Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

[Scrutator]

The light vs medium vs heavy categorization is something that has to do with IAF's operational doctrine. The whole high-low fighter mix and other concepts. And I do not see why aircraft should not be classified on this basis. I do agree that these classifications need a clearer definition.

I agree that 3 different medium aircraft (Rafael + AMCA + Single-engine-fighter-tender selection) is not good. That looks like its happening 'cause the air force is freaking out over falling fighter strength.

I don't understand the doctrine that calls for aircraft of different weights.
Aircraft types/squadrons are drawn by their operational roles - ground attack, air superiority, interdiction etc. Now does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for ground attack?
Does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for air superiority??

The roles of an aircraft do not necessarily fall directly into the weight categories either. There are light ground attack jets(Jaguar) and also heavy ground attack jets (A10).

At least to me it doesn't make any sense if an air force says that their fleet comprises the following numbers:
x-Light, y-Medium & z-Heavy aircraft. I have no idea what the capabilities of the force is nor do I understand on what operational doctrine basis the fighters were picked. How does an air force even go shopping for a jet? Does A10 qualify as a heavy weight jet, same as Su-30MKI?

The single-engine vs double-engine classification has to do with maintenance and reliability IMHO. Engine failures are a persistent problem for the IAF.

If engine failure is a problem then one should just get twin engined jets - why risk the pilots life with single engined jets? Again the choice of jet should be made based on operational requirements and not on the number of engines.

 

[singh100ful]

I don't understand the doctrine that calls for aircraft of different weights.
Aircraft types/squadrons are drawn by their operational roles - ground attack, air superiority, interdiction etc. Now does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for ground attack?
Does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for air superiority??

The roles of an aircraft do not necessarily fall directly into the weight categories either. There are light ground attack jets(Jaguar) and also heavy ground attack jets (A10).

At least to me it doesn't make any sense if an air force says that their fleet comprises the following numbers:
x-Light, y-Medium & z-Heavy aircraft. I have no idea what the capabilities of the force is nor do I understand on what operational doctrine basis the fighters were picked. How does an air force even go shopping for a jet? Does A10 qualify as a heavy weight jet, same as Su-30MKI?



If engine failure is a problem then one should just get twin engined jets - why risk the pilots life with single engined jets? Again the choice of jet should be made based on operational requirements and not on the number of engines.

Agree with u buddy.
Rather than having Light, medium and heavy aircraft, the focus should be on having the aircraft with dedicated role or Multirole fighter.
It is better to have a mix of Air superiority , Multi role, ground attack, reconaissance aircraft, instead of having Weight categorized aircrafts.

 

[Adioz]

I don't understand the doctrine that calls for aircraft of different weights.
Aircraft types/squadrons are drawn by their operational roles - ground attack, air superiority, interdiction etc. Now does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for ground attack?
Does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for air superiority??

The roles of an aircraft do not necessarily fall directly into the weight categories either. There are light ground attack jets(Jaguar) and also heavy ground attack jets (A10).

At least to me it doesn't make any sense if an air force says that their fleet comprises the following numbers:
x-Light, y-Medium & z-Heavy aircraft. I have no idea what the capabilities of the force is nor do I understand on what operational doctrine basis the fighters were picked. How does an air force even go shopping for a jet? Does A10 qualify as a heavy weight jet, same as Su-30MKI?



If engine failure is a problem then one should just get twin engined jets - why risk the pilots life with single engined jets? Again the choice of jet should be made based on operational requirements and not on the number of engines.

Agree with u buddy.
Rather than having Light, medium and heavy aircraft, the focus should be on having the aircraft with dedicated role or Multirole fighter.
It is better to have a mix of Air superiority , Multi role, ground attack, reconaissance aircraft, instead of having Weight categorized aircrafts.

Define "multi-role". And if IAF picks up this nomenclature, what other classifications do you suggest they should use?

IMHO, all modern fighters are multi-role. Light, medium and heavy are meant to signify the extent of capabilities of multi-role fighters. For example, a heavier aircraft is likely to have a larger payload carrying capacity over a larger combat radius and for a longer duration. It is also likely to have a much powerful EW and radar capability.

The five major roles of a fighter aircraft are:-

• Air-superiority/Escort roles
• Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses
• Air-interdiction/Nuclear bomber
• Close air support
• Interception and air defence

All fighters are capable of all of the above roles but some are more suited than others for particular roles and for particular situations.
You can designate Su-30MKI for air-superiority and air-interdiction missions, and the Tejas for Interception and air-defence. But in certain situations, Tejas might be clubbed up with Su-30MKI and the high-low fighter matrix tactics will be employed by the IAF to secure air-superiority, or maybe, for an interception mission.
Role-based classification is, therefore,just as untenable as the weight classification.

Whatever be the criteria for aircraft classification, we need some clear indications as to what are the exact parameters based on which fighters are put in different classes. The IAF does not need to tell us these as long as they are clear on the parameters themselves. But the way things are going, it seems like the IAF itself is not clear on aircraft roles, or maybe they are in the midst of a doctrinal change, or they may be making compromises due to falling fighter strength.

 

[Vijyes]

I don't understand the doctrine that calls for aircraft of different weights.
Aircraft types/squadrons are drawn by their operational roles - ground attack, air superiority, interdiction etc. Now does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for ground attack?
Does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for air superiority??

The roles of an aircraft do not necessarily fall directly into the weight categories either. There are light ground attack jets(Jaguar) and also heavy ground attack jets (A10).

At least to me it doesn't make any sense if an air force says that their fleet comprises the following numbers:
x-Light, y-Medium & z-Heavy aircraft. I have no idea what the capabilities of the force is nor do I understand on what operational doctrine basis the fighters were picked. How does an air force even go shopping for a jet? Does A10 qualify as a heavy weight jet, same as Su-30MKI?



If engine failure is a problem then one should just get twin engined jets - why risk the pilots life with single engined jets? Again the choice of jet should be made based on operational requirements and not on the number of engines.

Let me explain : there are 3 types of aircraft in terms of range - light, medium and heavy. There are 3 types of aircraft in terms of role - air superiority, ground attack (including bombers) and multirole.
The range wise classification is needed to ensure economic distribution of assets as the cost of planes increase from light to heavy. So, planes with intention of attack on pakistan need not have 2000km range. It will be waste of money. Simply put, the classification on the basis of range is only for 1 thing - costs. India is a country of kanjoos people and this idea comes out of this mindset. Considering that costs are indeed a rational factor, it is actually an excellent idea to divide the role in this pattern
About the role of aircraft, again India mostly chooses multirole aircrafts for cost benefits. So, in India this type of differentiation is not meaningful. Indian aircrafts are decided by - bang on buck.

 

[Vijyes]

Define "multi-role". And if IAF picks up this nomenclature, what other classifications do you suggest they should use?

IMHO, all modern fighters are multi-role. Light, medium and heavy are meant to signify the extent of capabilities of multi-role fighters. For example, a heavier aircraft is likely to have a larger payload carrying capacity over a larger combat radius and for a longer duration. It is also likely to have a much powerful EW and radar capability.

The five major roles of a fighter aircraft are:-

• Air-superiority/Escort roles
• Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses
• Air-interdiction/Nuclear bomber
• Close air support
• Interception and air defence

All fighters are capable of all of the above roles but some are more suited than others for particular roles and for particular situations.
You can designate Su-30MKI for air-superiority and air-interdiction missions, and the Tejas for Interception and air-defence. But in certain situations, Tejas might be clubbed up with Su-30MKI and the high-low fighter matrix tactics will be employed by the IAF to secure air-superiority, or maybe, for an interception mission.
Role-based classification is, therefore,just as untenable as the weight classification.

Whatever be the criteria for aircraft classification, we need some clear indications as to what are the exact parameters based on which fighters are put in different classes. The IAF does not need to tell us these as long as they are clear on the parameters themselves. But the way things are going, it seems like the IAF itself is not clear on aircraft roles, or maybe they are in the midst of a doctrinal change, or they may be making compromises due to falling fighter strength.

Scrutator is having USA flag. He thinks in terms of quality only as money is present in excess for US. They classify aircrafts specially for different roles. For example, B2 bomber, F22 etc which can't do multirole mission. B2 lacks air to air ability due yo poor maneuverability and F22 lacks ground attack due to small fuselage and small weapons carriage. It can't deliver H bombs or cluster bombs to ground (small tactical nukes are possible)

That is why Scrutator appears confused with Indian requirements. The light, heavy etc are based on economic constraints. Technically the heaviest fighter can also be used instead of lighter ones. But it is not economical for India to do so. There is no harm in using only Su30-MKI instead of MiG21 or MiG27 but it will be a costly affair

 

[indiandefencefan]

Define "multi-role". And if IAF picks up this nomenclature, what other classifications do you suggest they should use?

IMHO, all modern fighters are multi-role. Light, medium and heavy are meant to signify the extent of capabilities of multi-role fighters. For example, a heavier aircraft is likely to have a larger payload carrying capacity over a larger combat radius and for a longer duration. It is also likely to have a much powerful EW and radar capability.

The five major roles of a fighter aircraft are:-

• Air-superiority/Escort roles
• Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses
• Air-interdiction/Nuclear bomber
• Close air support
• Interception and air defence

All fighters are capable of all of the above roles but some are more suited than others for particular roles and for particular situations.
You can designate Su-30MKI for air-superiority and air-interdiction missions, and the Tejas for Interception and air-defence. But in certain situations, Tejas might be clubbed up with Su-30MKI and the high-low fighter matrix tactics will be employed by the IAF to secure air-superiority, or maybe, for an interception mission.
Role-based classification is, therefore,just as untenable as the weight classification.

Whatever be the criteria for aircraft classification, we need some clear indications as to what are the exact parameters based on which fighters are put in different classes. The IAF does not need to tell us these as long as they are clear on the parameters themselves. But the way things are going, it seems like the IAF itself is not clear on aircraft roles, or maybe they are in the midst of a doctrinal change, or they may be making compromises due to falling fighter strength.

I don't understand the doctrine that calls for aircraft of different weights.
Aircraft types/squadrons are drawn by their operational roles - ground attack, air superiority, interdiction etc. Now does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for ground attack?
Does an air force need light, medium AND heavy jets for air superiority??

The roles of an aircraft do not necessarily fall directly into the weight categories either. There are light ground attack jets(Jaguar) and also heavy ground attack jets (A10).

At least to me it doesn't make any sense if an air force says that their fleet comprises the following numbers:
x-Light, y-Medium & z-Heavy aircraft. I have no idea what the capabilities of the force is nor do I understand on what operational doctrine basis the fighters were picked. How does an air force even go shopping for a jet? Does A10 qualify as a heavy weight jet, same as Su-30MKI?



If engine failure is a problem then one should just get twin engined jets - why risk the pilots life with single engined jets? Again the choice of jet should be made based on operational requirements and not on the number of engines.

@Scrutator In a nutshell, because the Air Force is under the constant threat of a two front war, it has mandated that all aircraft be multi-role.
In such a scenario because all the planes are multi-role, differentiation on the basis of role becomes impossible because all aircraft can to an extent perform each others roles. This is also why the air force has not pursued a single role plane like the B1-B Lancer because such an aircraft is only capable of bombing and hence does not fit the IAF's doctrine.
Thus the only classification applicable is that of weight.
Here the airframes have been divided into Heavy, medium and light because economic constraints and to ensure fleet diversity.
@Adioz feel free to add or correct if you think my analysis has flaws.

 

[IndianHawk]

@Scrutator In a nutshell, because the Air Force is under the constant threat of a two front war, it has mandated that all aircraft be multi-role.
In such a scenario because all the planes are multi-role, differentiation on the basis of role becomes impossible because all aircraft can to an extent perform each others roles. This is also why the air force has not pursued a single role plane like the B1-B Lancer because such an aircraft is only capable of bombing and hence does not fit the IAF's doctrine.
Thus the only classification applicable is that of weight.
Here the airframes have been divided into Heavy, medium and light because economic constraints and to ensure fleet diversity.

If we go a bit back we will see that iaf medium fighters were essentially for ground attack role with heavy payload and decent range while heavy one for air superiority with high maneuverability and great range.

These roles are still kept in mind imho.
Look at Rafael mki combo how would be operationalize that. Most optimal way is while mki clears the sky Rafael will bomb deep into enemy territory.

However the modern multiple roel capacity enhances these roles .
LCA mk2 will almost be in medium class by weight . Against pakistan (which can't afford a heavy fighter) Rafael can play the role of air superiority while LCA can bomb all over pakistan easily.

If we look at these scenarios it seems the older role are still in play but with lot more flexibility hence iaf classification stands.

Also Indian geography demands great ranges which can come only from heavy fighters but over finances force us to have large numbers of light fighter . So iaf has to play with weight , capacity etc.

 

[Vijyes]

If we go a bit back we will see that iaf medium fighters were essentially for ground attack role with heavy payload and decent range while heavy one for air superiority with high maneuverability and great range.

These roles are still kept in mind imho.
Look at Rafael mki combo how would be operationalize that. Most optimal way is while mki clears the sky Rafael will bomb deep into enemy territory.

However the modern multiple roel capacity enhances these roles .
LCA mk2 will almost be in medium class by weight . Against pakistan (which can't afford a heavy fighter) Rafael can play the role of air superiority while LCA can bomb all over pakistan easily.

If we look at these scenarios it seems the older role are still in play but with lot more flexibility hence iaf classification stands.

Also Indian geography demands great ranges which can come only from heavy fighters but over finances force us to have large numbers of light fighter . So iaf has to play with weight , capacity etc.

Please read my comment above on how the planes are categorised based on economic constraints rather than operational requirements.

 

[IndianHawk]

Please read my comment above on how the planes are categorised based on economic constraints rather than operational requirements.

Nope not only on economy. That way there will be no logic in purchasing a Rafael which is more costly than heavy weight su30mki.

French have very healthy economy but they do not operate a heavy plane.

If we would go by economic logic we will end up with few heavy planes + lots of light ones what is the requirements of medium category???

It is the operational requirement fused with economic viability which is shaping iaf doctrine .

 

[Vijyes]

Nope not only on economy. That way there will be no logic in purchasing a Rafael which is more costly than heavy weight su30mki.

French have very healthy economy but they do not operate a heavy plane.

If we would go by economic logic we will end up with few heavy planes + lots of light ones what is the requirements of medium category???

It is the operational requirement fused with economic viability which is shaping iaf doctrine .

Rafale is neither stealthy nor heavy but it has better reliability than Russian planes and there are certain TOT that are needed from french like engine technology etc. Medium is needed for medium carrying capacity, precision strike etc at a lower cost than heavy ones. India is not just planning for Pakistan centric attack. Even mullahs like Indonesia are a threat in the long term.

 

[Scrutator]

Scrutator is having USA flag. He thinks in terms of quality only as money is present in excess for US. They classify aircrafts specially for different roles. For example, B2 bomber, F22 etc which can't do multirole mission. B2 lacks air to air ability due yo poor maneuverability and F22 lacks ground attack due to small fuselage and small weapons carriage. It can't deliver H bombs or cluster bombs to ground (small tactical nukes are possible)

That is why Scrutator appears confused with Indian requirements. The light, heavy etc are based on economic constraints. Technically the heaviest fighter can also be used instead of lighter ones. But it is not economical for India to do so. There is no harm in using only Su30-MKI instead of MiG21 or MiG27 but it will be a costly affair

HAHA. I agree with the notion of multi role aircraft. But remember that the total squadron strength requirements are still based on individual roles for the aircraft even though most new ones are multi role.
My peeve has always been that IAF doesn't use its money that wisely. I understand the limited budget IAF gets as part of the limited defense budget.
My thinking is that IAF ends up spending its money not necessarily in a way that optimizes the force efficiency; the spending patterns are contorted to fit the weird procedures/rules laid down by clueless bureaucrats!

In general, if you noticed, the rules/procedures for spending on existing aircraft (for upgrades etc) are generally much more lax than they are for procuring newer aircraft - for me its still hard to swallow the price of Mirage upgrades!! The bureaucracy has weird norms to shun 'single vendor' bids!! If you really want the best - there'll only be one of it. But the procedures forces the military to go for run of the mill commodity. The weird thing again is that they don't realize that upgrades (for which the procedures are much more lax than for procuring a new aircraft) essentially means a single vendor situation - and most of the time that vendor fleeces IAF!!

The way light/medium/heavy is defined is also very funny. Gripen which actually has similar base weight as Tejas does is actually classified in India as Medium class because it can carry more payload and that its max weight puts it in a different category!! It's all the more funny when ADA scientists try to explain why Tejas will carry less payload than Gripen (which has similiar engine) - because Gripen is higher 'weight' category plane!!

Net-net, I do think that inside the IAF they know that they need aircraft for specific roles/needs. But when that bubbles through the bureaucratic and political malaise it gets contorted to some weird sound bytes. I still scratch my head everytime Parrikar says "there is still a need for 100+ single engined foreign aircraft". I don't understand how any of those words fit a fighting doctrine of the air force!!

 

[Tarun Kumar]

Cancel Single Engine Aircraft deal and FGFA. Americans will never give us any tech. They just want to rake in the moolah. With that money offer Dassault a MII package deal and joint development of AMCA and merger of ghatak and neuron projects. This will solve all the problems in one swoop.. Rafale is better than J20 and FGFA and a distant second to F35. But with joint Indo french effort, we can go upto F35 level.

 

[kunal1123]

Cancel Single Engine Aircraft deal and FGFA. Americans will never give us any tech. They just want to rake in the moolah. With that money offer Dassault a MII package deal and joint development of AMCA and merger of ghatak and neuron projects. This will solve all the problems in one swoop.. Rafale is better than J20 and FGFA and a distant second to F35. But with joint Indo french effort, we can go upto F35 level.

well i agre for canclination for Single Engine Aircraft deal but not for FGFA. and here FGFA IS FOR J-20 , and if russia providing us good share in R&D, SOME TOT and joint export right i say go for it.

 

[Alok Arya]

Cancel Single Engine Aircraft deal and FGFA. Americans will never give us any tech. They just want to rake in the moolah. With that money offer Dassault a MII package deal and joint development of AMCA and merger of ghatak and neuron projects. This will solve all the problems in one swoop.. Rafale is better than J20 and FGFA and a distant second to F35. But with joint Indo french effort, we can go upto F35 level.

Nobody going to give meaningful tot , you have to extract it . See rafale saga goi simply refuse to sign until France come clean . However you one point is very valid , first sign rafale mii with time bound manner of payment and tot . Then go for single engine from USA again time bound in payment and tot . Actually what is interesting in single engine is that in long run these are coming with greater business and creation of modern manufacturing ecosystem of aerospace with a business to maintain at least 3000 fighter plane world wide basis , ( excluding approximately 2000 which USA has , and trump not going to allow any foreign maintenance for these as a risk of job loss ) . So all three deal rafale mii , single engine , faga are very crucial and to be done very sincerely. Now take faga deal , Russia want us to pour money , but no ipr , manufacturing and exporting right . And at this point deal is now stucking . But now mod , and mod doing good job , let's hop for good .

 

[Scrutator]

Hey Everyone, I have decided to quit this forum. I have consistently noticed the overbearing attitude of the folks running this forum. They encourage folks who subscribe to their very narrow worldview - even if it comes with falsehoods, intimidation and insults; while at the same time they suppress facts, science and any view that maybe even narrowly different from their own. I am not very comfortable with authoritarian regimes.
It was fun interacting with several of you on very interesting topics. Most of you have a healthy curiosity and a thirst for learning - glad to be part of that mix!

 

[Alok Arya]

Hey Everyone, I have decided to quit this forum. I have consistently noticed the overbearing attitude of the folks running this forum. They encourage folks who subscribe to their very narrow worldview - even if it comes with falsehoods, intimidation and insults; while at the same time they suppress facts, science and any view that maybe even narrowly different from their own. I am not very comfortable with authoritarian regimes.
It was fun interacting with several of you on very interesting topics. Most of you have a healthy curiosity and a thirst for learning - glad to be part of that mix!

I totally oppose your decision . Please be here . Harsh reply is not the reason to quit . You too needed here . India is a democracy and we respect your view too . If someone want to live in his own world , we are not here to change that . Let him to believe what he want .

 

[Scrutator]

I totally oppose your decision . Please be here . Harsh reply is not the reason to quit . You too needed here . India is a democracy and we respect your view too . If someone want to live in his own world , we are not here to change that . Let him to believe what he want .

Thanks. I was always fine with varying viewpoints. But I am not very comfortable with the way things are done here under the guise of 'Moderation' - too authoritarian and intervening desperately to try to change the course of discussions to suit their view point - a viewpoint that everything in India is just awesome. I am not totally down with that kind of hyper nationalism! Truth, objectivity and facts should prevail.
However they got the role of being the moderators, I guess they have their job to do and an agenda to push forward. I don't want to be butting heads often!! My very second or third posting on this forum was deleted and my posting privileges suspended for a week because I said Tejas Mk1 is not as aerodynamic as Tejas Mk2 will be; while at the same time quacks are allowed to peddle a lot of falsehoods!

 

[sthf]

Hey Everyone, I have decided to quit this forum. I have consistently noticed the overbearing attitude of the folks running this forum. They encourage folks who subscribe to their very narrow worldview - even if it comes with falsehoods, intimidation and insults; while at the same time they suppress facts, science and any view that maybe even narrowly different from their own. I am not very comfortable with authoritarian regimes.
It was fun interacting with several of you on very interesting topics. Most of you have a healthy curiosity and a thirst for learning - glad to be part of that mix!

I'd like to wish you the best of luck even though as a fellow member I'd prefer for you to stay.

But you are right about moderation so there's that.

 

[Alok Arya]

I can understand . Sir you may be right . We all are defence enthusiasts here . You may be from aerospace back ground , may have more knowledge than me , you are welcome to put your view . We are more than ready to hear you . Tejas have aerodynamic problem in prototype phase when a study came to make it more aerodynamic to reduce drag and increase transonic acceleration and sea level max speed . Most probably they rectified it in later . There may be differences in opinion . You think you are right , moderator think they are . We enjoy both of yours views points . I personally regrte any inconvenience but also fact I am not moderator . Please donot be disheartened. Enjoy it . Give you view . We are ready to read these with thanks in advance .

 

[PD_Solo]

Hey Everyone, I have decided to quit this forum. I have consistently noticed the overbearing attitude of the folks running this forum. They encourage folks who subscribe to their very narrow worldview - even if it comes with falsehoods, intimidation and insults; while at the same time they suppress facts, science and any view that maybe even narrowly different from their own. I am not very comfortable with authoritarian regimes.
It was fun interacting with several of you on very interesting topics. Most of you have a healthy curiosity and a thirst for learning - glad to be part of that mix!

To quit is your wish.

But won't this leave a message to the youngsters who get into a debate to quit if things get little bit heated or they are counter attacked.Wont it be a better example to stay and be a torchbearer with the knowledge possessed.

Whatever your reasons are it's a part and parcel of forum debates.

Anyway thanks for your contribution.


Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk