[TractionAvant]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Dear Aditya, thank you for sharing. Unlike many other countries we take little care of our monuments and show scant respect to our soldiers or their symbols. The photo below is of a Marut HF-24 donated by the IAF to the Deutches Museum, Germany. Dr. Kurt Tank's widow had requested for one airframe and the IAF obliged. What a contrast in the state of maintenance between the one in Pune and the one in Germany. It reminds me of Francis Quarles' short poem -

Our Gods and soldiers we like adore
Only at the brink of danger, not before
After deliverance, both are alike requited
Our God's forgotten and our soldiers slighted

Dear V.Narayan,

I know exactly what you mean. I am an ex Air Force officer's son. It is distressing to see the scant regard soldiers get in our society. It is only now that my father has started sharing with me all the things he did during his Air Force career. We really should be more grateful. We take for granted what our forces afford us, both through what they do and do not do

Kind regards

Aditya

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by peterjim13

Even I had doubts on the Avros, was not qualified to comment on this. Trust IAF completes its replacement with C295 soon. If that works out, this will be the first Military Aircraft Manufactured in India for our use without HAL in the loop.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/india-ap...nes-1431618137

Peter, looks like your wish has come true - procurement of 56 C-295s of which 40 will be assembled by Tata's. I hope we ultimately go for another 120 and replace the An-32s which are all over 25 years now.

[Lij]

Mods, not sure if this is the right thread to post this. Request you to merge in appropriate thread if necessary.

IAF Mirage 2000 landed successfully on Yamuna expressway as part of its trials to use national highways for emergency landing by fighter aircraft.

Below is the news article -

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-...1-1349456.aspx

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I hope we ultimately go for another 120 and replace the An-32s which are all over 25 years now.

Are you sure it can replace An 32 whose engines have almost double the power with roughly the same payload and MTOW characteristics? An 32 was developed specially for India to meet Indian specifications that required adequate performance in "hot and high" conditions.

Only in December 2014, the Ministry of Defence had rejected this proposal, citing objections that appeared reasonable. What has caused the sudden U-turn?

The first big question the IAF will be required to answer is: what operational role the new aircraft will play? The Avro itself has no operational role, being a “communications aircraft”, an air taxi that flies senior officers around the country. Instead of replacing the Avro with a brand new aircraft, HAL has proposed extending the Avro’s service life by replacing its current Rolls Royce Dart engines with modern, fuel-efficient engines. HAL, which had built the Avro fleet between the 1960s and the 1980s, points out that each Avro flies barely 350 hours a year, and the airframes have thousands of hours of service life remaining.

Source: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2014/1...s-need-to.html

Sorry for sounding pessimistic, but setting up a brand new factory for producing 40 planes hardly looks viable which is why only one party responded to the Avro replacement tender issued to over half a dozen foreign companies. We will probably only see kit assembly of C-295 in India and dependence on foreigners will remain the order of the day. Considering the heady days Indian aviation saw in 1950s and 1960s, the scene today looks pathetic. Incidentally, C-295 is derived from an Indonesian plane!

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by directinjection

Are you sure it can replace An 32 whose engines have almost double the power with roughly the same payload and MTOW characteristics? An 32 was developed specially for India to meet Indian specifications that required adequate performance in "hot and high" conditions.

... but setting up a brand new factory for producing 40 planes hardly looks viable We will probably only see kit assembly of C-295 in India and dependence on foreigners will remain the order of the day. Considering the heady days Indian aviation saw in 1950s and 1960s, the scene today looks pathetic.

Dear directinjection, I agree with you that assembling 40 aircraft is not an economic quantity by any stretch. Placing orders piecemeal without comprehensive long term plans is one of our characteristics today. I do not know whether this emanates from the IAF or the bureaucracy. In the mid/late-1970s when we were evaluating options that led to selecting the An-32 we had the option to make them and the initial order of 108 was of a size where this could have been a real proposition but we let it off for reasons I don’t know. In the 1960s we thought long term and placed strategic bets (Mig-21 license manufacture; indigenous Kiran Trainers). That direction came from the political leadership and not the bureaucrats. I hope some of the leadership comes back again.

Can the CN-295 replace the An-32 - the answer is a mix of yes and no.

Yes in terms of:

Cargo payload: An32 - 6700 kgs ; CN-295 - 7000 kgs normal (9250 kgs overload) ;
Range with payload & reserves: An 32 - 1300 kms with 6700 kgs ; CN-295 - 2140 kms & 8000 kgs payload;
Cargo hold volume: An-32 - 2330 cubic feet; CN-295 - 2000 cubic feet ;
Take off run : An-32 - 940 metres; CN-295 - 940 metres;
(data from Jane's 2010-11 edition)

No in terms of:

… what power the engines can produce at 16000' (Daulat Beg Oldi) or at 45 degrees centigrade at sea level - I don’t have the data. For the old An-32 engines it is easier to calculate very roughly by taking it at 75% of rated hp at 34 degrees centigrade at sea level. For the newer PW127's fitted on the CN-295 I don’t remember the exact ratio any more but these engines produce full hp to much higher ambient temperatures into the twenties and sometimes thirties before their power output starts decreasing. In terms of sheer airframe ruggedness I would guess the An-32 will be ahead.

A lot of the extra horsepower of the An-32 gets used in carrying the heavier empty weight of 16,900 to 17,400 kgs versus the 11,500 kgs of the CN-295. It is not a fair comparison on my part as the two machines were designed 25 years apart.

Unless we get into large orders with license production (as opposed to assembly) we will remain jogging on the spot.

The good old An-32.....

[peterjim13]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

http://www.wsj.com/articles/india-ap...nes-1431618137

Peter, looks like your wish has come true - procurement of 56 C-295s of which 40 will be assembled by Tata's. I hope we ultimately go for another 120 and replace the An-32s which are all over 25 years now.

Absolutely !! The best part about the deal is that we have opened our doors to private players and also on such a large scale.

This should ideally act like a platform, I understand the C-295 to be a very capable aircraft with multiple roles of application. Like you have mentioned, It can equally replace the Avros and An-32's and I've also learned that the C-295's can be customized to meet the SAR - Reconnaissance - this will be a great addition for the Coast Guard, if needed for the navy too.

Was very happy to read the news !

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by peterjim13

Could not agree more with you. This should ideally act like a platform, I understand the C-295 to be a very capable aircraft with multiple roles of application. Like you have mentioned, It can equally replace the Avros and An-32's and I've also learned that the C-295's can be customized to meet the SAR - Reconnaissance - this will be a great addition for the Coast Guard, if needed for the navy too.

The CN-295 is being used in other parts of the world to replace rugged STOL (Short Take-Off & Landing) transport aircraft and I hope we standardize on it as the An-32 replacement and really manufacture a large number of these machines as opposed to assembling 40 of them. Brazil is replacing its de Havilland DHC Buffaloes, Peru is replacing its An-32s and Australia is replacing its recently retired de Havilland DHC Caribous - all with the CN-295. The CN-295 can be our medium maritime patrol aircraft too as it is equipped with 6 hardpoints underwing for a combined weapon load of 3200 kgs. Ideally we should combine our needs of the various armed forces and buy one platform in numbers (with a few variants) to give us negotiating power. Why not order 200 - 55 Avro replacements, 110 An-32 Sutlej replacements, 25 medium range maritime patrol. I don't know how rugged these machines are. If you look at an An-32 from up close it looks like something designed by a battle tank bureau with lots of over engineering - typically Russian. Even with only the Avro replacement the IAf order is the largest by far of the CN-295.


Some Specifications from Jane's

Cruise speed 260 knots (482 kmph)

Ceiling 30,000'

Take Off run at sea level at 20 degrees ambient 934 metres
……….. to 50' 1103 metres

Normal payload 7050 kgs

Overload payload 9250 kgs

Cargo cabin length incl. ramp 51' 7"

Cargo volume 2008 cubic feet

Length: 80'; Wing Span 84'; Height 28' ' Prop dia 12'11"

Range with 7050 kgs payload and 45 min reserves 1550 kms

Powerplant 2 x Prat & Whitney PW127 3 spool turboshafts, output 2645 hp normal maximum, 2920 hp emergency boost

First step in the right direction to free our Air Force from the clutches of HAL


Photo of CN-295 Maritime Patrol and Anti-Submarine warfare aircraft of the Portugese Air Force.

[peterjim13]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The CN-295 is being used in other parts of the world to replace rugged STOL (Short Take-Off & Landing) transport aircraft and I hope we standardize on it as the An-32 replacement and really manufacture a large number of these machines as opposed to assembling 40 of them. Why not order 200 - 55 Avro replacements, 110 An-32 Sutlej replacements,


First step in the right direction to free our Air Force from the clutches of HAL


Photo of CN-295 Maritime Patrol and Anti-Submarine warfare aircraft of the Portugese Air Force.

Exactly, "First step in the right direction to free our Air Force from the clutches of HAL" that is the biggest highlight of this deal. This will be a wake up call for HAL and also a major boost for private firms. Tata Advanced Systems' expertise in sector in working with organizations like Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky etc will ensure that we shall receive these planes on time and how we actually want them too.

Rather than going for multiple sellers, as you rightly quoted lets Assemble 200 of them. Being one of the rapidly growing Defence Forces in the World, and with multiple threats in the Air, Water and Land, we may have multiple applications for the same from Air Force, Army, Navy and Coast Guard.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by peterjim13

Exactly, "First step in the right direction to free our Air Force from the clutches of HAL" that is the biggest highlight of this deal. This will be a wake up call for HAL and also a major boost for private firms. Tata Advanced Systems' expertise in sector in working with organizations like Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky etc will ensure that we shall receive these planes on time and how we actually want them too.

From what I know, professionally, Sikorsky is delighted with its aerospace joint-venture with the Tata's and the quality they turn out. Some sections of our Govt wrongly believe that patriotism and national security is the preserve of the public sector only! - and from there stems this over protection of HAL like organizations at the expense of us the tax payers. It also gives our bureaucrats a fiefdom to rule over. I look forward to the day when India's vibrant entrepreneurial private sector develops assets for our Armed Forces. And who knows it will actually make HAL and DRDO more efficient and productive. It would be terrific if we license build the Rafale in collaboration with an Indian private sector group. I've visited the plants of Sikorsky in the States, Tata Advanced in Hyderabad and HAL in Bangalore and the Tata plant is the best. Of course being newest helps. Good for them, good for India.

[peterjim13]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

From what I know, professionally, Sikorsky is delighted with its aerospace joint-venture with the Tata's and the quality they turn out.

I've visited the plants of Sikorsky in the States, Tata Advanced in Hyderabad and HAL in Bangalore and the Tata plant is the best. Of course being newest helps. Good for them, good for India.

Wow thats promising.

In fact, since it is more of a corporate arrangement, the fact that Sikorsky being delighted in TATA advanced Systems performance is quite natural. Will they go for such a collaboration unless they qualify for this. Since such a large Multi National company has confidence in our private organization, we should have thought of looking at this space a lot earlier.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Some sections of our Govt wrongly believe that patriotism and national security is the preserve of the public sector only! - and from there stems this over protection of HAL like organizations at the expense of us the tax payers. It also gives our bureaucrats a fiefdom to rule over. I look forward to the day when India's vibrant entrepreneurial private sector develops assets for our Armed Forces. And who knows it will actually make HAL and DRDO more efficient and productive. It would be terrific if we license build the Rafale in collaboration with an Indian private sector group.

We should have learned from the past that this theory has not worked. It is proven.

How long have we been waiting for our most prestigious Tejas fighter air-crafts. What about Arjun Tanks. INSAS Rifle ?

I strongly believe that if Rafale is again opened up for more fighters being assembled in India, it will be a private sector firm.

As you know, Pipavav, L&T have all shown their might in manufacturing Vessels for the Navy and Aircraft. Kalyani has already come up with a Howitzer. Multinational alliances will help more industries in private sector to come up with world class products delivered in world class quality, and on time.

And as you rightly said - this might be a wake up call for DRDO and HAL, since they were just monopolies till date, a healthy competition in the field will only bring better products at more affordable prices for the consumer (Indian Armed Forces)

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by peterjim13

We should have learned from the past that this theory has not worked. It is proven.

How long have we been waiting for our most prestigious Tejas fighter air-crafts. What about Arjun Tanks. INSAS Rifle ?

I strongly believe that if Rafale is again opened up for more fighters being assembled in India, it will be a private sector firm.

Before giving up on the Marut HAL proposed an alternative of a modified Marut powered by two non-afterburning variants of the Tumansky R-25 turbojets that powered the Mig-21bis. This was in the late 1970s and it could be reasonably expected that the Soviets would have provided the technical know-how to mate the airframe with the larger engines which in itself is a complex piece of re-engineering. The engine chambers of the Marut had been designed for something bigger than Gnat's Rolls Royce Orpheus so maybe with some airframe changes the R-25 could have been fitted. Two R-25 at 4100 x 2 kgf of thrust would have solved Marut's power to weight needs. In the event it was not pursued. Maybe the IAF was tired of HAL's inability to solve for everyday niggling problems on the Marut like the canopy jettisoning when all four 30mm cannons were fired and other such issues.

During the same time frame the Chinese copied the Soviet Mig-19, an aircraft roughly similar to the Marut though a little faster and with more powerful engines - the ones we turned down - see main article. Our northern neighbours with their sense of practicalness made it into first the Shenyang F-6 built between roughly 1960 and 1981 and then the more capable Nanchang A-5 built for exports right up till 2012. They followed a different and interesting path on an aircraft that in size, weight and capability was similar to the Marut though not exactly comparable. And updated versions of the Nanchang A-5 are still in service, in dwindling numbers albeit, with the Chinese Air Force. That will be the story in the next post in a couple of days. It goes to show what you can achieve when you understand how to build national industrial and design capability step by step rather than in one bombastic jump that never gets done. We lost out on maturing the Marut and now we are running the same risk with the LCA.

[SR71-Blackbird]

I have always wondered why all the dassault aircrafts have a permanently fixed, non-retractable
refueling probe while most of their counterparts have have a retractable refueling probe!

Is the drag caused by these negligible enough for them to continue this design even in a modern
aircraft like the rafale?

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by SR71-Blackbird

I have always wondered why all the dassault aircrafts have a permanently fixed, non-retractable
refueling probe while most of their counterparts have have a retractable refueling probe!

Is the drag caused by these negligible enough for them to continue this design even in a modern
aircraft like the rafale?

I remember reading their write up about the Rafale some years back which said that non-retractable refueling probe was part of their design philosophy to keep the aircraft systems simple. For the same reason, Rafale does not have air brakes. I assume having fewer moving parts also helps in keeping the weight lower. Also, lesser chance of parts failing.

[V.Narayan]

This post is to share the experience and approach of China to development of its indigenous aircraft and aeronautical industry. It makes an interesting comparison to ours and has lessons for us to learn. The objective is to not run down any organization or armed force but to lay out the facts - the black, the white and the grey and let you, the reader, judge for yourself.


In the 1960s while we were trying to mature the Marut from a prototype to a fully developed squadron aircraft China had similarly started to manufacture a copy of the Soviet Mig-19. The Soviets shared the design in detail and initially provided some help but then the Sino-Soviet split of the late 1950s spilled out in the open and the Chinese had to go it alone with an attempt at re-engineering. They got the first copy off in 1958 and made a few dozen pre-production examples none of which met the quality control standards of the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) and this try-fail-retry continued till around 1965 when the Chinese Mig-19 equivalent the Shenyang J-6 (also called F-6) finally got into full service.



Shenyang J-6 air defense fighter, copy of the Mig-19; 4500 were built

While on paper the J-6 was a copy of the Mig-19 it was initially, at least, short on avionics and the engines, Wopen WP-6 (reverse engineered Tumansky RD-9), were qualitatively short on metallurgy much to the chagrin of the Air Force maintenance engineers. The aircraft had a MTBO (Mean Time Between Overhaul) of a mere 100 hours. But the Chinese did not give up nor did their Air Force say forget it I'll buy abroad (in all fairness they didn’t have that option politically speaking in the 1960s or 1970s).


The Shenyang J-6 was built till 1981 and the later production batches had a significant improvement in metallurgy and finish. In fact their finish and production tolerances, according to the Americans, got better than the Russian built Mig-19. The later version also got their avionics suites albeit basic ones and were mated to early heat seeking missiles. In the 1970s when this aircraft was the mainstay of the PLAAF it faced the superior Mig-21's on the Indo-China border and Mig-21's and Mig-23's on the Sino-Soviet border. But they understood that large scale home production with no risk of spares being choked and standardization of training had its advantages.



Nanchag Q-5 ground attack development of the J-6; a close comparison with the HF-24 Marut

With their confidence building they re-designed the Shenyang J-6 into the ground attack Nanchang Q-5 (also known as the A-5). The PLAAF did not lay out specifications to match the Mirage III, McDonnell Douglas Phantom or the Mig-21 the hot fighters of the 1965-1970 period. They instead said lets improve on what we have and take it as far down the design road as we can. The air intakes were moved from the nose to the cheeks, making way for a planned radar in the nose, the fuel capacity was increased, more weapon pylons added and most importantly the air frame was stretched to accommodate an internal bomb bay of 4 metres. This stretch was done in a way to reduce drag at transonic (ie close to the speed of sound) speeds. This drag reduction enabled the Q-5 to fly as fast as the J-6 at sea level with the same engines even though it carried a much heavier weapon load. The Q-5 evolved into a basic but proven ground attack aircraft for close air support (mainly for army operations). But nothing is ever perfect. The Chinese were unable to develop a reliable ground attack radar, the PLAAF was not happy but still went ahead with a production run of ~ 1300 machines. The first entered service in 1970 and by the 1980s the radar matter was sorted out and even a anti-ship missile carrying version came in.


They kept it in production for exports till 2012, 54 years after their first attempt to reverse engineer the Mig-19. In comparison our Marut HF-24 had a slow production run of about 9 years and the opportunity to teach ourselves how to mature our own design and then improve on it lost. The J-6 and Q-5 more than any other aircraft laid the foundation of the Chinese military fighter industry and design capability.


This post is not about the details of the J-6 or the Q-5 but to illustrate what gets done when the user, designer-builder and the political bureaucracy work in unison to say it is our collective aim not only to get a reasonable (though not the latest or greatest) aircraft into the hands of our Air Force but equally it is our aim to develop indigenous design and manufacturing capability. This unity of thought & movement was lacking in the Marut story and I hope will be learnt for the Tejas journey hereon at least.


An interesting comparison of the Marut with the Q-5;


Top speed : Marut 1112 kmph at sea level; Q-5 1210 kmph at altitude

Attack radius lo-lo-lo : Marut 396 kms; Q-5 400 kms

Empty weight : Marut 6195 kgs; Q-5 6375 kgs

Max. Take Off Weight : Marut 10,925 kgs; Q-5 11,340 kgs

Weapon payload: Marut 1800 kgs; Q-5 2000 kgs

Engines (kgp) : Marut 2200 x 2; Q-5 3750 x 2

Production run: Marut 147; Q-5 1300+


The 3 aircraft were of the same genre and vintage. The Marut in fact had a superior wing design than the other two. The production runs tell the entire story of the two countries' approach to building indigenous capability.


We are the only country in the world which can send probes to the Moon and Mars, design & build Naval destroyers and aircraft carriers but cannot for the life of us get a jet fighter into service. Jai Hind.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

We are the only country in the world which can send probes to the Moon and Mars, design & build Naval destroyers and aircraft carriers but cannot for the life of us get a jet fighter into service. Jai Hind.

Well said!! There is a reason behind this too. China and its military based junta will not allow its public sector companies to waste time or resources. If the product is not delivered within the stipulated time, it is gulag time for their scientists and bureaucrats. Unfortunately in India the public servant chooses a government job to ensure he can have a lifelong job and spend his time productively outside office attending to his other businesses. That's the reason HAL couldn't produce/operationalize a single jet fighter even today.