Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

Hariharan_kalarikkal

π•±π–”π–”π–‘π–˜ π–—π–šπ–˜π– 𝖆𝖓𝖉 π–†π–“π–Œπ–Šπ–‘π–˜ π–‹π–Šπ–†π–—
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
5,152
Likes
24,879
Country flag
US wants an airbase in India and some naive (or crooked) are ready to give them everything.
Never
Absolutely never
Take a look at Japan for example
Japan is absolutely a " vassal state " of US in the so-called Japan/US alliance for a free Pacific, it's comparable parallel is China and Korea peninsula of ancient times.

Both cases,the vassal state benefitted economically and culturally.

There is another term for it ... " lap dog "
The problem is not in Japan. It is in the States. It seems those in US governments, and perhaps more than that(don't ban me for anti-semitism), US have thought, or rather thinks, that they always know what is best for others
CIA funding Pro-US politicians in Japan

the same goes for South Korea, Canada and several EU countries
giving our land for them is basically one step down a Whorehouse of political meddling, same way KGB did in 60s and 70s but only worse


and as far as that guy goes
Screenshot_20210915-193025~3.png
 
Last edited:

Maharaj samudragupt

Kritant Parashu
Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
7,651
Likes
21,833
Country flag
Never
Absolutely never
Take a look at Japan for example
Japan is absolutely a " vassal state " of US in the so-called Japan/US alliance for a free Pacific, it's comparable parallel is China and Korea peninsula of ancient times.

Both cases,the vassal state benefitted economically and culturally.

There is another term for it ... " lap dog "
The problem is not in Japan. It is in the States. It seems those in US governments, and perhaps more than that(don't ban me for anti-semitism), US have thought that they know what is best for others
CIA funding Pro-US politicians in Japan

the same goes for South Korea, Canada and several EU countries
giving our land for them is basically one step down a Whorehouse of political meddling, same way KGB did in 60s and 70s but only worse


and as far as that guy goes
India at that rejected a request for a naval base by the Soviets also , they never asked again
 

Hariharan_kalarikkal

π•±π–”π–”π–‘π–˜ π–—π–šπ–˜π– 𝖆𝖓𝖉 π–†π–“π–Œπ–Šπ–‘π–˜ π–‹π–Šπ–†π–—
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
5,152
Likes
24,879
Country flag
India at that rejected a request for a naval base by the Soviets also , they never asked again
The rejection this time to the Americans should be right on their faces and utterly humiliating
Screenshot_20210915-195949~2.png
Carefully worded, It should burn the pichwada of certain individuals, but not jeopardize the ties
Oh gawd how I want trump to on that seat
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,165
Likes
5,049
Country flag
I am not missing out i just think that IAF made a poor decision at the cost of exchequer's money by not settling for 12 less troop capacity and gaining vehicle lift capability. Lets consider a hypothetical scenario where IAF is urgently asked to supply a humvee size vehicle to one of the remote ALGs, now as IAF doesn't have light aircraft to do this job they are forced to use c130(4 engined aircraft with significantly higher OPEX than 2 engine aircraft) instead with spare capacity unused or have to reschedule when additional cargo comes(for the same route) which is not possible because its urgent delivery. So at the end of this hypothetical scenario it would be the Indian taxpayers who gets short end of the stick.
Give me one scenario where IAF would be tasked to drop one "Humvee sized vehicle" on an ALG. I can't think of one. I can think of multiple instances where you'd require paradropping men though.
(EDIT: I just read, you said supply to ALG. I think I posted an image where they were carrying a jeep inside a C-295W. Its doable, but only for something like a Force Gurkha, maybe not for a Mahindra ALSV. Either way, it shouldn't be a dealbreaker)
.
Another issue nobody would talk about is wake turbulence: C-27J would, in my opinion have more wake turbulence than C-295W. This is important in paradropping. In paradrop operations, a critical factor is how fast you can drop all your troops over the Landing Zone. For this, you need the minimum possible separation between two aircraft lined up behind each other for the drop. This minimum distance is dictated by the time it takes for wake of the first aircraft to settle, because the next aircraft can't move in until the wake from the one in front settles down to a certain level. I saw a US Army Field Manual discussing this issue with respect to C-130J and C-17. It concluded that although C-17 can carry more troops and cargo per plane, however, a group of C-130J can deposit the same amount of men on the ground faster than a group of C-17 can. Now in the case of C-295W and C-27J, the former as all the advantages: It carries more troops and has lower wake turbulence meaning lesser separation between aircraft. So C-295W can deposit more men on the ground and at a faster rate than C-27J can.
.
There are likely many other issues we aren't considering here, so I think we should trust the Air Force's judgement on this issue.
 
Last edited:

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
127
Country flag
Give me one scenario where IAF would be tasked to drop one "Humvee sized vehicle" on an ALG. I can't think of one. I can think of multiple instances where you'd require paradropping men though.
(EDIT: I just read, you said supply to ALG. I think I posted an image where they were carrying a jeep inside a C-295W. Its doable, but only for something like a Force Gurkha, maybe not for a Mahindra ALSV. Either way, it shouldn't be a dealbreaker)
.
Another issue nobody would talk about is wake turbulence: C-27J would, in my opinion have more wake turbulence than C-295W. This is important in paradropping. In paradrop operations, a critical factor is how fast you can drop all your troops over the Landing Zone. For this, you need the minimum possible separation between two aircraft lined up behind each other for the drop. This minimum distance is dictated by the time it takes for wake of the first aircraft to settle, because the next aircraft can't move in until the wake from the one in front settles down to a certain level. I saw a US Army Field Manual discussing this issue with respect to C-130J and C-17. It concluded that although C-17 can carry more troops and cargo per plane, however, a group of C-130J can deposit the same amount of men on the ground faster than a group of C-17 can. Now in the case of C-295W and C-27J, the former as all the advantages: It carries more troops and has lower wake turbulence meaning lesser separation between aircraft. So C-295W can deposit more men on the ground and at a faster rate than C-27J can.
.
There are likely many other issues we aren't considering here, so I think we should trust the Air Force's judgement on this issue.
from my memory,i think, the judgement was done by mod and not bg iaf and its like one vendor solution[from newspapers]. very old news. for cargo vehicle- mta jv - now cancelled. we dont use usa humvee. the important thing about c295 deal for me is that, tata is going to assemble the aircraft and not hal, like old days. waiting for first c295 rolled out from tata. c295 is a great choice for iaf,cg and in for transport and surveillance.
 

pipebomb

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
379
Country flag
When you keep on adamantly using phrases like "IAF made a poor decision at the cost of exchequer's money" and "IAF's lack of foresight and disregard for indian tax payers", you risk coming across as a troll, instead of having an open mind and willing to revisit/change your views as new and better info comes your way.
Come on sir, where have i behaved adamantly, i am very much open to reasoning.As soon as c27j's operating cost was made clear to me(by you) i corrected my view. However it was my view & still is that an multirole aircraft is smarter choice unless it becomes taxing to the original requirement. In this particular case it was the operating cost c27j that made it antithetical to original requirement of somewhat light/cheap transport aircraft. Hence IAF's choice appears poor to me at that time. It was my failure to assume c27j's operating cost same as c295.
 

pipebomb

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
379
Country flag
India went for su 30 which is basically the mix of both world and aimed at air superiority.

Su 34 is basically for ground attack and was introduced later than Su 30.

Coming back to C 295 and the option you gave.... Well C295 is easily the better out there.
Thanks for replying, certainly IAF made an excellent choice for going with multirole aircraft.

And yes it seems like c295 is a better than c27j. It was pointed out to me in an earlier post that c27j is significantly expensive to operate compared to c295.
 

Maharaj samudragupt

Kritant Parashu
Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
7,651
Likes
21,833
Country flag
The rejection this time to the Americans should be right on their faces and utterly humiliating
Carefully worded, It should burn the pichwada of certain individuals, but not jeopardize the ties
Oh gawd how I want trump to on that seat
The soviets were shameful enough so as not to ask again but what can you say about Americans.
 

pipebomb

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
379
Country flag
if your question is why iaf choose c296 over c27j, and my memory is correct then Leonardo pulled back c27j from competition saying c27j more advanced aircraft for rfi.[expensive to acquire and operate]. i think it is more like a single vendor situation. also - c130 and c27 share common elements - iaf can easy operate and maintain c27. like c130, c27 also expensive. At that time iaf having plans to acquire mta jv.
Appreciate your response, well it certainly is puzzling how c27j is more expensive than c295. One would expect it to gain from c130's support environment.
 

Kartooz

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
88
Likes
274
Country flag
Give me one scenario where IAF would be tasked to drop one "Humvee sized vehicle" on an ALG. I can't think of one. I can think of multiple instances where you'd require paradropping men though.
(EDIT: I just read, you said supply to ALG. I think I posted an image where they were carrying a jeep inside a C-295W. Its doable, but only for something like a Force Gurkha, maybe not for a Mahindra ALSV. Either way, it shouldn't be a dealbreaker)
.
Another issue nobody would talk about is wake turbulence: C-27J would, in my opinion have more wake turbulence than C-295W. This is important in paradropping. In paradrop operations, a critical factor is how fast you can drop all your troops over the Landing Zone. For this, you need the minimum possible separation between two aircraft lined up behind each other for the drop. This minimum distance is dictated by the time it takes for wake of the first aircraft to settle, because the next aircraft can't move in until the wake from the one in front settles down to a certain level. I saw a US Army Field Manual discussing this issue with respect to C-130J and C-17. It concluded that although C-17 can carry more troops and cargo per plane, however, a group of C-130J can deposit the same amount of men on the ground faster than a group of C-17 can. Now in the case of C-295W and C-27J, the former as all the advantages: It carries more troops and has lower wake turbulence meaning lesser separation between aircraft. So C-295W can deposit more men on the ground and at a faster rate than C-27J can.
.
There are likely many other issues we aren't considering here, so I think we should trust the Air Force's judgement on this issue.
I am no expert on the topic of airdrops, but I know a thing or two about wake turbulence. Wake turbulence always settles down, so an aircraft flying higher will never go through one that has been left by a preceding aircraft. My question is to someone who probably understands airdrops better than me.

Why can't a following plane fly just a bit higher than the preceding aircraft and do the drops with reduced distance between themselves?
 

Flying Dagger

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
2,455
Likes
6,319
Country flag
Come on sir, where have i behaved adamantly, i am very much open to reasoning.As soon as c27j's operating cost was made clear to me(by you) i corrected my view. However it was my view & still is that an multirole aircraft is smarter choice unless it becomes taxing to the original requirement. In this particular case it was the operating cost c27j that made it antithetical to original requirement of somewhat light/cheap transport aircraft. Hence IAF's choice appears poor to me at that time. It was my failure to assume c27j's operating cost same as c295.
What do you mean multirole there ?

Airbus has already certified c295 for multiple missions.

At the same time both are in different weight class and from acquisition to operating cost both are almost half for c295.

Is USAF using C27j anymore?

Is it widely used by different airforces around the world ?
 

johnj

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
57
Likes
127
Country flag
Appreciate your response, well it certainly is puzzling how c27j is more expensive than c295. One would expect it to gain from c130's support environment.
I'm not expert, but considering news paper[old,15y], c130j is very expensive.1000cr per plane and c27j is like lite c130j, developed from c130j and share common infra and parts and its one main reason countries buying c27j. iaf cant afford large fleet of c130, hence mta jv. c295 eventually replace an32. it can also carry indian humvee and first billion contract under make in private sector. c295 can easily converted for maritime patrol aircraft [in need 20 of them, may be navy consider uav for that, iaf can use it for intelligence , aew etx plus tata can develop commercial version, plus partnership with airbus to build aircraft which helps to build a aero eco systems. it is not just about the plane, but building a aero eco systems which eventually help private/gov sector to design develop manufacture continues supply of spares for both civilian and military.[non fighter cat]
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
5,975
Likes
6,238
Country flag
Give me one scenario where IAF would be tasked to drop one "Humvee sized vehicle" on an ALG. I can't think of one. I can think of multiple instances where you'd require paradropping men though.
(EDIT: I just read, you said supply to ALG. I think I posted an image where they were carrying a jeep inside a C-295W. Its doable, but only for something like a Force Gurkha, maybe not for a Mahindra ALSV. Either way, it shouldn't be a dealbreaker)
It can carry soft-tops, not hardtops. Doesn't have the cabin height. Even for a Gypsy the roll cage would have to be taken off.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,165
Likes
5,049
Country flag
I am no expert on the topic of airdrops, but I know a thing or two about wake turbulence. Wake turbulence always settles down, so an aircraft flying higher will never go through one that has been left by a preceding aircraft. My question is to someone who probably understands airdrops better than me.

Why can't a following plane fly just a bit higher than the preceding aircraft and do the drops with reduced distance between themselves?
1.) The higher your planes fly over the Drop Zone, the more the ambient wind conditions would cause your paratroopers to disperse in the air as the wind carries them off. The more time the paratrooper spends hanging under the parachute, the more exposed he is to enemy on the ground. Ideally you want them landing in the drop zone as close to the assembly areas as possible. So you want to fly as low as possible to ensure that the parachute has enough time to deploy and slow the paratrooper down before he touches the ground. AND you want to ensure that if his main parachute fails, he has time to deploy his reserve parachute which then should have enough time to slow him down enough. Not sure but as far as I remember, the ideal altitude for that is around 1200 feet.
2.) The objective is to get the troops to the ground ASAP. So you usually fly formations at around 1200 feet and try to minimize the amount of time paratroopers spend from aircraft exit to touchdown.
3.) You are not just flying in two or three aircraft. You are flying in the entire Battalion which for a C-295W means around 10 planes maybe. So if plane 1 flies in at 1200 feet, what vertical separation are you suggesting for subsequent planes? Say its 100 feet. In that case, your 10th plane will be flying in at 2100 feet. Since its a static line jump, the parachute for the paratroopers of 10th plane opens way too high, the paratrooper wastes time hanging in the air while his commander wanted them down ASAP. So now, he is going to take twice the time to reach down. Meanwhile the enemy has enough time to take a shot at him.
4.) Taking into account all this, isn't it better to instead increase the wait time between planes a bit and lower the time the paratroopers are just hanging there as well as lower the dispersion and threat from ground also?

Mission Planners keep a lot of emphasis on ensuring that maximum troops can be deposited on the ground in minimal time. I am sure they have already mastered the optimization of this. And each time a new plane enters service, they likely re-optimize their charts. All the paradrops I have seen have planes flying at roughly the same altitude.
 

Kartooz

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2021
Messages
88
Likes
274
Country flag
1.) The higher your planes fly over the Drop Zone, the more the ambient wind conditions would cause your paratroopers to disperse in the air as the wind carries them off. The more time the paratrooper spends hanging under the parachute, the more exposed he is to enemy on the ground. Ideally you want them landing in the drop zone as close to the assembly areas as possible. So you want to fly as low as possible to ensure that the parachute has enough time to deploy and slow the paratrooper down before he touches the ground. AND you want to ensure that if his main parachute fails, he has time to deploy his reserve parachute which then should have enough time to slow him down enough. Not sure but as far as I remember, the ideal altitude for that is around 1200 feet.
2.) The objective is to get the troops to the ground ASAP. So you usually fly formations at around 1200 feet and try to minimize the amount of time paratroopers spend from aircraft exit to touchdown.
3.) You are not just flying in two or three aircraft. You are flying in the entire Battalion which for a C-295W means around 10 planes maybe. So if plane 1 flies in at 1200 feet, what vertical separation are you suggesting for subsequent planes? Say its 100 feet. In that case, your 10th plane will be flying in at 2100 feet. Since its a static line jump, the parachute for the paratroopers of 10th plane opens way too high, the paratrooper wastes time hanging in the air while his commander wanted them down ASAP. So now, he is going to take twice the time to reach down. Meanwhile the enemy has enough time to take a shot at him.
4.) Taking into account all this, isn't it better to instead increase the wait time between planes a bit and lower the time the paratroopers are just hanging there as well as lower the dispersion and threat from ground also?

Mission Planners keep a lot of emphasis on ensuring that maximum troops can be deposited on the ground in minimal time. I am sure they have already mastered the optimization of this. And each time a new plane enters service, they likely re-optimize their charts. All the paradrops I have seen have planes flying at roughly the same altitude.
Thanks for the info. πŸ‘
 

pipebomb

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
192
Likes
379
Country flag
What do you mean multirole there ?

Airbus has already certified c295 for multiple missions.

At the same time both are in different weight class and from acquisition to operating cost both are almost half for c295.

Is USAF using C27j anymore?

Is it widely used by different airforces around the world ?
I use the term multirole unconventionally(in hindsight i should have used single quotes) to highlight c295's narrow body compared to c-27j, hence creating a seperate requirement/role for transporting wide body cargo(i.e. vehicles) which can be catered by c130s.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top