Indian Air Force News & Discussions

[Scorpion666]

Thanks Guys...will keep on uploading !!
have a lot of MI-17 , IL-76 n MKIs doing sorties !!..an ocational Rudra and ALH too come along

 

[sancho]

Why cant we add similar modifications to another aircraft?

Because there is no need for us anymore. IN will only take fighters that can be used on their STOBAR and in future maybe CATOBAR carriers. That can carry more payloads, has less limitations in bring back weight, with longer range and endurance...
When you have conventional carriers, you don't need VTOL fighters anymore. The USMC used the Harriers for air defence of their amphibious carrier groups or CAS during landings, IN doesn't have the need for such amphibious operations and even less to have amphibious carrier groups that operates seperately from the aircraft carriers.
And as said, it's not a small modification, but a major development which starts at the begining with the design changes, you can't simply "add" it later.

 

[DacterSaab]

the canards gives it the capability to fly at low speeds

There must be some other factor too cause MKI, EFT, Gripen, Su-33/34/47, J-10/15/20, f-15Active, MiG-1.44, Qaher-313 all have canards.
Also does LERX/LEVCON provide maneuverability equivalent to that of canards?

Thanks Guys...will keep on uploading !!
have a lot of MI-17 , IL-76 n MKIs doing sorties !!..an occasional Rudra and ALH too come along

Cool I get to see An-32 instead also no Rudra instead I see a small white glider claimed by people here to be built by us (Built in India) not sure which aircraft it is and on the lucky few days every year you may catch a glimpse of a Mi-26.

 

[DacterSaab]

but not to hover or do anything vertically.

no fixed wing aircraft can hover not even JSF, Harrier or Yak-141 unless they thrust force in a direction vertical to the Earth and in a manner that maintains balance of its COW & COG

Because there is no need for us anymore.

We are currently discussing a hypothetical situation where we might wanna JV for a STOVL fighter with Russia/France in order to develop credible Amphibious assault capability.

The USMC used the Harriers for air defence of their amphibious carrier groups or CAS during landings,

OK why do Royal Navy need em? cause they cant afford Sea Typhoons/F-35C or modifying their carriers?

 

[DacterSaab]

IN doesn't have the need for such amphibious operations

Not right now they don't but in future IN may Have to Protect Areas of Interest in Eastern/South-Eastern Africa or Middle-East.

and even less to have amphibious carrier groups that operates seperately from the aircraft carriers.

Not Amphibious Carrier groups but high no. of LHDs equipped with Ski-jump ramps instead .

And as said, it's not a small modification, but a major development which starts at the begining with the design changes

I understand it's no small development but in order to keep the project cost down and time short an existing design must be used with minimum structural modifications. i'd choose Rafale What about you?

you can't simply "add" it later.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Early Aircraft Carriers were passenger/cargo ships. Early fighters were worse than todays basic trainers.
I agree with your statement but would you agree if I say
you can (not so) simply "add" it later.

 

[sancho]

There must be some other factor too cause MKI, EFT, Gripen, Su-33/34/47, J-10/15/20, f-15Active, MiG-1.44, Qaher-313 all have canards.
Also does LERX/LEVCON provide maneuverability equivalent to that of canards?

It's the same factor, only for different reasons. Slow speed maneuverability means better turn capability in dogfights, but at the same time that is used on naval fighters like the Su 33 or J15, to improve the slow speed handling during carrier landings. Movable LERX/LEVCONs have similar effects, which is why N-LCA is developed with the latter, to gain benefits at carrier landings too, while for the Sukhoi T50 it should add maneuverability again.

no fixed wing aircraft can hover

Of course they do, vertical take off or landing is exactly that.

We are currently discussing a hypothetical situation

You are buddy, I am telling you what the reality today is and currently there are more land forces that might add VTOL fighters than naval forces, because at land they have the crucial advantage of not requireing dedicated air strips to operate.
Most naval forces on the other hand, that also operates dedicated aircraft carriers, won't go for the F35B anymore and the few that operates only smaller LHDs or SVTOL carriers to will only order a small number of fighters if at all (the cost/capability ratio of the F35B is pretty low).

OK why do Royal Navy need em? cause they cant afford Sea Typhoons/F-35C or modifying their carriers?

Yes, so only because they had decided to go for SVTOL carriers in first place, not because they would have any benefits by using the B version rather than the C version. IF
the modification of the carrier would had been cheaper, they would had gone with the C for sure.

Not right now they don't but in future IN may Have to Protect Areas of Interest in Eastern/South-Eastern Africa or Middle-East.

Nope, don't confuse India with the US. We don't have any areas of interest that would make amhibious carrier groups needed. Sea control in the Indian Ocean is provided by our aircraft carriers, not LDPs (which is what IN wants, not LHDs and by far not with ski-ramps).

I understand it's no small development but in order to keep the project cost down and time short an existing design must be used with minimum structural modifications. i'd choose Rafale What about you?.

As I said, you can't simply modifiy an existing figther, but has to make a complete new development for it.

 

[DacterSaab]

Of course they do, vertical take off or landing is exactly that.

Yes it is, but the same aircraft if not fit with a means to propel thrust vertically will not be able to do so and even with the means these aircraft don't hover unless those means are employed atm.

You are buddy, I am telling you what the reality today is and currently there are more land forces that might add VTOL fighters than naval forces, because at land they have the crucial advantage of not requireing dedicated air strips to operate.
Most naval forces on the other hand, that also operates dedicated aircraft carriers, won't go for the F35B anymore and the few that operates only smaller LHDs or SVTOL carriers to will only order a small number of fighters if at all (the cost/capability ratio of the F35B is pretty low).

Thanks for the enlightening vision of reality. let's see apart from USMC and RN forces that may go fo F-35B are Italian, Spanish, South Korean, Australian navies (at-least they'll have STOVL capable ship) apart from that Japan may choose to go for a STOVL destroyer in the future mainly due to PLAN Carrier proliferation and may be in the distant future If economy allows even Thailand may buy.
Also considering the Russian developments they may be interested in developing the lighter version of PAK-FA (which I think MiG will produce, by the way any new info on this aircraft) along the same lines as JSF viz with a STOVL version (not sure if they'll go for STOBAR or CATOBAR) and if that happens I'm sure China will jump to the opportunity and we might even see a JV b/w them.
The cost/capability ratio is low for any STOVL aircraft as compared to its non STOVL version.

Yes, so only because they had decided to go for SVTOL carriers in first place, not because they would have any benefits by using the B version rather than the C version

They've had certain experiences in the past where they found STOVL tactics very useful but were limited by the size of their carriers air-groups hence they decided to go for a larger STOVL carrier.

IF
the modification of the carrier would had been cheaper, they would had gone with the C for sure.

Firstly when you talk about carriers it goes without saying that everything is very expensive even keeping one in "reserve/extended readiness".
I think they were only considering F-35Cs when F-35B development had gone of the track, once that was corrected everything fell in place. And even then they only considered modifying Prince of Wales not Queen Elizabeth and several other navies using newly (soon to be) inducted STOVL ships around the Globe had F-35B failed there would surely have been another development for STOVL capable fighter and even with F-35B it's safe to say there will be another STOVL capable aircraft.
Also Queen Elizabeth Class ACs have been designed from the start for easy conversion to CATOBAR capability ie. one of the reason why France is/was interested in the design for Future French AC.

Nope, don't confuse India with the US. We don't have any areas of interest that would make amhibious carrier groups needed. Sea control in the Indian Ocean is provided by our aircraft carriers, not LDPs (which is what IN wants, not LHDs and by far not with ski-ramps)

OK dude I smoke a lot of pot but I'm definitely not confused, this is definitely not "The USA", this is India My Beloved MotherLand, in fact I'm pretty sure our current leaders don't even have areas of interest within the country (apart from whichever LS or VS constituency they are elected from) all their interest lies in the Swiz Bank. But if things change (which is going to happen sooner or later) India may develop such Areas of Interest in the Indian Ocean. And even if we don't have those "Interests", sooner or later we are going to need to develop Credible Amphibious Assault Capability that's why I hope they change their requirements from LPD to LHD and purchase Mistral.
As for what you may be saying in context to the current pacifist rule that has remained for so long well come Modi things may change.
And What people of my country are very fond of saying nowadays "ab ki bar, Modi sarkar"
and on a finishing note my little 2 year old Bhanja says "har har Modi, ghar ghar Modi". Good bye
.

 

[sancho]

Thanks for the enlightening vision of reality. let's see apart from USMC and RN forces that may go fo F-35B are Italian, Spanish, South Korean, Australian navies (at-least they'll have STOVL capable ship) apart from that Japan may choose to go for a STOVL destroyer in the future mainly due to PLAN Carrier proliferation and may be in the distant future If economy allows even Thailand may buy.

Spain isn't a partner of the F35, nor do they have the money to procure it for their carriers now. Even Italy is considering to scrap F35B orders and both countries might use their carriers in future only as helicopter carriers (both phased out older carriers now, because of budget constrains).
Thailand operates a carrier only to show off, not with any defence purpose in mind, so forget about them.
S.Korea, Japan, Australia and possibly Turkey are either partners of the F35 or have procured it and they might go for the B version in smaller numbers too, but that's it.

Also considering the Russian developments they may be interested in developing the lighter version of PAK-FA (which I think MiG will produce, by the way any new info on this aircraft) along the same lines as JSF viz with a STOVL version (not sure if they'll go for STOBAR or CATOBAR) and if that happens I'm sure China will jump to the opportunity and we might even see a JV b/w them.
The cost/capability ratio is low for any STOVL aircraft as compared to its non STOVL version.

Again you are confusing theories with the reality of today. Both, Russia and China are using STOBAR carriers today and have started EMALS catapult developments, which shows that they aim on nuclear CATOBAR capabilities in future, which gives far more advantages than the current STOBAR design. So they won't go back again to the limitations a STOVL carrier would offer.

Also Queen Elizabeth Class ACs have been designed from the start for easy conversion to CATOBAR capability ie. one of the reason why France is/was interested in the design for Future French AC.

Nope, they wanted to use the same base design with the benefits of common systems for a CATOBAR varient, but modifying the QE after the launch based on a STOVL design is not so easy and that's why it was far too costly to be done now and why the brits have to stick with the less capable carrier and the less capable B version. Silly planning and forsight!

But if things change (which is going to happen sooner or later) India may develop such Areas of Interest in the Indian Ocean.

No, for the simple reason that our threats are not lying on the other side of the world and therefor projecting of forces by amphibious landings would be required, but they are lying directly at our land borders!
That's why Indias defence areas won't change and the priority will always be defence of Indias land and sea borders. The only difference we see now is, that we increase our capability to take more control in the Sea's around India (IN's surface fleet), to take over humanitarian roles (which is why a few LDPs might be procured, but mainly to fulfill the nuclear triad with our coming SSBNs and SSNs. The latter are the only assets that will operate far away from India, wrt to defence of India, while anything else will be aimed in and around India only. That's the crucial difference between Indian defence policies and the US or NATO forces!

 

[DacterSaab]

Again you are confusing theories with the reality of today. Both, Russia and China are using STOBAR carriers today and have started EMALS catapult developments, which shows that they aim on nuclear CATOBAR capabilities in future, which gives far more advantages than the current STOBAR design. So they won't go back again to the limitations a STOVL carrier would offer.

The USSR was constructing a 75k tonnes AC with steam catapults the Project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk-class. Unfortunately it was scrapped before completion due to financial crisis, years later China buys the design and plans to build at-least 2 such carriers (they are already constructing 2 Kuznetsov-Class to be inducted by 2020 with Liaoning already inducted and you gotta admit Chinese are prompt).
As for Russians, they would wanna deploy at-least 1 carrier with each of its 5 fleets already having anounced plans for construction of 4 more and we can be sure they'll be at-least 75k tonnes in displacement.
I never said you chinese/russians would use em of their mainstay Carriers but will both these fleets operating at-least 5 carriers each not want dedicated STOVL amphibious carriers to supplement their larger STOBAR/CATOBAR ACs?

 

[nomi007]

 

[sancho]

The USSR was constructing a 75k tonnes AC with steam catapults the Project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk-class. Unfortunately it was scrapped before completion due to financial crisis, years later China buys the design and plans to build at-least 2 such carriers (they are already constructing 2 Kuznetsov-Class to be inducted by 2020 with Liaoning already inducted and you gotta admit Chinese are prompt).
As for Russians, they would wanna deploy at-least 1 carrier with each of its 5 fleets already having anounced plans for construction of 4 more and we can be sure they'll be at-least 75k tonnes in displacement.
I never said you chinese/russians would use em of their mainstay Carriers but will both these fleets operating at-least 5 carriers each not want dedicated STOVL amphibious carriers to supplement their larger STOBAR/CATOBAR ACs?

The USSR didn't sold China the carrier, but the Ukraine was, just like Su 33 and arrested landing techs, which the Russians denied. So far it is not clear what kind of carriers they might develop, but until they really have developed catapults, they won't really start building a CATOBAR carrier.
They do want to supplement their aircraft carriers with amphibious vessels for amphibious operations, but not to have STOVL carriers. Both already went for LDP's and LHD's, but for the use of helicopters and amphibious landing crafts.

 

[nomi007]

 

[nomi007]

 

[nomi007]

performing a low hover .

 

[nomi007]

admin need positive rating

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=574342909329705

1st ever video release of astra misile