefront, relieving pressure on the embattled 10th Infantry Division, destroying enemy armour with 57mm rockets at the Munnawar Tawi crossing and following up with low-level attacks on troop & tank concentrations in both Chhamb and Sialkot.

The tally was 69 tanks, 25 field-guns and 57 "B" vehicles destroyed. Excerpts from the Squadron War Diary illustrate the intensity of operations: "On December 4th, 28 OAS sorties carried out against enemy tanks and gun positions. One train carrying tanks and fuel hit with rockets and left ablaze. On December 5th, 14 sorties flown against fuel dumps, gun positions. vehicle convoys and tanks in the Chhamb. On December 6-7th, 30 sorties launched in the Chamb area and Shakargarh bulge, against tanks, troop concentration, gun positions and vehicles." And so on till December 17th.

No.101 Sqn was involved in dramatic manner in the Army's capture of the Chicken's neck salient, essentially because of timely tactical reconnaissance effort and the subsequent close air support, which enabled the operation to be completed in the first 8 of an estimated 48 hours!

Other Su-7 squadrons played an equally important part. No.26 operated primarily over the Shakargarh bulge, controlled by No.8 TAC, attacking enemy defensive positions, tanks & troop concentrations at Zaffarwal and Shakargarh. No.32 Sqn (Thunderbirds) was engaged in OAS for the Army in the Sulemanki, Chhamb and Shakargarh areas and experienced two unusual situations.

The Commanding Officer, Wing Commander H.S. Mangat, was intercepted by PAF MiG-19s whilst on a photo-recce mission and his Su-7 hit by a Sidewinder missile. The explosion carried away half the rudder, the elevators, ailerons and flaps and were all heavily damaged. Wg. Cdr. Mangat disengaged successfully and then returned to his base despite the extensive damage to his aircraft, a tribute to his flying skill and to the toughness of the Su-7. The aft section of Mangat's Su-7 is, incidentally, now on display in the IAF Museum at Palam.



The tail section of Wing Commander Mangat's Su-7 on display at the Indian Air Force Museum. The aircraft had been hit by a AIM-9 Sidewinder missile while on a reconnaissance mission over West Pakistan in 1971.

Not a single Su-7 was, in fact, lost to enemy air action, even though a number of aircraft were damaged in air combat. Flt. Lt. J.S. Ghuman's Su-7 was similarly hit by a Sidewinder. He later related, "The immediate symptoms were a shuddering of the aircraft followed by the fuel-warning light coming on. However, the aircraft continued to respond perfectly," and Ghuman flew back to base with pieces of the missile embedded in the tail and aft fuselage of the aircraft.

The Su-7 was not devoid of self-defence capability, as was evidenced when Flight Lieutenant S.S. Malhotra ("Mad Mally") of No.32 Squadron was engaged on a photo recce mission over Mianwali. Two MiG-19s on CAP reversed towards his Su-7. Instead of aborting his mission, however, and without jettisoning tanks, Malhotra turned into the MiG-19s and fired his cannon as the first aircraft slid into his gun sight. He then turned for home and returned to his base without officially claiming a "kill'', but the PAF were later to admit the loss of the MiG-19 over Mianwali.

No.222 Sqn, "Killers", concentrated on "round attack strikes with 1102 lbs. (500 kg) bombs against enemy armour, artillery & troops in the Dera Baba Nanak, Hussainwala and Ferozepore sectors. Short-term interdiction missions were directed against railway rolling stock, marshalling yards, bridges and convoys, and tactical-photo reconnaissance sorties were mounted to continuously monitor the battle front. To quote from the Squadron's War Diary: ''14 December: Rail traffic between Kasur to Pukhpattan and Montgomery attacked: goods trains, locomotives, railway junctions, bridges and marshalling yards hit. All rail traffic paralyzed."

The Su-7s were also employed in "rhubarb" type of targets of-opportunity raids, seeking out enemy armour around Fazilka-Ferozepore to disperse a major build-up. Enemy tanks concealed in haystacks and under groves of trees were attacked with rockets and bombs in Chitian Mandi and the Sejra Bulge, maximum effort being put in between 8-12 December.

On the Eastern front. Nos.108 and 221 squadrons supported the Army's blitzkrieg advance towards Dacca. No.221 Squadron was allocated the tasks of counter-air, offensive air support and photo recce, launching attacks against Kurmitola and Tezgaon air bases on December 4th and destroying three Sabres on the ground. 9 TAC directed the squadron against riverine traffic, railways and artillery positions. The Su-7s were operated in pairs and were called up by advancing army units to soften defence strong points by carrying out very accurate rocket attacks against bunkers.

In the war for bridges and ferry crossings, the Su-7s were particularly active and a large number of barges, steamers and gun boats were hit. Before No.221 Sqn was transferred to the Western Sector on 12 December, it was to play an important part in the capture of Kushtia. To quote the Squadron Diary: "On December 11th, one span of Hardinge Bridge was destroyed and constant bombardment of bunkers, troop positions and railway sidings near Kushtia was carried out.

This resulted in the fall of Kushtia the same evening, mostly because of the creditable performance of No.221 Sqn. On December 12th, to give this operation a final touch, bombs and rockets were delivered on withdrawing troops, ammunition depots, the main power house near Hardinge Bridge and on the ferry-craft carrying troops."

Opposition from enemy air was limited to fleeting gun or missile interception attempts by MiG-19s and Sabres, without any loss, but the Su-7s ran the full gauntlet of heavy ground fire. The Pakistani air defence system was based on the Chinese model, with multi-barrel 37mm cannon, plus concentrated machine gun and small arms fire.

Being a relatively large aircraft and continuously exposed, the Su-7 was certainly vulnerable to such concentrated air defence, and many aircraft were recovered to base "peppered", some having sustained extensive damage to wings and fuselage. But for its ruggedness, far more Su-7s would have been written off. Losses were commensurate with the scale of effort, if not below it.

Although the IAF admitted that its Su-7 force suffered attrition during the 14 Day War of 1971, this was by no means excessive given the scale of effort and exposure to enemy air defence. Most missions had to be flown by day and at low level, pilots making repeated attacks on well defended targets. Pakistani propaganda had claimed 34 Su-7s as destroyed in aerial combat or by ground fire, but in fact 14 were lost, including one in the East and most to ground fire. Not more than four were lost to aerial combat.

The somewhat derogatory opinion of the Su-7 apparently held by NATO was therefore entirely unfounded. Opposition had been different to that expected, the Su-7 units having anticipated more air interception and far less effective ground fire. New attack techniques were therefore worked out during the conflict with the result that loss rates were considerably reduced after the first days of action.

The Sukhoi Su-7 emerged from the 1971 operations with a mixed reputation. Propaganda against the type had led to superficial conclusions and exaggeration of its shortcomings. There was no doubt that the limitations of range and endurance, plus modest stores carriage vis-a-vis the aircraft's size, reduced operational flexibility.

But in the role to which it was assigned, the Su-7 more than earned its pay. It proved itself a steady weapons platform, enabling accurate pinpoint strikes to be carried out. It demonstrated the robustness of its airframe and its ability to absorb far greater punishment than other aircraft types, and it consistently achieved high serviceability rates, while the turn-around time between sorties proved satisfactorily short. The Su-7 was said to have spawned a special breed of pilot, combat-hardened and confident of both his and his aircraft's prowess.


Arguably the most striking color scheme ever sported by a Su-7

The Aircraft in Detail

The Su-7 stands high off the ground and its highly swept wing (62º on the leading edge) endows it with a sleek appearance, despite its long, tube-like fuselage. The strong appearance of the aircraft is reinforced by the absence of "no step" signs, and there are no restricted areas for movement on the wing, which incorporates a very large flap over the entire trailing edge, from root to the inboard end of the aileron, and sports neither slats nor tabs. The tail unit is swept on all surfaces, the tail-plane being all moving, with anti-flutter `mass balance' bodies projecting forward at the tips.

A large fairing at the base of the conventional rudder houses twin brake- chutes. Cannon muzzles appear in each wing-root leading-edge with blast panels on the fuselage sides and there are six stores-attachment points, four underwing and two under the fuselage for a variety of weapons or fuel tanks. The pitot head is mounted above the air intake, offset to starboard, and adheres to the solid theme of the remainder of the aircraft unlike the pitot boom of the Mirage Fl which can be inadvertently bent by a careless ground handler.

AIR INTERNATIONAL incidentally, was invited to try a series of pull-ups on the Su-7's pitot boom which provided as solid a hoist as any gymnasium horizontal bar!



Sukhoi Su-7BMKs from the No.32 "Killers" Squadron and was the last Su-7 unit photographed in 1982.

In the early years of its service with the IAF, the Su-7 became the object of irreverent, though good-humoured, asides. Some said it was initially designed as a tank, hence the solid structure! Others insisted it was meant to be a midget submarine, hence the periscope (in the rear cockpit of the trainer version!). A distinguished fighter pilot, then commanding a Gnat squadron, could only utter one word after his first flight in the Su-7. "Why?" Just a plain "Why?" and nothing else.

But banter aside, the Su-7 could really fly. Slowly but surely gained the profound respect of pilots flying other fighters. With reheat on, at low level, the Su-7 would leave all others standing, including the MiG-21. Simulated strikes on point-defended targets, with fighters on CAP, proved the point every time, and the Su-7 came to be considered in India as a "Whale of an Aircraft!"

The single key factor behind the Su-7's spirited performance is its Lyulka AL-7F-I turbojet whose sheer brute power 15,134 lbs. st/6865 kgp dry or 21,627 lbs. st/9810 kgp reheat thrust overcomes any shortcomings and disadvantages of design and thick-wing drag. The AL-7F-I is a single-shaft axial-flow turbojet with a nine-stage supersonic compressor.

The effective and rugged afterburning system has a variable area nozzle which is governed according to the turbine exit temperature and throttle-lever position. The AL-7F-I belongs to a basic family which has powered the Su-9, the Su-11 and a number of Soviet experimental bombers and reconnaissance aircraft, but being a product of mid-50s technology, has suffered inherent problems of maintenance and emergency procedures.

A problem encountered in earlier years was the tendency of the engine to surge in the event of compressor failure which could result from heavy turbulence or high-temperature overshoot, and this could lead to turbine blade failure. This problem is inherent in early state-of-the-art engine design and aircraft were retro-modified to incorporate "de-rumble" doors or valves in the forward fuselage which, in the high supersonic regime, would open automatically to bleed off air and thus reduce air intake surge. There were also bleed valves in the Vth and VIIth stages of the engine to bleed off excess air.

The engine oxygen is limited to provide a maximum of six engagements. The oxygen system was needed for the initial start. With some reserve required for relighting in case of a flameout, effectively only three afterburner engagements were permitted in a single sortie. Internal fuel capacity is limited to 647 Imp Gal (2940 L) housed by wing cells and saddle tanks, but the underbelly hardpoints carry two 132 Imp Gal (600 L) drop tanks. The inner wing stations can further carry 198 Imp Gal (900 L) drop tanks which allow a maximum of 1307 Imp Gal (5940 L) of fuel for ferry flights. Two JATO solid-propellant rocket units can be attached under the fuselage to assist in take-off, but the IAF has not adopted this procedure.

The cockpit, although spacious, is cluttered with a large number of instruments and switches, many of them redundant as the IAF did not adopt the JATO booster, Soviet-style air ventilated flying suit nor transponder. Instrumentation standard is good albeit of early 'sixties technology and the artificial horizon (attitude indicator) is possibly the best in the business. Interpretation is very good and reliable.

The Soviet approach to commonality with such equipment as clocks, radio compass, lighting indicator panels, circuit panels, etc, is apparent through various aircraft types, including the Su-7, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, An-12 and IL-76, and even extends to warships, tanks and missile carriers! A large range of radio frequencies can be tuned from a straight-select array in the switch box, but there is no direct digital tuning.

Some early Su-7s delivered to the IAF, had French or Arabic lettering on the instrumentation indicating their originally intended destination, but subsequent aircraft were lettered in English. Forward visibility from the cockpit is poor and height adjustment of the ejection seat and rudder adjustment are cumbersome, being fixed by the armament technician to suit the pilot's height. Even with the seat elevated to the highest position, shorter pilots still had problems with forward view. The rocket ejection seat has a 0/87 mph (0/140 km/h) capability, the Su-7 having been the first aircraft in IAF service to allow zero-level ejection.

The Su-7UM incorporates a second seat in place of the 441 lb. (200 kg) fuselage fuel tank, thereby reducing endurance, but is otherwise equipped to the same standards as the fighter, including armament. The instructor in the conversion trainer's rear cockpit has a failure simulation panel, with override facilities to simulate problems with the undercarriage, flaps and airbrakes.

View from the rear cockpit is, curiously, better than from the front, the instructor employing a periscope and mirror below 375 mph (600 km/h) speeds, particularly for circuits and landing approach. Both ejection seats have an interlock mechanism so that no inadvertent ejection can take place. The canopy slides forward and is securely locked on sliding-momentum. The air conditioning system, or lack of it, is a problem as the cockpit is essentially designed for cold weather heating, hardly necessary in Indian conditions, and during low level flight in summer the cockpit gets uncomfortably hot in consequence.

Steering is by differential braking, and take-off with full load on hot days is critical, the Su-7 requiring nearly 2625 yards, 2400 metres, of runway for lift off, the rotation speed being 224 mph (360 km/h). Once airborne, the Su-7 accelerates very quickly and, in clean condition, "climbs like a rocket", routine altitude for handling and instrument training flights being some 39,370 feet (12,000 metres), above which the Su-7 tends to become sluggish.

Even with two drop tanks underbelly, the aircraft turns well, although in hard turns speed washes off rapidly unless re-heat is employed. Flight controls have triple redundancy' the main hydraulics being backed by standby hydraulics and an emergency hydraulic pump, there being full freedom on standby control. No total failure has ever been reported in Indian service.

Stick forces are heavy, and even with the spring-loaded powered-controls, the pilot must expend much muscle power. There is no rudder or aileron trim and the controls are heavier than those of most other aircraft of the Su-7's generation. A pilot's comment is that flying the Su-7 with its powered controls is akin to flying the Hunter on manual-control!

Without aileron trim, control gets tricky, particularly in the event of weapons hang-up, owing to asymmetric imbalance, and bombs from wing stations must be dropped simultaneously. Handling characteristics are good throughout the flight envelope, gust response is good and the aircraft's 8% thick wing allows stability at high speed and at low level, and is amenable to rapid manoeuvring.

In clean conditions, the Su-7 goes supersonic at any altitude and is also marginally supersonic at 40,000 feet (12,190 metres), in stores-configuration. The Su-7 goes supersonic at low level and remains steady, and the IAF has flown sonic salutes with Su-7 formations at special parades.

From M = 0.92 to M = 0.94 the Su-7's nose tends to drop and more backward pressure is applied on the stick till the aircraft steadies at M = 0.98, Mach unity being achieved without perceptible change. Maximum speed at low level, as recommended by the manufacturer, is 715 mph (1150 km/h), but the IAF has, with experience, been able to do far better, exploiting the Su-7's inherent potential achieving speeds up to 840 mph (1350 km/h) on the deck.

The Su-7's autopilot has a leveling mode. Up to +60º in pitch and bank, pressing of the levelling button on the control column would effect bringing the aircraft back to straight and level flight, and locking the control column so that a disoriented pilot can recover and regain manual control after tripping off the autopilot. There is no stall warning as such, the Su-7 just developing a rate of sink; at zero speed, provided there is no slip or skid, the aircraft recovers instantly with forward stick. Spinning is not undertaken intentionally, but in the event of an inadvertent spin correct use of control column enables the Su-7 to recover immediately.

After two turns, however, the AL-7 engine has a tendency to surge, in which case the pilot must close the throttle and attempt re-light. As per Soviet standard operating procedure, threshold speed on finals is 224 mph (360 km/h), but IAF pilots are quite comfortable at 211 mph (340 km/h). On touchdown it is mandatory to deploy the twin brake-chutes which are extremely effective and experienced pilots hardly use brakes except when turning off the runway. An average of 50-60 landings occur before a tire change is necessary.

The Su-7's underbelly is "soft" and emergency belly landings are dangerous, as, with its excessively long fuselage, the aircraft tends to porpoise and the forward fuselage can break up. In other respects, the Su-7 is an exceptionally robust aircraft and capable of absorbing a great deal of punishment.

Bird strikes have done little damage and the engine is tough enough to absorb all but the heaviest ingestion. On one aborted take-off, a Su-7 ploughed through the crash barrier, past the base perimeter fence and ended in a shallow ditch. The pilot got out, the aircraft was towed back, and after checks was ready to fly again the same day. The Su-7's ability to remain airborne and recover to base even after extensive battle damage is well recorded, bearing eloquent testimony to the sturdiness of its construction.

Armament

The Su-7 is a very stable weapons platform and a well harmonized guns-and-sight combination gives outstanding results. Armament is composed of two 30mm NR-30 cannon with 70 rounds per gun and a variety of stores distributed on four underwing and two underbelly hardpoints. Ordnance carried includes M-62 1102 lbs. (500 kg) bombs, 551 lbs. (250 kg) bombs, S-24 rocket- bombs or UB-I6-57U 57mm rocket pods. The wing outer-stations are stressed for 551 lbs. (250 kg) loads whilst the inner stations and under fuselage points are stressed for 1102 lbs. (500 kg) loads.

On counter-air or short-term interdiction missions, the Su-7s are normally fitted with M-62 bombs, and for offensive air support the 57mm rocket pods are particularly effective, the six pods containing a total of 96 rockets fired selectively or in salvo and resulting in a lethal spread 44 yards (40 m) wide and straddling 120 yards (110 metres) of frontal area.

The NR-30 cannon fires a heavy slug (1.98 lbs./O.9 kg) at the rate of 1200 rounds per minute and although firing at a relatively slow rate, this heavy caliber weapon's explosive force, has a great lethal impact and is effective against semi-armoured targets. The gyro gunsight, designated ASP-5PF, is of straightforward design and construction, and a well harmonized sight will give outstanding air-to-ground results.

The gun-sight is cleared up to 45º dive angles, though normal attack angles are 20-25 deg. Radar ranging is provided for both air-to-air and air-to-ground estimations, and the Serena tail warning detector radar is a passive device which provides a panel blinker and audio warning. An unusual arrangement is the Su-7's ability to fire Very cartridges from an orifice under the starboard wing leading edge root which can also be employed for dispensing chaff.

One in every four Su-7s delivered to the IAF was fitted with a simple vertical camera aft of the nosewheel, the camera hatch being actuated by the pilot when on a photo recce run. The fixed camera covers an area directly proportionate to the height above ground and has been a very useful tactical asset.

Epilogue

For over a decade since that war, the Su-7 has remained in the front-line OAS force, although war losses and normal attrition over the years meant steady depletion of the inventory. As the IAF did not obtain replacement Su-7s, a number of squadrons were re-equipped with the MiG-21 and MiG-23, and the last Su-7 formations (Nos.32 and 222 Sqns) converted to MiG-27s towards 1984 - 85. As pilots gained familiarity with the type, the Su-7's full potential was realized and exploited. In one-to-one dissimilar type combat, the Su-7 could outfight the MiG-21 under exercise conditions.

In the IAF's annual competition for ground attack air defence squadrons, No.221 Sqn won the trophy for highest-proficiency rating in 1973 and 1974, whilst No.222 continued the Su-7's success story by winning the prestigious "Arjuna" gunnery trophy and overall championship in 1978 and 1980, recording an average of 97% hits on target and edging out competing aircraft types of far classier lineage. Yet of all modern combat aircraft inducted into IAF service, the Su-7 had one of the shortest service histories, just under two decades. By contrast the Hunter has notched up well over forty years of service.

As part of the Indian Air Force's Golden Jubilee celebrations in February 1983, the Service displayed a range of its combat aircraft and live weaponry in an impressive spectacle of firepower and aerobatics at the Tilpat range, south of Delhi.

Amongst the many events were two involving the Sukhoi Su-7, an aircraft type which by then was regarded as "a diminishing asset", yet, here, in the presence of distinguished invitees including foreign air attaches, effectively demonstrating continuing capability.

In the first event, a Su-7 and a MiG-21 conducted simulated air combat, an exhilarating display of tight maneuvering in which the Su-7, given the limitations of the airspace, obviously more than held its own. Commencing combat at about 560 mph (900 km/h) at low lever, with pre-set call conditions primarily because the MiG-21 has an instant re-light on reheat whilst the Su-7 needs 6-7 seconds for afterburner light up), the "clean" Su-7 out-turned, out-climbed and out accelerated the MiG-21, the critical factor of power reserve standing out in the Sukhoi's favour.



A Su-7 from No.222 Squadron wearing the standard post-1971 camoflouge

In the close-in turning fight, the MiG-21 had to repeatedly converts its turn into the vertical plane in order to keep the Su-7 within range. Dropping speed, in low-speed maneuvers, the MiG-21 eventually gained the advantage owing to the better aileron control offered by its delta wing by comparison with the highly swept wings of the Su-7, aileron control of which starts to fade and necessitates excess rudder being employed. Of course, owing to the Su-7's high fuel consumption in the full re-heat regime (794 lbs./360 kg per min) engagement time was short, but the Su-7 could disengage at will.

This factor has proved critical in actual combat as, in such circumstances as those simulated, all external stores, including fuel drop tanks, are jettisoned, leaving only internal fuel and therefore strictly limiting time on task. The second event involved cannon and rocket attacks by Su-7s against ground targets.

At a dive-angle of 25º, the lead Su-7 fired a short burst from its NR-30 cannon, pulverizing the aircraft target on the ground, and a defence complex was straddled by S-24 rocket bombs fired by a section of Su-7s. It was self-evident why Sukhoi squadrons have been notching the highest points in IAF gunnery meets over the past few years and why the Su-7 has gained sober respect for its capability as a steady and sturdy weapons platform. Yet even after it has passed from service the Su-7 saga continues to remain controversial.
Courtesy:- Bharat Rakshak
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658

Getting ready for a sortie

A two seater variant

A young pilot stands before his massive Sukhoi-7 fighter bomber. This photograph dates from the mid-70s

Landing at Ambala
Courtesy:- Bharat Rakshak
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658
Sadly, not many people are aware of the first Sukhoi to serve the Indian Airforce given the limited literature available on this plane. But even limited literature doesn't take away the visible mark the Su-7 left in history of the subcontinent.

During the 1960s the IAF, owing to delays in the Marut program and diminishing squadron numbers(sounds familiar doesn't it?) with the retirement of Mystere, was in urgent need for a Fighter-Bomber. It selected the Su-7 in record time to arrest the diminishing squadron numbers. Even more frighteningly astonishing is that the IAF inducted 140 Su-7s in just 1.5 years!! That's an average induction rate of 8 fighters each month between March 1968 and September 1969, all thanks to the massive Military-Industrial complex of the Soviet Union at that time. It was almost as if they were expecting the 1971 $hit-storm in advance and preparing for it.

At that time each Su-7 cost was 1.11 million dollars each. When adjusted to 2012 inflation, it costs 7.3 million dollars each. Apart from the 140 mentioned above, another 14 were procured later for attrition replacements. So in total 154 Su-7 Fighter-Bombers were bought from the Soviet Union directly without any local assembly.

Su-7's combat record during the only war it fought, the 1971 war, was excellent with it being heavily used against Airfields, Armour and Troop concentrations while destroying aircrafts, tanks and bunkers on the ground. Its turn around time was very low owing to its easy maintenance and rugged construction, the latter which enabled it to fly despite being peppered by heavy anti-aircraft fire.

Being a ground attack jet with very poor maneuvering/dog-fighting capabilities, 5 Su-7BMK were shot down by the PAF. Of which a Mirage-3 bagged 1 with an Aim-9b, F-6(Chinese MiG-19 clone) bagged 3 of which 1 was by Aim-9b and 2 from 30mm cannon, and 1 by a F-86 SabreMk6 by Aim-9b.
However despite its very dismal dog-fighting capabilities, the Su-7 piloted by IAF pilots got 2 PAF fighters. It damaged 1 F-86 sabre and shot down 1 F-6(MiG-19 clone). The Su-7 doesn't carry any Air-Air missile and has only Cannons and Air-Ground weaponry.
(1.5 : 5)

Just for comparison its contemporary the MiG-21 has shot down 4 F-104 Star Fighters, 2 F-6(MiG-19 clones), 1 F-86 Sabre, 1 Atlantique, and has damaged 1 F-86 Sabre, 1 F-104 Star Fighter and 1 UAV, while getting shot down just once by the PAF.
That's a combat record of (9.5 : 1)
The above kills and deaths are taken from neutral sources(ACIG & Aces), not IAF or PAF claims!!
(Normal international practice is to award 0.5 for damages)

The Pilot, Flight Lieutenant Malhotra, who shot down the PAF F-6 was later nicknamed "Mad Mally" because he not only shot down the Chinese origin fighter using a sluggish "whale" plane like the Su-7, but he did it without jettisoning his fuel tanks!

Su-7 had a very rugged construction. It often comes back with guns shot wounds all over its fuselage and flies back again with minimum patch up work. Its wings support 4 hardpoints while the fuselage supports 2. Of the 6 hardpoints, 4 are capable of carrying fuel tanks with capacities ranging from 600L in the underbelly to 900L under the wings. This apart from 3,000kg internal fuel capacity in its thick wings and fuselage. This huge fuel carrying capacity contributes a decent ferry range which is very useful for recon missions. Each inner wing hardpoint can carry 500kgs of bombs and rockets while the outer wing hardpoint can carry a maximum of 250kgs each. The Aircraft's maximum payload is 2000kgs. To augment the 2 Tonne payload, it has 2 cannons with 80 rounds each. Each round weighs just 100gms short of a Kilogram, and can be used even against semi-armored targets. The plane weighs as much as an F-16 Block 52 when empty, weighting 8900kgs. Its engine Lyulka AL-7F-I throws out a jaw dropping 9,600kgf in afterburner, 6,800kgf during Dry Thrust.

In bombing competitions held after the war, Su-7s often wins when compared to their compatriots once again exhibiting their ground attack credentials. The IAF received 2 versions of the Su-7b, the MK and the U trainer version. Although the MKI is an informal designation of this Author, the MK was specially customized by the IAF to drop West European origin bombs as well. Apart from the Bombing role, it also carried out tactical recon of the battlefield since 1 out of 4 models came with a camera. It's the first aircraft in the IAF to have an Autopilot feature, and also a jet assisted take-off facility.


However, as record breaking its induction was into the IAF, so was its retirement with the last units being phased out around 1986, barely 20 years in service. The Su-7BMK was no doubt prematurely withdrawn when more advanced MiG-27s and Jaguars made their way into the IAF's arsenal. But one hopes the mark left by the Su-7 will live on.

upload foto

Source: http://www.-----------/forums/india...orces-first-sukhoi-su-7mki.html#ixzz2QcRgGoiL
 

Somreet Bhattacharya

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
134
Likes
34
I don't know about its viability, but I always felt the Marut design could have been re-used by HAL, maybe not for Tejas but for a medium fighter...with two engines having the same Tejas Avionics..
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658
I don't know about its viability, but I always felt the Marut design could have been re-used by HAL, maybe not for Tejas but for a medium fighter...with two engines having the same Tejas Avionics..
I think the design of Marut is old enough to be given in a new aircraft.
 

shom

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
685
Likes
658
4) English Electric Canberra:- Total of 150 Canberras introduced starting in the April 1957.Retired 11 May 2007.The English Electric Canberra is a first-generation jet-powered light bomber manufactured in large numbers through the 1950s. The Canberra could fly at a higher altitude than any other bomber through the 1950s and set a world altitude record of 70,310 ft (21,430 m) in 1957. Due to its ability to evade the early jet interceptors, and its significant performance advancement over contemporary piston-engined bombers, the Canberra was a popular export product and served with many nations.
In addition to being a tactical nuclear strike aircraft, the Canberra proved to be highly adaptable, serving in varied roles such as tactical bombing and photographic and electronic reconnaissance. Canberras served in the Vietnam War, the Falklands War, the Indo-Pakistani Wars, and numerous African conflicts. In several wars, both of the opposing forces had Canberras in their air forces. The Canberra was retired by its first operator, the Royal Air Force (RAF), in June 2006, 57 years after its first flight. Two of the Martin B-57 variant remain in service, performing meteorological work for NASA, as well as providing electronic communication (Battlefield Airborne Communications Node or BACN) testing for deployment to Afghanistan.
Operational history
The Canberra was the backbone of the Indian Air Force (IAF) for bombing raids and photo-reconnaissance for many decades. Negotiations to acquire the Canberra as a replacement for the short-lived and obsolete Consolidated B-24 Liberator bombers then being used by India began in 1954.[77] During the extended negotiations between Britain and India, the Soviet Union is alleged to have offered their own jet bomber, the Ilyushin Il-28, at a significantly lower price than that asked for the Canberra;[77] by April 1956, however, the Indian government was in favour of the purchase. In January 1957 India placed a large order for the Canberra; a total of 54 B(I)58 bombers, eight PR57 photo-reconnaissance aircraft, and six T4 training aircraft were ordered, deliveries began in the summer of that same year.[77] A total of 12 more Canberras were ordered in September 1957, as many as 30 more may have also been purchased by 1962.[77]
First used in combat by the IAF in 1962, the Canberra was employed during the UN campaign against the breakaway Republic of Katanga in Africa.[78] During the Indo-Pakistani Wars of the 1960s and 1970s, the Canberra was used by both sides. One of the worst combat loss incidents occurred on 1 September 1965, when four Indian Canberras were shot down by Pakistani fighters.[79] The most audacious use of the bomber was in the "Raid on Badin" during the Second Kashmir War, when the Indian Air Force sent in the Canberra to attack a critical Pakistani radar post in West Pakistan. The raid was a complete success, the radars in Badin having been badly damaged by the bombing and put out of commission.[80] A later raid by the IAF was attempted on Peshawar Air base with the aim of destroying, amongst other targets, several Pakistani B-57 bombers, American-built Canberras. Due to poor visibility, a road outside of the base was bombed, instead of the runway where PAF B-57 bombers were parked.[81]
During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, Indian Canberras flew a strategically important sortie against the Karachi oil tanks, this had the effect of helping the Indian Navy in their own operations, a series of missile boat attacks against the Pakistani coast.[80] On 21 May 1999, prior to the commencement of the Kargil War, the Indian Air Force Air HQ assigned a Canberra PR57 aircraft on a photographic mission near the Line of Control, where it took a severe blow from a FIM-92 Stinger infrared homing missile on the starboard engine; the Canberra successfully returned to base using the other engine.
The entire Indian Air Force Canberra fleet was grounded and then retired following the crash of an IAF Canberra in December 2005. After 50 years of service, the Canberra was finally retired by the IAF on 11 May 2007.
General characteristics
Crew: 3
Length: 65 ft 6 in (19.96 m)
Wingspan: 64 ft 0 in (19.51 m)
Height: 15 ft 8 in (4.77 m)
Wing area: 960 ft² (89.19 m²)
Empty weight: 21,650 lb (9,820 kg)
Loaded weight: 46,000 lb (20,865 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 55,000 lb (24,948 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7 Mk.109 turbojets, 7,400 lbf (36 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 0.88 (580 mph, 933 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,192 m)
Combat radius: 810 mi (700 nm, 1,300 km)
Ferry range: 3,380 mi (2,940 nm, 5,440 km)
Service ceiling: 48,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 3,400 ft/min (17 m/s)
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (234 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.32
Armament
Guns: 4 20 mm Hispano Mk.V cannons mounted in rear bomb bay (500 rounds/gun), or 2 0.30 in (7.62 mm) machine gun pods
Rockets: 2 unguided rocket pods with 37 2-inch (51 mm) rockets, or 2 Matra rocket pods with 18 SNEB 68 mm rockets each
Missiles: A variety of missiles can be carried according to mission requirements, e.g: 2 AS-30L air-to-surface missiles
Bombs: Total of 8,000 lb (3,628 kg) of payload can be mounted inside the internal bomb bay and on two underwing hardpoints, with the ability to carry a variety of bombs.
Typically, the internal bomb bay can hold up to 9 500 lb (227 kg) bombs, or 6 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs, or 1 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) bomb; while the pylons can hold 4 500 lb (227 kg) bombs, or 2 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs.
Nuclear Weapons: in addition to conventional ordnance, the Canberra was also type-approved for tactical nuclear weapon delivery, including the Mk 7, B28 (Mod 2, 70 kiloton yield) and B57 (as part of a joint program with the United States) plus Red Beard and the WE.177A (Mod A, 10 kiloton yield) nuclear bombs.[142] All nuclear weapons were carried internally.

youtube
Courtesy:- Wikipidia
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top