Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
That's why only the flyaway cost makes them comparable and of course Tejas will be cheaper per unit, but then again you have to take that figure x 2 or x 3 times, to equal an MMRCA in a comparison. Same goes for operational cost and so on, which makes it not cost-effective anymore. That's why the twin type hi / love fleet mix, is more cost-effective and operationally efficient, than the 4 type of hi / love mix IAF will have to deal with and that's not including future stealth fighters.
Cheaper per unit but we have to take x2 or x3? Read through your own replies and check the capability of Mk2 with F16 payload and range. It is 1.5 times.

So, there you go, 1.5 Tejas Mk2 is still less than half the cost of F16.

You were even recommending Gripen. Gripen is the same quality of Tejas Mk2 but at 2 times the cost.
That's why the twin type hi / love fleet mix, is more cost-effective and operationally efficient, than the 4 type of hi / love mix IAF will have to deal with and that's not including future stealth fighters.
I will also say that having superman on your side is cheaper than having 1000 jets.

Again, I am asking you these questions, answer them in serial number wise-
1) What attrition cost are you expecting in war vs sortie cost. Why do you give more importance to sortie and not attrition?
2) How many Tejas MK2 (not MK1) are needed to have same range and payload as 10 F16 planes? (same fuel to weight ratio = same range)
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
Parrikar's statement on Rafale dispels a few myths and bollocks but also reveals something of a major concern



Bugger me! Napakis were stocking up on AMRAAM C-5s gifted by the Yankee bastards and we were twiddling our thumbs??

Do the MFs in UPA and MoD have no effing shame or dignity???

I only shudder to think how much damage was caused by the likes of Antony in the Def Min...
I hope India will reverse engineer Meteor and make a BVR of our own using Ramjet. We already have seekers. We only need the engine of Ramjet
 

mayfair

New Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,110
If we were to re-engineer, we would have done so a long time ago. No one, either in HAL or MoD or DRDO will suggest or stick their neck out to suggest reverse engineering, since it would mean an end to the gravy train.

Plus, why bother with so much effort, much screwdrivergiri is easy and steady pay...
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
If we were to re-engineer, we would have done so a long time ago. No one, either in HAL or MoD or DRDO will suggest or stick their neck out to suggest reverse engineering, since it would mean an end to the gravy train.

Plus, why bother with so much effort, much screwdrivergiri is easy and steady pay...
Actually, we did reverse engineer many things. Our space rockets were reversed from missiles of soviet. Cryogenic engine reverse engineered from Russia (CE7.5), Missile guidance and space rocket microprocessor reversed from intel, seekers reversed from Russia, ToT for Su30 manufacturing, fly-by-wire learnt from US help. India didn't start things seriously before 1980. The time of 30 year from 1947 was wasted. This was the main problem
 

sthf

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
2,271
Likes
5,329
Country flag
Napakis were stocking up on AMRAAM C-5s gifted by the Yankee bastards and we were twiddling our thumbs??
Pork chops are quite good at the procurement game. When Bush allowed them a pass post 9/11, the very first thing they did was buy additional F-16s and 500 Aim-120C5. Kargil traumatized abd humiliated PAF.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
500 is a very large number. That will cause serious problems. What is the probability of hit with AIM120C?
 

Srinivas_K

New Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
7,442
Likes
13,025
Country flag
Parrikar's statement on Rafale dispels a few myths and bollocks but also reveals something of a major concern



Bugger me! Napakis were stocking up on AMRAAM C-5s gifted by the Yankee bastards and we were twiddling our thumbs??

Do the MFs in UPA and MoD have no effing shame or dignity???

I only shudder to think how much damage was caused by the likes of Antony in the Def Min...
Their F16 fighters are downgraded jets. Even though they claim the bvr missiles have 100 km range, We do have good radar networks which can track every fighter jets which take off from Pakistan. Plus the same radars can be used to shoot down thier jets using long range SAM which India is procuring.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
Their F16 fighters are downgraded jets. Even though they claim the bvr missiles have 100 km range, We do have good radar networks which can track every fighter jets which take off from Pakistan. Plus the same radars can be used to shoot down thier jets using long range SAM which India is procuring.
We don't have long range SAM as of now. The radar AEWACS can track every plane or flying object in pakistan but can't intercept due to lack of long range SAM.
 

Kshithij

DharmaYoddha
New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
2,242
Likes
1,961
https://www.rt.com/news/412590-russia-us-syria-air-force/


Russian Su-35 chased away rogue US F-22 jet: MoD blasts US Air Force for hampering Syria op
Published time: 9 Dec, 2017 18:31
Get short URL

FILE PHOTO: A Russian Sukhoi Su-35 bomber lands at the Russian Hmeimim military base in Latakia province, in the northwest of Syria © Vasily Maximov / AFP

“The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight,”Konashenkov said. He added that the US jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two strike planes.

The major general went on to say that “most close-midair encounters between Russian and US jets in the area around the Euphrates River have been linked to the attempts of US aircraft to get in the way [of the Russian warplanes] striking against Islamic State terrorists.” He also said that the US military officials provided no explanation for the November 23 incident as well as other, similar encounters.

The statement came as a response to the Pentagon’s claims about “an increase in unsafe behavior” by Russian warplanes. “We saw anywhere from six to eight incidents daily in late November, where Russian or Syrian aircraft crossed into our airspace on the east side of the Euphrates River,” Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, the spokesman for US Air Force Central Command, told CNN earlier on Saturday.

Konashenkov said that any claims made by US military officials concerning the fact that there is “any part of the airspace in Syria that belongs to the US” are “puzzling.” Konashenkov also said that “Syria is a sovereign state and a UN member and that means that there… can be no US airspace ‘of its own.’ Unlike the Russian Air Force, the US-led coalition is operating in Syria without any legal basis,” he added.

Pickart also said that the US’ “greatest concern is that we could shoot down a Russian aircraft because its actions are seen as a threat to our air or ground forces.” Earlier, he also told the New York Times that it has become “increasingly tough for our [US] pilots to discern whether Russian pilots are deliberately testing or baiting us into reacting, or if these are just honest mistakes.”

The New York Times also listed several cases of what the US describes as “unsafe behavior” by the Russian jets, citing the data provided by the US air base in Qatar. The US accused the Russian pilots of “crossing into the airspace east of the Euphrates” and flying “dangerously close” to the “allied forces,” adding that such actions could be interpreted as “threatening” and the US pilots were “in their rights” to fire in “self-defense.”

Konashenkov said in response that the US Air Force should rather focus on destroying Islamic State in Iraq than provoking close encounters between the US and the Russian jets.

Pickart said to CNN that the US military regularly talk to their Russian counterparts “in the daily de-confliction calls.” However, the Russian military repeatedly pointed out that the US is reluctant to share its plans for combat aircraft operations, and acts secretively in Syria.

The US and the Russian military have traded jibes over various incidents involving both countries’ warplanes in the Syrian skies. Washington accused Russian jets of not carrying transponders allowing air-traffic controllers to identify them, while Moscow repeatedly said that the US military only “occasionally” indicate the time period and an approximate area of their air operations without even giving the types of aircraft and their affiliation.

Back in 2015, the US and Russia agreed upon the mutual flight safety memorandum regulating the flight paths and contacts of the countries’ air forces in Syria during an emergency situation. The two countries also set up a hotline for their militaries to discuss the approximate locations and missions of planes in an attempt to avoid operating in the same airspace at the same time.

However, both sides later repeatedly accused each other of being reluctant to use the instruments at their disposal to reconcile the issues related to their actions in Syria. Most recently, Colonel Jeff Hogan, deputy commander of the air operations center at the Qatar base, called the daily phone calls between the US and Russian military “contentious.” The US also said that the dialogue does not always reflect what happens in the skies over Syria.

In January, Konashenkov complained that the US officers often “simply cannot be found on the other side of the ‘hotline’ in Qatar, designed to discuss and resolve contentious issues”and urged them to “use this hotline more often and for its direct purposes
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
Cheaper per unit but we have to take x2 or x3?
As explained here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ighter-jet-contest.78028/page-92#post-1381643

You would need 2 x light class Gripen C/D or LCA, to do the same strikes as the above F16 or Gripen NG/E. And if you compare it to Rafale, you even need 3 LCAs.
I also showed the need of dedicated escorts in the earlier example compared to Mirage 2000, which shoes that you need more fighters in that regard too. So either way, LCA is operationally in a 2 or 3 to 1 disadvantage and you can't counter that with lower costs.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
For ground attacks with respect to PGM strikes, It require one to four bombs at one time, Targets are mostly command bunkers or fire-support bases or a bridge, Let it be a light or medium it does not matter ..

As far as air-defense is concerned, It does not matter its Tejas or SU-30MKI will be need for escort fighters, Its part of training and doctrine ..
 

mayfair

New Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,110
Actually, we did reverse engineer many things. Our space rockets were reversed from missiles of soviet. Cryogenic engine reverse engineered from Russia (CE7.5), Missile guidance and space rocket microprocessor reversed from intel, seekers reversed from Russia, ToT for Su30 manufacturing, fly-by-wire learnt from US help. India didn't start things seriously before 1980. The time of 30 year from 1947 was wasted. This was the main problem
I deliberately left out space rockets especially CE7.5, but I should have mentioned it since it only underscores my point. We were under a technology denial regime, no one was willing to or going to supply us the engines or the tech. So even if we reverse engineered them, there would no "consequences" for us so to speak. Scientists got the go ahead because there were no alternatives.

Likewise for missiles.

Defence equipment is a different kettle of fish. When easy imports are available, no neta or babu will stick their neck out for reverse engineering. The gravy train is strong there and also defence equipment manufacturers are far more numerous and far more influential with their respective governments that space agencies.

It's not that we cannot reverse engineer, it's that our people will not be allowed to do so.
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
For ground attacks with respect to PGM strikes, It require one to four bombs at one time, Targets are mostly command bunkers or fire-support bases or a bridge, Let it be a light or medium it does not matter ..
Those are pre-planned and stationary targets, but as you explained earlier, in CAS missions, you can extend the mission by loitering in an area and attack targets of opportunity. So if you have low load and fuel capability, you need to return to Base rearm and refuel for another attack, while a fighter with more loads and fuel can stay in the area.

As far as air-defense is concerned, It does not matter its Tejas or SU-30MKI will be need for escort fighters, Its part of training and doctrine ..
Training doesn't equalise the lack of capability. If you have no BVR missile, you can't attack an enemy at long distances and are in clear disadvantage, that's why dedicated escorts are required for strike fighters, of multi role fighters with load limitations.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Yes, Its correct assessment that larger size aircraft can stay longer where as smaller lighter aircraft have higher sortie rate ..

The platforms are in question have similar capability and its again per-planned configuration as per requirement, Regardless one has BVR or not in strike mission its not meant to dogfight or engage aerial targets ..
 

Sancho

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,831
Likes
1,034
Regardless one has BVR or not in strike mission its not meant to dogfight or engage aerial targets ..
But to be able to defend itself. That's why we are adding Asraam and HMS to Jags, just as improving it's EWS. Same reason why we sent Mirage escorts back in Kargil (and we had complete air superiority back then), or why LCA would require escorts today too.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
New Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,041
Its part of the general procedure for any strike, jags are spear of IAF front-line aircraft and getting much needed upgrade to be useful in near future ..

But to be able to defend itself. That's why we are adding Asraam and HMS to Jags, just as improving it's EWS. Same reason why we sent Mirage escorts back in Kargil (and we had complete air superiority back then), or why LCA would require escorts today too.
 

TPFscopes

Rest in Peace
New Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,235
Likes
2,717
smaller lighter aircraft have higher sortie rate ..
Its a bitter truth that LCA SP-1 to SP-20 will have max 3 sorties in a day whereas a heavier Rafale can do 5 sorties in a day... Even su-30mki can do 3 sorties in a day...
Lighter or heavier doesn't matter for max sorties rate , but the aircraft should have modular design which lead to minimize the pre and post flight maintenance checks.

We shouldn't have blind faith on anything even if it is foreign or indigenous.
Btw, mk1a have its upper hand over mk1, for modularity..
 
Last edited:

aditya10r

Mera Bharat mahan
New Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
5,724
Likes
11,638
Country flag
Its a bitter truth that LCA SP-1 to SP-20 will have max 3 sorties in a day whereas a heavier Rafale can do 5 sorties in a day... Even su-30mki can do 3 sorties in a day...
Lighter or heavier doesn't matter for max sorties rate , but the aircraft should have modular design which lead to minimize the pre and post flight maintenance of jet.

We shouldn't have blind faith on anything even if it is foreign or indigenous.
Btw, mk1a have its upper hand over mk1, for modularity..
Are the numbers really that low???

I have heard su-17 and mig-21 do 6-8 sorties a day peak.
 

TPFscopes

Rest in Peace
New Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
1,235
Likes
2,717
Are the numbers really that low???

I have heard su-17 and mig-21 do 6-8 sorties a day peak.
Lower generation jets hv lesser pre-post flight maintenance tasks, lead to higher sortie rate. But 6-8 might have compromised maintenance .
Initials sorties would be 3-4 per day for fighter bombers (Su-17, MiG-21, Su-25) and two for light bombers (Su-24) for first three days, then everyone drops back to 1.5 sorties/day (with all required maintenance). But during heavy requirements, forces only do priority and rapid overhauls for first day will give higher rate.

For rafale, it maintained 5 sorties per day during its missions over Syria with availability rate of more than 90%
 

Articles

Top