Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

[Dark Sorrow]

@vishnugupt
I need to emphasis on couple of things ACM said.

He is saying an AD Systems is an essential component of achieving total air-superiority. Surveillance System (be it ground based or aerial radars/EO systems) and aerial assets (fighters, multi-role aircraft, air-superiority aircraft) are other components.
The problem with separating AD operation from IAF is that it would increase delay in successfully identification and neutralization of enemy air systems. It will also increase probability of friendly fire. If AD command is raised it would have difficulty tracking friendly air assets increase probability of friendly fire or delayed response time. Aircraft tend to move very fast Rafale (1912km/h), MKI (2,120 km/h ), Mig-29 (2,446 km/h) and Tejas (2,205 km/h) and can easily cross designated AOO and command boundary depending on mission. For AD command to track such air assets will be very difficult.
Separating AD System in different command will cause problems while achieving air-superiority of over friendly skies and will hinder air-dominance over enemy.

AD engagement sequence (for IA)

1. Target is detected
2. Attempt to identify target
3. Confirm with IAF if its friendly
4. Confirm with Civilian authority (depending on situation)
5. Calculate firing solution
6. Engage the target
7. Conduct engagement assessment

3th and 4th steps are most time consuming and most prone to error.

Coming to the second problem as ACM said.
Aircraft are highly mobile assets and can be redirected/redeployed as needed or as situation dictates.
Rafale from Ambala AFS can be moved to Hashimara AFS within an hour. The same can be said about other air-assets (e.g. MKI from Lohegaon to Hasimara AFS within an hour). AD System under command of IAF are also highly mobile due to availability of transport fleet.
Forcing TC (Theater Command) will take away this flexibility and reduce overall effectiveness of aerial operation.

Third Problem
This was was also mentioned by our previous ACM.
IA is treating TC as its own personal domain and is regarding other services only exist to serve IA's need.
Reality is however different.
Most of the fighting will be done by IAF.
Gone are the days of huge armored thrust or massive infantry battles. IA is still stuck in antiquated doctrine.
We have entered an era of non-contact warfare. In today's time most ground conflict takes place at 30-40 km and is this engagement range expected to rise to 45-60km in coming years. Most of tomorrow's conflict will take place at stand-off range, with CM or BM hitting deep inside enemy territory at start of conflict and for strategic targets. Most of the combat will be executed by aerial assets be it air dominance operation, air denial, strike mission, deep penetration strike mission, etc.
The problem is IA still thinks with WW2 philosophy and is a recipe for disaster. It is mainly due to the COIN operation it has to perform in Kashmir and LOC (another reason why army should be removed from COIN duties and guarding LOC- this should be the job of BSF).

I have seen people giving example of US armed forces but they fail to realize we are not US.
US Doctrine to defeat enemy

1. Economically and Industrially cripple enemy
2. Create resistance to local rule
3. Use stand-off weapons and intelligence operation to destroy/cripple enemy air and AD assets
4. USAF, USN will launch a massive air campaign and destroy more than 90% of strategic and tactical importance target
5. Once enemy is cripple launch co-ordinated ground invasion with combined arms

People only look at point 5 when talking about TC or combined command, they forget points 3-4.

USAF has massive amount of air-craft and drones to transfer few to joint command and still be the most devastating AF in the world, IAF doesn't enjoy this luxury.
The fact is USN Air wing is bigger and more powerful than IAF.

Fourth Problem
We are in an era of truly multi-role (omni-role) aircraft. TC will result in under utilization of air assets capabilities.

 

[Blademaster]

@vishnugupt
I need to emphasis on couple of things ACM said.

He is saying an AD Systems is an essential component of achieving total air-superiority. Surveillance System (be it ground based or aerial radars/EO systems) and aerial assets (fighters, multi-role aircraft, air-superiority aircraft) are other components.
The problem with separating AD operation from IAF is that it would increase delay in successfully identification and neutralization of enemy air systems. It will also increase probability of friendly fire. If AD command is raised it would have difficulty tracking friendly air assets increase probability of friendly fire or delayed response time. Aircraft tend to move very fast Rafale (1912km/h), MKI (2,120 km/h ), Mig-29 (2,446 km/h) and Tejas (2,205 km/h) and can easily cross designated AOO and command boundary depending on mission. For AD command to track such air assets will be very difficult.
Separating AD System in different command will cause problems while achieving air-superiority of over friendly skies and will hinder air-dominance over enemy.

AD engagement sequence (for IA)

1. Target is detected
2. Attempt to identify target
3. Confirm with IAF if its friendly
4. Confirm with Civilian authority (depending on situation)
5. Calculate firing solution
6. Engage the target
7. Conduct engagement assessment

3th and 4th steps are most time consuming and most prone to error.

Coming to the second problem as ACM said.
Aircraft are highly mobile assets and can be redirected/redeployed as needed or as situation dictates.
Rafale from Ambala AFS can be moved to Hashimara AFS within an hour. The same can be said about other air-assets (e.g. MKI from Lohegaon to Hasimara AFS within an hour). AD System under command of IAF are also highly mobile due to availability of transport fleet.
Forcing TC (Theater Command) will take away this flexibility and reduce overall effectiveness of aerial operation.

Third Problem
This was was also mentioned by our previous ACM.
IA is treating TC as its own personal domain and is regarding other services only exist to serve IA's need.
Reality is however different.
Most of the fighting will be done by IAF.
Gone are the days of huge armored thrust or massive infantry battles. IA is still stuck in antiquated doctrine.
We have entered an era of non-contact warfare. In today's time most ground conflict takes place at 30-40 km and is this engagement range expected to rise to 45-60km in coming years. Most of tomorrow's conflict will take place at stand-off range, with CM or BM hitting deep inside enemy territory at start of conflict and for strategic targets. Most of the combat will be executed by aerial assets be it air dominance operation, air denial, strike mission, deep penetration strike mission, etc.
The problem is IA still thinks with WW2 philosophy and is a recipe for disaster. It is mainly due to the COIN operation it has to perform in Kashmir and LOC (another reason why army should be removed from COIN duties and guarding LOC- this should be the job of BSF).

I have seen people giving example of US armed forces but they fail to realize we are not US.
US Doctrine to defeat enemy

1. Economically and Industrially cripple enemy
2. Create resistance to local rule
3. Use stand-off weapons and intelligence operation to destroy/cripple enemy air and AD assets
4. USAF, USN will launch a massive air campaign and destroy more than 90% of strategic and tactical importance target
5. Once enemy is cripple launch co-ordinated ground invasion with combined arms

People only look at point 5 when talking about TC or combined command, they forget points 3-4.

USAF has massive amount of air-craft and drones to transfer few to joint command and still be the most devastating AF in the world, IAF doesn't enjoy this luxury.
The fact is USN Air wing is bigger and more powerful than IAF.

Fourth Problem
We are in an era of truly multi-role (omni-role) aircraft. TC will result in under utilization of air assets capabilities.

This is classic stonewalling by ACM. He is just highlighting the issues without coming up with solutions to solve that problem and there are existing solutions. Go and study US and NATO's combined arms doctrine. US and NATO have overcome those issues.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

This is classic stonewalling by ACM. He is just highlighting the issues without coming up with solutions to solve that problem and there are existing solutions. Go and study US and NATO's combined arms doctrine. US and NATO have overcome those issues.

It has been suggested IA should get UCAV and attack helicopters.
With arrival guided munition one doesn't need aircraft for CAS. IAF has not procured a dedicated ground attack aircraft for a long time.
Guided munition can follow non-ballistic trajectory.
With modern artillery, armies can easily strike at a distance for 60-90km easily.
Don't compare USAF or USN with IAF. They are leagues apart.
USAF doesn't share its F-22s with anyone (including their combined ops). Only after F-35s were inducted in large numbers they joined combined ops.

 

[johnj]

It has been suggested IA should get UCAV and attack helicopters.
With arrival guided munition one doesn't need aircraft for CAS. IAF has not procured a dedicated ground attack aircraft for a long time.
Guided munition can follow non-ballistic trajectory.
With modern artillery, armies can easily strike at a distance for 60-90km easily.
Don't compare USAF or USN with IAF. They are leagues apart.
USAF doesn't share its F-22s with anyone (including their combined ops). Only after F-35s were inducted in large numbers they joined combined ops.

With modern artillery, armies can easily strike at a distance for 60-90km easily. & guided munition ??
60 - 90km - artillery or mblr ??[mbrl having ranges 120km]
don't cas aircraft uses guided munitions/missiles ?

 

[samsaptaka]

Is that Swat Kats on the Logo??

It indeed is !

u know , if u are gonna complain about IAF , also add the brahmos misfire too .

I think there is more to this than we know. Most likely not an accident

 

[Dark Sorrow]

With modern artillery, armies can easily strike at a distance for 60-90km easily. & guided munition ??
60 - 90km - artillery or mblr ??[mbrl having ranges 120km]
don't cas aircraft uses guided munitions/missiles ?

Its much economical, safer and efficient to use artillery for such role than an aircraft.

 

[Blademaster]

It has been suggested IA should get UCAV and attack helicopters.
With arrival guided munition one doesn't need aircraft for CAS. IAF has not procured a dedicated ground attack aircraft for a long time.
Guided munition can follow non-ballistic trajectory.
With modern artillery, armies can easily strike at a distance for 60-90km easily.
Don't compare USAF or USN with IAF. They are leagues apart.
USAF doesn't share its F-22s with anyone (including their combined ops). Only after F-35s were inducted in large numbers they joined combined ops.

Even Canadian Armed Forces, UK, France, Spain, and Italy have overcome these issues so it is not just USAF or USN.

USAF did not share F-22 because they were tasked with air superiority and had little air to ground capabilities and did not receive upgrades to mission computers until later when F-35s had ground attack capability. Then it was imported over to F-22. Then at that time F-22 was feasible for combined ops.

 

[Love Charger]

 

[ezsasa]

The induction program is going as per the schedule. The first firing unit inducted & deployed. The second unit is also in the process of getting inducted. Delivery schedules on time, hopeful that by next year all deliveries will be completed: IAF chief on S-400 air defence system

 

[johnj]

Its much economical, safer and efficient to use artillery for such role than an aircraft.

What role ??
CAS ?? for CAS its just opposite, artillery is the worst choice even with pgm, artillery is good for suppression or annihilating, for cas helios comes first followed by slow flying plane.
For strike - aircraft, cruise missile.
AI armed drones[tiny to huge] replace some/major of those roles in future.
Also artillery normal range is 30 to 45 km and can achieve 90 plus using powered[rocket/ramjet] munitions & MBRL range in b/w 20 to 150km.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

What role ??
CAS ?? for CAS its just opposite, artillery is the worst choice even with pgm, artillery is good for suppression or annihilating, for cas helios comes first followed by slow flying plane.
For strike - aircraft, cruise missile.
AI armed drones[tiny to huge] replace some/major of those roles in future.
Also artillery normal range is 30 to 45 km and can achieve 90 plus using powered[rocket/ramjet] munitions & MBRL range in b/w 20 to 150km.

This was true pre-digital age. Earlier artillery was used for softening enemy, demoralizing enemy or suppression of enemy.
With advent of shells like M982 CAS role is also being fulfilled by artillery. You might observe major AF are not inducting dedicated ground attack aircraft rather UCAV is being inducted by AF or army along with PGM. Thsi doctrine has been successfully being demonstrated by USMC in early stage of Iraq war.

This tatics have be used in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan and even in Kargil (where we tried to use Krasnopol to destroy bunkers).
Their is lot of research going on for advanced EO and RF guidance in artillery shell.

Biggest advantage of PGM is that they can follow non-ballistic trajectory. In case steep angle is required and is out of range from MRLS or artillery drones come in to play.

Helicopters are also falling out of favor for CAS operation with advent of UAV/UCAVs. Helicopters are just too vulnerable and risk lives of their crew. AD against Helicopters has become to sophisticated. IAF has learned form its mistakes in Kargil using Helicopters for CAS when it was shot down by Stinger missile.


Most of IAF assets are too good and expensive for CAS mission.

 

[johnj]

This was true pre-digital age. Earlier artillery was used for softening enemy, demoralizing enemy or suppression of enemy.
With advent of shells like M982 CAS role is also being fulfilled by artillery. You might observe major AF are not inducting dedicated ground attack aircraft rather UCAV is being inducted by AF or army along with PGM. Thsi doctrine has been successfully being demonstrated by USMC in early stage of Iraq war.

This tatics have be used in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan and even in Kargil (where we tried to use Krasnopol to destroy bunkers).
Their is lot of research going on for advanced EO and RF guidance in artillery shell.

Biggest advantage of PGM is that they can follow non-ballistic trajectory. In case steep angle is required and is out of range from MRLS or artillery drones come in to play.

Helicopters are also falling out of favor for CAS operation with advent of UAV/UCAVs. Helicopters are just too vulnerable and risk lives of their crew. AD against Helicopters has become to sophisticated. IAF has learned form its mistakes in Kargil using Helicopters for CAS when it was shot down by Stinger missile.


Most of IAF assets are too good and expensive for CAS mission.

Mostly true, but Krasnopol is not good compared to spike in kargil, and not bunkers, but vital points in hills, hills provide a natural bunkers.
Pinaka and Krasnopol is like game changer & m2k with israel munitions like game winner. [from news paper] also all these were strike, not cas, for cas, iaf/ia needed lch, none can replace lch in such role, and in future it use loitering standoff missiles, rf sensor etc.
Stinger missile can also shoot down drones. dircm and other counter measures used to counter manpads, the main reason why we lost aircraft, is that, we don't had single clue about their capability, they fully equipped high tech special forces, using snipers, bullet proff , manpads etc.
CAS - vulnerable or not, all forces buying attack helios and russians su34. and usaf keeping some a10 for cas.
Bottom line, i don't think IAF consider not giving support by not flying alh/mi17/outher helio in the fear of manpads or even sr sam, and helios rule in cas in future, followed by drone, and cas jet including f35b. and there is no such thing like invulnerable weapon.
Right now helio use direct fire, in future indirect fire, just imagine, lch using standoff loitering missiles, the missile acts like a drone, acquire target, and give data to lch pilot, and once he she conforms kill, the missile destroys target with out dangerung helio[considering us next gen helio concept][not a cas, but kargil like situation]

 

[Cheran]

We are considering our own upgrades much before start of current hostilities...

Meanwhile

......

 

[Cheran]

 

[Aniruddha Mulay]

如果你的善良换不来他的教养，那应该是狠锋，或者忍，或者辱骂，做人得露，人善被人欺负，马善被人骑，你也必须有一生，凭什么惯着展欺你之人！

F off bot

 

[mist_consecutive]

Air Force achieves 95% self-reliance in spares supply, saves Rs 600 crore in 5 years

The tyres and batteries for all critical aircraft fleets will be indigenously available in the next 3 years, according to Air Marshal Pande, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Maintenance Command.

indianexpress.com

 

[Cheran]

Indian Air Force contingent deployed to Egypt has successfully completed the Tactical Leadership Programme (TLP) there. The unique programme saw participants from both nations sharing their knowledge of operational tactics and best practices

 

[Super falcon]

 

[tribendra bisoi..]

MOU signed between MIDHANI and Indian Air Force for developing and indigenizing various metal powders such as Titanium Alloys, Aluminum Alloys and Special Steel for the additive manufacturing process for the production of aviation items.

 

[Dark Sorrow]

Don't know the authenticity of news but if true it is the right move ahead.

IAF to deploy LCA Tejas along the border – Indian Defence Research Wing

idrw.org