Quadbike Indian Air Force Thread Part 18

[JangBoGo]

yeah, it look cool. Now what they need to do is not to mess things up and fast forward its tests and induction. What are the two (hopefully) large black stripe like thing on the side fuselage?

Embraer's structural supports for the beam looks solid. And there are a lot of fins on the aft fuselage & bottom and the tail.

[JangBoGo]

The range will be closer to Tu-160. and will use 4 engines derived from PAK-FA. development started in 2007.
http://www.izvestia.ru/news/503271
Tu-22/B737 are too short range & lack power for dedicated bombers.
you need bombers for places/weopons where you cannot reach by conventional fighters even with refuelling. I dont expect Su-30 type fighter to carry 10 tons cave busting bombs or saturated missile attack.

PAK-Da is probably to replace the Tu-22M3 and not for the Tu-160. Tu-160 is too much a "fresh" design with some LO properties to be replaced so quickly.

TR1

1.) Nothing is certain in regards to PAK-DA right now, program is too infant. Though, I certainly agree it will not be Blackjack sized.

I think the PAK-DA from Sukhoi might have the range of the Tu-160, but its is probably not going to have the payload capacity of the Tu-160. More so around 18-20T.

[JangBoGo]

Frankly, a stealth bomber of its own seems a possibility only in dreams. The Tu-22M now, is more in the realm of possibility. The basics on the bird are more than enough for INdia's needs - combat radius of 4000km+ and payload of 20tons. What India should do is maintain at least a sqd worth of Tu-22Ms suitably modified:

1) Rotary launcher for 3-6 Brahmos/Nirbhay
2) Due application of RCS reduction measures
3) Terprom and nap of earth flight at supersonic speeds
4) State of the art self defence and EW suite
5) Possible engine upg. for better range/speed characteristics
6) Setup of infallible supply chain for maintenance and upkeep of the fleet
7) Glass cockpit, better MMI, and crew comfort

THis can be a very quick answer to all its potential threat perceptions. Probably will be expensive, but still it'll be worth it considering other options are totally beyond its needs/budget.

Agree to your realistic thoughts on a paper stealth bomber versus what is within our reach. What we need is the Tu-22M5, which was (i suppose) the designation given to the upgrade of Tu-22M3.

I don't know if there may be enough room for 3-6 brahmos class missiles. But Klub & Urans can be carried in those numbers. Brahmos might need to be carried on the wing pylons.

And Tu-22M3 discussion is boring without pictures...
So here we gooo....for my own pleasure.

[JangBoGo]

Indian Navy press piece with a pic of JF-17?

http://blogs.defenceaviation.com/wp-...e-1024x743.jpg

Actually its nothing compared to what the "official" wisdom have offered. For instance take the IAC-1 CG. What we get to see on the deck are F-15s.
Then take the various banners of the Def Expo etc we'll find the same stuff....

Also, even seasoned people make mistakes. For example.....during the 75th Anniversary of the IAF, during the display the commentator (ex-IAF) was talking about the MiG-29 doing the display, when it was actually the Su-30MKI. He might have had poor visual as the footage that he was commenting was black n white that was being telecasted right from the UAV. But I don't get how he could have missed the canards and the typical shape of the MKI.

[BlackArcher]

plenty more pics of the DRDO EMB-145I AEW&C..What a beauty !

[BlackArcher]

more pics of this beauty

[QuantumFX]

what a beauty indeed!

[BlackArcher]

And in more news, India has requested a sale of 9 C-130Js in addition to the 6 already ordered of which 5 have been delivered. Will take the total C-130J fleet to 15. They really are very happy with Lock Mart and the C-130J in this particular deal.

Aviation Week link

India has issued a letter of request to buy an additional nine more C-130J transport aircraft, Defense Minister A.K. Antony told parliament Dec. 7.

On Oct. 26, the Pentagon notified the U.S. Congress of a possible sale to India of six Lockheed Martin C-130Js, plus associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support, for an estimated $1.2 billion, on top of six of the airlifters ordered for the same price in 2008.

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress that in addition to the six aircraft, the deal would include “six Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 spare engines, eight AN/AAR-47 missile warning systems (two of them spares), eight AN/ALR-56M advanced radar warning receivers (two of them spares), eight AN/ALE-47 countermeasures dispensing systems (two of them spares), eight AAQ-22 Star Safire III special operations suites (two of them spares), eight ARC-210 radios (non-comsec) and 3,200 flare cartridges.”

Antony says a proposal for the procurement of 75 basic trainer aircraft is progressing, though no contract has been signed so far.

“The cost of the procurements will be known once the contracts are finalized and signed,” he says.

[BlackArcher]

First 2 IAF Mirage-2000s reach France for the upgrades.

Aviation week link

The Indian air force (IAF) has dispatched two of its Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft to France as part of a long-awaited deal to upgrade around 50 of the aging supersonic fighters.

The modernization will cost an estimated $2.4 billion under an agreement signed between India, Thales and Dassault Aviation in July.

The two aircraft were flown from their home base in Gwalior in central India last week to France, where they will be fitted with advanced avionics, electronic warfare suites and weapon systems, an IAF official said Dec. 6. The first two combat aircraft will be upgraded at the French facilities and the remaining at the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited units in India’s southern city of Bengaluru.

Touted as one of the most significant defense deals between India and France, negotiations stretched on for five years as New Delhi, Dassault and Thales had difficulty arriving at a mutually agreeable price for the work. The proposal was finally cleared at a meeting of India’s Cabinet Committee on Security on July 13.

Among the upgrades planned the for Mirage-2000 are a night vision goggle-compatible glass cockpit, advanced navigational systems, an advanced Identification-Friend-or-Foe system, advanced multimode multilayered radar, fully integrated electronic warfare suite and advanced beyond-visual-range capability.

As per the agreement, the French firms also will modernize the navigation systems, mission computers, electronic warfare systems and radars, bringing the aircraft up to the standards of more advanced Mirage-2000-5s. The IAF inducted the Mirage-2000 between 1982 and 1986.

[matt]

But it is a solution to a problem that is very rarely going to exist, i.e. high-intensity warfare with the combination of permissive airspace for one side, & powerful ground forces on the other. I can imagine it in Korea, after the N. Korean air force & SAMs are out of the picture, but where else?

BTW, an airliner-based bomber doesn't surprise anyone who still has functioning radars. And note than an aircraft can't be 'sitting' behind attacking forces. It has to fly round in circles, or back & forth along a track, while other aircraft fly back & forth from one side of its route to the other. There won't be a front line of aircraft providing a 'thrust'. That's ground warfare. There will be a dynamic situation, with fighters & strike aircraft thinly scattered, & frequently completely absent.

As long as the enemy air force exists, your big bomber/missileer will need an escort if it's going to stay close to the front on the ground. An escort will negate the advantage gained from its endurance, since the fighters needed to protect it could otherwise be bombing, or pursuing the enemy air force.

As I keep saying, it only works when the enemy no longer has a functioning air force or GBAD.

50/50 agreement with your comments, I can not agree with all of them on the simple basis that I am not talking about a dedicated platform for only droping paveways or short range glider munitions, i am talking about an ability to fire from an alititude of 33,000 feet guided rockets, cruise missiles such as nirbhay which i think has a 600 km of range or there about and actually using those types of long range missiles to do the anti radiation work for the aircraft.

I do agree that if persistance is required then the aircraft would have to make potentially predictable circles and this would be a major weakness.

I do not agree that that is the only way an aircraft of this type can operate. Also in the same breath there are not that many PINAKA's or SMERCH MLRS that can traverse over large distances in the mountain regions of Sikkim etc in a short time span with the ability to shoot and scoot, I also will reiterate what i am proposing isnt anything revolutionary and is already in operation or has been thought of already with things like heavy bombers and or Spectre gun ships (however I am not advocating the addition of a cannon onto the bomber! or using something like a bomber to take out a target that is close enough to be taken by land based howitzers).

I do agree that I am concerned about high intensity war far, however I do not agree that north korea could be the only location of such a conflict, thinking of the numbers involved on both sides in a potential conflict even a fraction of the force from both sides would produce high intensity conflict (relatively speaking).

Also thinking of the disparity in logistics and lines of comunications at the border between the two countries for India to have a flying bomber that can extend the range of its cruise missiles and also provide mobility to rocket artillary is not a solution looking for a problem it is mitigation action.


Now I know i have not spend 6 months doing a dissertation on all of this or run war games but for me a need similar but possibly not exactly the same exists for the Indian Armed forces not least because of the disparity between the two sides.

[Samsara]

yeah, it look cool. Now what they need to do is not to mess things up and fast forward its tests and induction. What are the two (hopefully) large black stripe like thing on the side fuselage?

Embraer's structural supports for the beam looks solid. And there are a lot of fins on the aft fuselage & bottom and the tail.

They have nice refuelling pods on all the new aircrafts...but where are the new refuellers themselves?

It is sad that a country the size of India is having just 6 mid air refuelliers.

[swerve]

... I also will reiterate what i am proposing isnt anything revolutionary and is already in operation or has been thought of already with things like heavy bombers and or Spectre gun ships (however I am not advocating the addition of a cannon onto the bomber! or using something like a bomber to take out a target that is close enough to be taken by land based howitzers).

I do agree that I am concerned about high intensity war far, however I do not agree that north korea could be the only location of such a conflict, thinking of the numbers involved on both sides in a potential conflict even a fraction of the force from both sides would produce high intensity conflict (relatively speaking)..

The US gunships are for use in an environment of totally uncontested airspace - which is what I keep telling you is the only environment where your proposed aircraft can be used.

Heavy bombers nowadays are either stealthy, cruise missile carriers, or only used in uncontested airspace - exactly as I have told you already. The idea of high-level penetration of defended airspace by non-stealthy subsonic heavy bombers went away a long time ago. Ditto their use tactically anywhere the enemy has a functioning air force. That was because it was recognised that they wouldn't survive.

If you want a cruise missile carrier able to launch several missiles a long way from its bases, then your proposed aircraft could do that. What I'm arguing against is your proposal to use it tactically. That is only possible in uncontested airspace. Why do you refuse to address that? Can't you see how vulnerable it is?

I did not say that North Korea is the only possible location of a high intensity war. I said it was the only place I could see a use for your proposed aircraft, i.e. somewhere there is a possibility of a high intensity war in which one side would rapidly achieve total air dominance, but still be faced by large conventional ground forces after that.

[matt]

The US gunships are for use in an environment of totally uncontested airspace - which is what I keep telling you is the only environment where your proposed aircraft can be used.

This is understood, agreed and not totally the idea I am going for.

Heavy bombers nowadays are either stealthy, cruise missile carriers, or only used in uncontested airspace - exactly as I have told you already. The idea of high-level penetration of defended airspace by non-stealthy subsonic heavy bombers went away a long time ago. Ditto their use tactically anywhere the enemy has a functioning air force. That was because it was recognised that they wouldn't survive.

What you say is logical and factual, however I see a risk vs benifits balance, where both sides of the equation change depending on how and where you decide to use the aircraft and if it has support from ground based Sam sights.

Considering the relatively poor channels of communication in parts of north east and west India a missile strike to a road could potentially block access to a strategically important tract of land

If your missilier which cost you say 30million dollars plus cost of munitions, is able to significantly errode the communication line of your foe and make it less than or equal to the lines of communication you have by its first use then i would say the benefits outweigh the risk, if your plane is shot down but has dones its role and the pilots could be recovered because it is firing from your territory then potentially no big loss apart from capital.

yes there is a significant risk that it is detected early and is not able to do its job in which case 30million + wasted (note: 30 million arbitrary figure). But again all of this depends on the doctrin used by the the armed forces.

If you want a cruise missile carrier able to launch several missiles a long way from its bases, then your proposed aircraft could do that. What I'm arguing against is your proposal to use it tactically. That is only possible in uncontested airspace. Why do you refuse to address that? Can't you see how vulnerable it is?

I can for sure see the vulnerability of it and the potential fools erronds, but in the same breadth its a risk assessment that would have to be made by the command on the day, however a mobile asset able to fire significant size warheads, in a high speed burst at ranges upwards of 300km could provide the armed forces a significant option and a potential advantage or leveller incase its own lines of communications are chocked or its own rocket artillery has been significantly damaged.

I keep refusing to say cruise missiles as in the Indian context i see expensive supersonic missiles which do not necessarily need that speed for land attack.

It all depends on the final cost of nirbhay I guess. I say rockets because I am thinking of a weapon potentially not in India's arsenal yet that is long range cheap and carriers a significant warhead. although i do not have the wherewithal or patience to teach my self how, i can not but wonder what that the range of a ATACM type rocket or AGNI I rocket would be lobed at some inclined angle.

Even if we call it quits and agree that India could use a aircraft with the ability to carry a significant number of Nirbhays in its bays and fire them from within its territory from 33,000 ft at long ranges it would be something.

I did not say that North Korea is the only possible location of a high intensity war. I said it was the only place I could see a use for your proposed aircraft, i.e. somewhere there is a possibility of a high intensity war in which one side would rapidly achieve total air dominance, but still be faced by large conventional ground forces after that.

If the IAF play a defense role, I can believe that to be the potential case for India where the Army is quickly out manouvered because of old infrastructure poor roods etc and overwhelmed very easy but the IAF is able to at least hold its own and be dominent for atleast a day or two.

[swerve]

I can't see a single thing this hypothetical aircraft can do in any environment other than totally uncontested airspace that ground-launched rockets or missiles or strikes from FBs can't. You want to stop an advance through the valleys of the north-east? Demolition charges would be a fraction of the cost & vastly more reliable. Cover any failures by pre-sighted artillery rockets, & GPS/GLONASS etc guided missiles. Your territory, you know exactly where every bridge, culvert, etc. is, & if the roads are anything like those I've seen in Himachal Pradesh, a little damage would go a very long way. Dropping a little bridge over a stream could close a road completely for days.

If the Chinese are able to render all your rocket artillery useless, then your aircraft would probably need divine assistance to be useful.

BTW, it would cost a lot more than $30 million. First, you have to design & testing the whole system, which would be hundreds of millions at least. Get it wrong, & the whole thing could be completely useless, so you have to spend the money & take the time to do it right. Then build it: first, buy your airliner - oops! That's your budget, unless you're buying old 737s or whatever. Then convert it, including adding sensors, communications, control systems, etc. - all the things which make it work as something other than an airliner. Millions more per unit.

An air force which is "dominant for a day or two" doesn't have the degree of dominance to allow your flying arsenal to operate & survive. What that describes is an air force fighting for control of airspace, not dominance.

[Griffon39]

With upgraded (MKI:d) Backfires IAF/IN could totally dominate the Indian Ocean. Backed upp Phalcons, tankers and P-8s etc IN would even pose a considerable threath to a US carrier battle group in the area.

[TR1]

There is an available, simple and affordable Gefest&T upgrade for Tu-22m3, like the Su-24 one. Anything more substantial would be complicate, expensive, and with an uncertain time frame.

On the other hand, if we are talking about sea denial, then all you need is the appropriate weapons and integrate them.

[jawad]

more pics of this beauty

To me it looks better then the EMB-145 Erieye AEW&C

Has anyone noticed that its EMB-145I's Active Array Antenna Unit (AAAU) seems to be smaller then the ERIEYE radar used on EMB-145 Erieye AEW&C or .........?

[Kramer]

To me it looks better then the EMB-145 Erieye AEW&C

Has anyone noticed that its EMB-145I's Active Array Antenna Unit (AAAU) seems to be smaller then the ERIEYE radar used on EMB-145 Erieye AEW&C or .........?

the Erieye AEW&C's dorsal unit seems longer and slightly thinner. The supports are beefier and the antenna itself seems to be situated somewhat lower than that on the Erieye.

[Sign]

probably heavier, that makes it sit closer to the cabin and shorter therefore. My 5 cents thou.
All in all to keep the balance and weight properties within about the same. therefore less need for redesign/revalidate the A/C.
Also much more fins and antennas on the indian variant.
Anyone know what the side "randome" on the cabin is all about? (black area)
Wonder why they never develop a new EMB-145 with larger wings for higher altitiudes. This would really get the competion with G550 going.

[Teer]

Also much more fins and antennas on the indian variant.

Yes, RWR+MAWS+CMDS+ESM, CSM, radios + datalinks and SATCOM. Not just primary radar and IFF. Its actually got a total mission suite, as comprehensive as it gets. And with sensor fusion.

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/CABS/En...=AreasWork.jsp

Anyone know what the side "randome" on the cabin is all about? (black area)

Direction finding interferometry antenna, for ESM systems

[Witcha]

the Erieye AEW&C's dorsal unit seems longer and slightly thinner. The supports are beefier and the antenna itself seems to be situated somewhat lower than that on the Erieye.

A pity the present configuration doesn't appear it will accomodate additional nose and tail antenna arrays(to cover the front and rear sectors, as on the Chinese KJ-200) because it would mean shifting those other antennas away.

[Witcha]

There is an available, simple and affordable Gefest&T upgrade for Tu-22m3, like the Su-24 one. Anything more substantial would be complicate, expensive, and with an uncertain time frame.

On the other hand, if we are talking about sea denial, then all you need is the appropriate weapons and integrate them.

Do you have any pics for the same? For instance, does it have a glass cockpit to replace all those dials and printout machines?

Seriously speaking, Tu-22Ms for India will remain within the realm of internet speculation because they'd be far too expensive to operate in any significant numbers. Simply finding spares is a challenge and has forced the RSAF to retire and cannibalise nearly half the fleet it inherited from the Soviet Union.

And the PAK-DA is both too far in the future and possibly too expensive(Given the cost of a new Tu-160, how much will a stealth bomber cost; a half billion each?) for the IAF to consider it now. The closest we are likely to see to a bomber in IAF service is the Su-34.

[TR1]

Don't you think retirement happened mostly because of force reduction ? Tu-22M3s have gone through repairs, its not like cannibalizing has been that prevelent in the fleet, AFAIK.

Glass cockpit is easy, that would be the simplest part of any upgrade.
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview...=60&u=15113927

Gefest stand.

[Witcha]

Don't you think retirement happened mostly because of force reduction ? Tu-22M3s have gone through repairs, its not like cannibalizing has been that prevelent in the fleet, AFAIK.

Glass cockpit is easy, that would be the simplest part of any upgrade.
http://www.servimg.com/image_preview...=60&u=15113927

Gefest stand.

Thanks, man.

Now if only they could scale up the Su-34's optronic targeting system, phased array radar and EW system for the Backfire...

[jawad]

the Erieye AEW&C's dorsal unit seems longer and slightly thinner. The supports are beefier and the antenna itself seems to be situated somewhat lower than that on the Erieye.

Here is a quick rough comparison through Photoshop (This is certainly not very accurate given the short time, slight differences in angle of the aircrafts and Photoshop skills are of very basic level)











It is not very accurate but it does illustrate point i was trying to make, Active Array Antenna Unit (AAAU) seems to be smaller in length compared to the FSR-890 Erieye SLAR

[Sign]

A pity the present configuration doesn't appear it will accomodate additional nose and tail antenna arrays(to cover the front and rear sectors, as on the Chinese KJ-200) because it would mean shifting those other antennas away.

in my mind theres no need for 360 deg cover. Normally you only look in one direction (one side) at a time. this also boost the energy in this direction. for example:
If you fly say parallell to the pakistan border to see into pakistan for activity, you really not interested in whats going on at the coastal area to Sri Lanka. or bangladesh coast. You probable want to see even more of pakistan with greater resolution (concentrate energy on one side). Also you normally never fly in the middle of a battlefield only parallell with a defence line. So 170 deg cover on each side should be optimal (this means little more than a Erieye or EMB-145I).

[jawad]

I think Sign makes a very good point, Electrical power available in AWACS os not unlimited both radars and other electronics has to share it.

I think that even the Phalcon AWACS with three radars, will be not using all radars at fullest of their capabilities at the same time. Electrical generators mounted on each of the E-3's four engines provide one megawatt of electrical power, Now Imagine the power requirements for a AWACS with 3 or 4 Radars. Moving the beam from one sector to the other is certainly much more faster but it requires lots of power which can only be generated by the bigger platforms

Is it confirmed that KJ-200 indeed have 360deg capability? Radomes at front and back seems to be very small for them to carry large radar for early warning operations.

[Teer]

I think Sign makes a very good point, Electrical power available in AWACS os not unlimited both radars and other electronics has to share it.

I think that even the Phalcon AWACS with three radars, will be not using all radars at fullest of their capabilities at the same time. Electrical generators mounted on each of the E-3's four engines provide one megawatt of electrical power, Now Imagine the power requirements for a AWACS with 3 or 4 Radars. Moving the beam from one sector to the other is certainly much more faster but it requires lots of power which can only be generated by the bigger platforms

Is it confirmed that KJ-200 indeed have 360deg capability? Radomes at front and back seems to be very small for them to carry large radar for early warning operations.

A few points.

1. The EMB-145I if thats the desig., had Embraer put two APUs to handle the extra power requirements. Besides which Sign is correct. AWACS fly a racetrack pattern and even more complicated ones, and as such to look over Pak, PRC whatever, only one side of the array will be used. Those TRMs are on, the others aren't. So power use is manageable, and 360 degree coverage is not really required. In simulations and modelling, 120 degree was considered reasonable and that's what is provided.

2.The length of the Swedish Erieye vs the Indian one is only of use viz. trivia. Because what counts are the TRM modules and their power handling capacity, plus the Staff Requirements for range, which the former are supposed to meet. Also, the EMB-145I has an ESM and CSM suite. The range of the former, is usually double of the radar.

3.Per released data, radar can reach out between 300-400 km for a small sized fighter target. Significant anti jamming measures included.

4.The current Indian program is only for 3 DRDO AEW&C. 2 of which will be delivered to the AF, one retained by the AF for further work & continued research into AEW&C tech. A flying testbed.

5. The reason is the second tranche of AEW&C (6+) will be much larger, with larger antenna (think Phalcon class, with 360 degree coverage) and will require a new plane, beyond the Embraer 145.

[Teer]

Zynda@BRF based on Aero India seminar transcript

Differences b/w Indian systems and some other comparable systems mounted on Embraer platform
• Has elevation scan to overcome aircraft banking problems - to 7-10 deg
• Has IFF Mk.12 with S-mode capability
• 360 deg coverage ESM
• COM Support Measure (CSM) and recording ability for offline analysis
• High capacity C-band datalink for Line of Sight air-ground & ground-air transmission
• Beyond LOS SatCOM of similar capacity
• 7 VHF sets...provides data & voice.
• Up to 5 operator Work Stations
• In-flight refueling probe...has seats for refueling crew as well AF has been involved in the project at grass roots level.

IAF helped a lot to establish algorithms for detection, interception & pursuit protocols. A lot of ground systems to simulate, fabricate & validate avionics have also been established.

[coldfire2005]

some clarity on DRDO Awacs program

1 ) Yes current orders are only for three , but contract has mention of additional three follow up order which is most likely to be the case .

2) Total requirement for DRDO based AWACS over the decades will be more then 20 nos , that includes IAF/NAVY/ Coast Guard / and possibly R&AW more of intelligence gathering missions .

3) IAF wanted better aircraft from current Embraer aircraft selected , but settled to avoid further delays in the projects , so it is pretty clear that after 3 or possibly 6 aircraft , a bigger aircraft will be chosen and phalcon styled radar mount will be there