[locusjag]

Originally Posted by Ricci

Are there any documents in public domain , regarding the MMRCA requirements, and the US clauses for foreign sales? If we'd bought F/A-18s or AC-130 gunships, would they still tell us not to use in combat? Whatever we hear is via mainstream media, and they're prone to errors and oversimplification of such documents to imply very different things.

The INS Jalashwa comes to mind when one brings up usage restrictions. The Indian government acquired this amphibious docking/attack craft from the USA subject to restrictions and inspections by the USA. One major condition under which it was acquired is that it should "never be used by India for offensive purposes". That, to me, is flabbergasting. Quite rightly, the CAG had blasted the government for this and other terms of the sale.

I mean, what else would an attack craft be used for? Whatever the government said in its defense, I suspect it is a case of oversight by a dithering Defense ministry in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Jalashwa_%28L41%29

[RoadSurfer]

Excellent writeup Ricci.

It makes me feel nostalgic. My Dad is a HALite. I have done all my schooling in HAL's Nashik Division.

Even my BE's 3rd year technical training was done in HAL. On my first day of the training, I had gone to the flight hangar. There were a lot many MiG 21s and 27s. But the one that caught my eye was this, twin engine, huge canopy jet, which looked like a special aircraft among the others.

Though HAL never manufactured these jets, its overhauling is done by HAL at the respective air force stations.

[acidkill]

Full credit to the author for such an amazing article. Nice graphics. Nice enthusiasm. Kudos.

Mig 29 has been upgraded over the years. But the lack of sale of Mig 35 is a big shadow isn't it...

Probably goes to show that one can keep upgrading an old frame with new electronics, but doubts now exist if it can outperform in a theatre of war with an adversary having a superior armada of aircraft. Especially in a 20 year scenario

I am sure that 4.5X fighters like the Rafale, Euro Fighter, Gripen and 5th Gen Fighters like F22, F35, FGFA and J20 have all been built using the lessons learnt in earlier warfares with the Mig 29 and Su 27 etc.

But nice to see it none the less. Its like the Ferrari F40/F50 of aircraft

[vivtho]

The Fulcrum name isn't really based on that, NATO names don't really have a logic/rationale behind them, aside from the starting letter's significance ( F for fighters - Fulcrum, Flanker, Finback, Fishbed ) , B for bombers ( Bison, Bear, Blackjack ), C for cargo ( Candid , Cub ) and so on.

For those who're interested, the NATO designation system for aircraft works something like this

1. The first letter indicates the type of aircraft. So, F = fighter, C = Transport, M = Miscellaneoous (trainer, liaison etc), B = bomber, H = helicopter
2. The number of syllables indicates whether the aircraft is jet or propellor powered. 1 syllable = propellors, 2 syllables = jets

Originally Posted by Ricci

The MiG-29 has a Gsh-301 single barrel cannon. It's aimed using laser sight, so it is regarded as very accurate. Muzzle velocity is ~860m/s and the 30mm shells are said to be effective, with just 4-5 shells being sufficient to shoot down a figher-sized aircraft.

I can't find the source now, but there was an article where the author mentioned that for the MiG-29, the 150 round capacity was overkill. The cannon could be paired with the fire-control system (I believe that there was also a laser rangefinder involved, but it's been years and I'm confident that it was indeed the case). Basically, when thus paired, the FCS wouldn't allow the cannon to be fired unless there was a reasonably good chance of hitting the target. This allowed the cannon's Probability of Kill to exceed 80% under the right conditions.

The 30 mm shell itself is enormously destructive and even 2 or 3 hits are sufficient to kill most fighter-sized targets.

Originally Posted by basuroy

They have also delayed setting up the necessary equipment to service and maintain the Saturn AL-31 engine which powers the flanker

I don't know what to believe. I've heard this statement over and over on the internet. However, HAL's own website says that their Koraput division manufactures entire AL-31 engines for the Sukhoi!

[vinit.merchant]

Originally Posted by Ricci

The 29s are long gone from Lohegaon. Their take off was even more memorable. Far louder, shorter take off roll and steeper climb out, they set off car alarms in the neighbourhood !

Living in Viman Nagar since 1999. I did not notice the noise differences of take off's, but I still hear a lot and lot of ear shattering Noise when the IAF fighters start their training. Infact, I do not notice any difference in the noise levels. What fighers now fly from the Pune base? They all sound the same!

Previously, it used to be between 8-10 am most of the time. Now it seems there is no fixed training time.
Spent on complete overhaul of the windows couple of years back and opted for the UPVC one's. They are able to keep out at least 90% of the Noise the fighters create.

EDIT: 10-12 years back, used to go to the terrace to watch them fly, whenever I heard the noise. It gets quite scary to watch at times. I have seen on a couple of occasions, right above me, they would just float and keep coming down, and then suddenly they would fire the engine and zoom. Can give you goosebumps. A sight to watch. They were easier to find and watch in the sky then. Now, Viman Nagar is a concrete jungle.

[NiInJa]

Excellent write up ! Enjoyed reading a lot.

People might criticize the Pune airport for everything, but if you are mad about fighter planes you will love it.
On a lucky day, you might just witness these planes take off. Once, on my way to Delhi, our flight's take-off was delayed and we were stranded on the taxi-way because some MiG29s were about to take off. It was a drill of some sort as the conventional guide lights on the tarmac were off and the ground staff was using some kerosene-lamp like thing to light up the runway. People were frustrated, but I was enjoying every second of it, watching those MiG 29s line up one by one (around 7 of them). Our flight was very close to the runway standing exactly at the point where these planes started off.

The powerful head-lamps coming to life, the hand signals of the ground staff, the red and white lights start blinking, the final checks, then the engines roaring to life, the blue-yellow colored flames from the afterburner, sound so deafening that it easily creeps inside our plane and then the takeoff, all this in less than a minute. The climb is so rapid that you get some sort of complex when the commercial plane you are sitting in takes off and climbs. Man, nothing gives you a high like watching these magnificent fighter jets take off.

[sidenzo]

Awesome thread.. loved every bit of it, the pics, the content, everything.
Double thumbs up

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by vivtho

For those who're interested, the NATO designation system for aircraft works something like this

1. The first letter indicates the type of aircraft. So, F = fighter, C = Transport, M = Miscellaneoous (trainer, liaison etc), B = bomber, H = helicopter
2. The number of syllables indicates whether the aircraft is jet or propellor powered. 1 syllable = propellors, 2 syllables = jets

I am not sure that this is a NATO designation system; it is a Department of Defense designation system. This naming system is called the Triservice Aircraft Designation system and has been in place since 1962.

Also, "A" series aircraft are ground attack aircraft. Examples are the A-6 Intruder and the A-10 Warthog. You might have inadverdently missed mentioning the "A" series.

There are exceptions to this nomenclature too. The F-117 Nighthawk stealth ground-attack aircraft is a mis-named aircraft seemingly. "A-117" would befit it more appropriately, going by the naming system. But it seems that the DoD wanted top-of-the-line pilots to be attracted to flying the F-117. The best pilots usually itch to fly the "F" series aircraft, quite understandably, since they are fast and agile like racing cars. The F-117 is, on the other hand, a glorified bomb hauling truck with stealth features.

Came across this interesting snippet in a History Channel documentary on the F-117 where a General was reminiscing about days gone by.

[vivtho]

Originally Posted by locusjag

I am not sure that this is a NATO designation system; it is a Department of Defense designation system. This naming system is called the Triservice Aircraft Designation system and has been in place since 1962.

Also, "A" series aircraft are ground attack aircraft. Examples are the A-6 Intruder and the A-10 Warthog. You might have inadverdently missed mentioning the "A" series.

There are exceptions to this nomenclature too. The F-117 Nighthawk stealth ground-attack aircraft is a mis-named aircraft seemingly. "A-117" would befit it more appropriately, going by the naming system. But it seems that the DoD wanted top-of-the-line pilots to be attracted to flying the F-117. The best pilots usually itch to fly the "F" series aircraft, quite understandably, since they are fast and agile like racing cars. The F-117 is, on the other hand, a glorified bomb hauling truck with stealth features.

Came across this interesting snippet in a History Channel documentary on the F-117 where a General was reminiscing about days gone by.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my earlier post ... the DoD designation system is indeed what you have described. However, it applied only to aircraft operated by the US. However, in order to have a standardized and easy to remember identifier for potentially hostile aircraft, NATO standardized on the designation system I described in my previous post. They apply only to (ex-)Warsaw Pact and Chinese aircraft.

[Ricci]

Originally Posted by RoadSurfer

Excellent writeup Ricci.

It makes me feel nostalgic. My Dad is a HALite.

That's great, you/your dad may have interesting anecdotes to share, please do if within permissions of HAL/defence.

One of our family friends was employed at HAL too. He mentioned an incident or common incident perhaps, that Indian employees would use the cranes to move heavy equipment around on the floor. Then this Russian gent comes along, hoists a MiG-21 landing gear strut (which probably weighs 30+ kg) on his shoulder and walks over to the jet where it was being assembled.

Originally Posted by vivtho

For those who're interested, the NATO designation system for aircraft works something like this <snip>

The cannon could be paired with the fire-control system (I believe that there was also a laser rangefinder involved, but it's been years and I'm confident that it was indeed the case). Basically, when thus paired, the FCS wouldn't allow the cannon to be fired unless there was a reasonably good chance of hitting the target. This allowed the cannon's Probability of Kill to exceed 80% under the right conditions.


I don't know what to believe. I've heard this statement over and over on the internet. However, HAL's own website says that their Koraput division manufactures entire AL-31 engines for the Sukhoi!

HAL is manufacturing Su-30MKIs, not completely if it's all 100% of it, especially since some of avionics are foreign origin. As per reports, the HAL built Su-30 costs $45 million a piece, vs $33 million as imported fly-away from Russia ( circa 2004-2005 ) !

About the MiG-29 cannon. What I have read - can't confirm as 100% correct - is that the gun fire control can be slaved to the either radar or IRST, in latter mode it uses the laser rangefinder's distance input to compute projectile trajectory , and I presume other parameters like the MiG-29's own airspeed, G-load , altitude and whatever was known of the target , rendering is extremely accurate - not only that, it could set to automatically fire when kill probability exceeded some set value , probably 75%. This automatic fire mode resulted in an unfortunate friendly kill of another MiG-29 during a combat exercise.



Full listing of US aircraft designation scheme:

F = fighter F-15, F-104 etc
A = attack A-4, A5 ,A-6 , A-7, A-10
B = bomber B-1 , B-2 , B-52,
C = cargo C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster, C-141 Starlifter
E = electronic special mission E-2 Hawkeye, E-3 Sentry , also used in conjunction with primary mission designation - EF-111 Raven , EA-6 , EF-18 Hornet
H = helicopters, usually appended with primary mission letters A for atack, C for cargo ( SH-60 , AH-64 Apache , AH-1 Cobra , CH-47 Chinook)
D = armed drone ( D-21 )
R = reconnaisance (usually combined with primary role - RA-5 derived from A-5 Vigilante , RF-4 Phantom )
S = anti-submarine ( S-3 Viking , S-2 Tracker)
P = maritime patrol ( P-3 Orion, P-8 Poseidon)
K = tanker, usually designated KC ( KC-10 -> DC-10 based, KC-135 - Boeing 707 based for cargo derived tankers , or KA-6D -> from A-6 Intruder )
Q = target drone , also often prefixed to primary mission , like QF-4 based on F-4 Phantom II
T = trainer ( T-33 , T-38 Talon, T-45 Goshawk. Fighter trainer variants were designated TF , like TF-15A before being re-designated as F-15B )
U = utility ( U-2 being a misnomer as it should be R-2, being a reconnaisance plane) , UH-1 , UH-60
V = troop transport ( V-22 Osprey )
O = observation , usually prefixed to another designation , like OV-10 Bronco
X = Expertimental
Y = prototype

Hope I didn't miss anything!

EDIT : thanks vivtho !
'M' = Multimission , as in MH-53 Sea Stallion.

Some multiple combinations also exist :
CH-53, HH-53 for the H-53 Stallion
UH-60 , HH-60, SH-60 for the H-60 Blackhawk of the "Blackhawk Down" movie
CH-47 , MH-47 for H-47 Chinook ,
OH-58 Kiowa Warrior scout/strike helicopter
AC-130 Spectre gunship derived from C-130 Hercules cargo plane

Originally Posted by vinit.merchant

Living in Viman Nagar since 1999. I did not notice the noise differences of take off's, but I still hear a lot and lot of ear shattering Noise when the IAF fighters start their training. Infact, I do not notice any difference in the noise levels. What fighers now fly from the Pune base? They all sound the same!

The MiG-29s were sent to western command, Bikaner/Jamnagar/Adampur ,after each of 2 Su-30 squadrons was formed at Lohegaon, so by 2001-2002 , the MiG-29s were transferred. There used to be a Jaguar squadron too until around 2006. Now only Su-30MKIs operated out of Pune, barring temporary visits by MiG-29s, 21s or Mirages.

Having heard both up close, the MiG-29s are way louder. The Su-30s are operated at reduced thrust though, during peace time, which would reduce the exhaust noise though not very significantly. MiG-29s might have operated at detuned levels intermittently, to increase engine life, but have not confirmed from first hand sources.

PS : I envy you all who can watch the jets from much closer every day !

Originally Posted by NiInJa

Excellent write up ! Enjoyed reading a lot.

People might criticize the Pune airport for everything, but if you are mad about fighter planes you will love it.
On a lucky day, you might just witness these planes take off. Once, on my way to Delhi, our flight's take-off was delayed and we were stranded on the taxi-way because some MiG29s were about to take off. -snip-

I hear ya ! People buy apartments near the airport and complain of the noise - I tell them two things :
1. the AF base was around decades before, when the surrounding area was a village, not part of the city.
2. would you like to exchange flats ?

Wow, you can hear the fighter engines inside the airliner, over and above the insulation and the airliners's own engine hum ?

Originally Posted by locusjag

I am not sure that this is a NATO designation system; it is a Department of Defense designation system. This naming system is called the Triservice Aircraft Designation system and has been in place since 1962.

There are exceptions to this nomenclature too. The F-117 Nighthawk stealth ground-attack aircraft is a mis-named aircraft seemingly. "A-117" would befit it more appropriately, going by the naming system. But it seems that the DoD wanted top-of-the-line pilots to be attracted to flying the F-117. -snip-

The DoD designation applies to US aircraft designations only ( F-15, A-10), whereas the first-letter for type for Russian aircraft and missiles,( Flanker for Su-27, Flogger for MiG-23/27 , likewise AA-12 "Adder" , AA-6 "Acrid" where the "A" alphabet is for Russian air-to-air missiles , K for air-to-surface , like AS-14 Kedge , AS-7 Kerry , AS-11 Kilter ) is a NATO convention.

The F-111 was intended to be FB-111 but the F-111 designation stuck on. The U-2 Dragon Lady was a pure recon aircraft, the U for utility was a misnomer/deception. The SR-71 was supposed to RS-71 ( Reconnaisance+Strike) but the president (or vice president) mis-spoke as SR-71 and the name then stuck on. The F-22 too is being referred to as F/A-22 to appease the US congress.

Added all the US-style designation scheme above, hopefully didn't miss any!


Here's a demo/comparison of the MiG-29s take off run, compared to the F-5. The F-5 is also a supersonic, lighweight jet but compare how much longer it rolls before getting airborne.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow1KEZz0kck

A Discovery documentary :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KG6bK8itH0

They get a few details wrong - Tumansky engine which is a Klimov actually, they also say MiG-27 operated by Poland , which is incorrect, Poland never flew MiG-27s.

A kind of selfie I'd give almost anything to take !

[vivtho]

Originally Posted by Ricci

Full listing of US aircraft designation scheme:
<snip>
Hope I didn't miss anything!

You missed one

'M' = Multimission, most commonly used for drone carriers (for air-launched drones)

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by Ricci

Wow, you can hear the fighter engines inside the airliner, over and above the insulation and the airliners's own engine hum ?

Apparently, you can.

Actually, there was an interesting case over here in Connecticut recently. A passenger airliner had taken off from Bradley international airport and was climbing to cruising height slowly when the crew and passengers were taken aback by what sounded like two bomb blasts.

The Captain of the airliner had then announced to the passengers that he would gladly testify in court if any of the people wanted to sue the "idiots" in the F15s that had taken off in full-afterburner from a nearby runway.

I read this particular account on Quora in reply to a question that read - "As an airline crew member, what are the weirdest things that you have seen in your line of work?" and the account was written by a male steward who had been on that flight.

I wonder if the passengers actually sued the USAF though

Edit: I just found out that Bradley airport has a few permanently stationed F-15Cs of the Air National Guard. So no USAF in the hypothetical lawsuit in question.

[basuroy]

Originally Posted by vivtho

I don't know what to believe. I've heard this statement over and over on the internet. However, HAL's own website says that their Koraput division manufactures entire AL-31 engines for the Sukhoi!

Correct and I was mistaken indeed , it was the delay related to the entire airframe including engine overhaul facility by sukhoi and not engine solely which was setup only last year 2nd quarter. An excerpt from the article that carried the stolen mails , this was validated when in an interview , Irkut corp VP confirmed their authenticity by not discrediting them and referring to them as stolen correspondence -
"Due to non-availability of facilities for overhaul of aggregates (aircraft parts), the serviceability (availability for flying) of Su-30MKI is slowly decreasing and demand for Aircraft on Ground (AOG) items on the rise," HAL's Nasik division again pleads with Russia's Rosboronexport in a telling letter dated 24 December 2013. Other mails indicated Sukhoi had refused to field on site specialists which it is supposed to do as per contract because we were and I quote the article- "haggling over price" .

HAL assembles the engines and to an extent manufactures it(an evolving process ) , an excerpt from an article - HAL has also partially indigenised the Su-30MKI's giant AL-31FP engines, which are built in Koraput, Odisha. Fifty-three per cent of the engine by cost has been indigenised, with the remaining 47 per cent consisting of high-tech composites and special alloys - proprietary secrets that Russia will not part with. Even so, HAL builds 87.7 per cent of the engine's components in India.

[Nempuguru]

Well compiled thread with detailed info and beautiful pictures, especially those vortices formation.

Slightly OT, hoping to see our home grown "Tejas" also perform and compete with its rivals, thereby strengthening our Air force with strong fighter-jet squadron.

What's stopping for so many years? lack of support/fund, political reasons, lack of advanced skills/technical breakthroughs, lack of will power?

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by basuroy

HAL assembles the engines and to an extent manufactures it(an evolving process ) , an excerpt from an article - HAL has also partially indigenised the Su-30MKI's giant AL-31FP engines, which are built in Koraput, Odisha. Fifty-three per cent of the engine by cost has been indigenised, with the remaining 47 per cent consisting of high-tech composites and special alloys - proprietary secrets that Russia will not part with. Even so, HAL builds 87.7 per cent of the engine's components in India.

I have a problem with this percentages business. Its best left for accountants or bean counters, who get a high discussing decimals or percent points. 87.7 percent means nothing. It also means about 12-13% of a critical component like an engine is still in Russian clutches, and if push comes to shove, without those 12%, we will have no engine to make

If we as a nation can't reverse engineer, steal, copy components what are we good at? Even China or North Korea, forget them even Iran makes entire fighter jets on their own. When we can create complex missiles entirely on our own, make and launch working satellite launching rockets, why on earth can't HAL or some other government company make a working fighter jet over the last 69 years?

This HAL fiasco reminds me about a Pakistani 'intellectual's' view point on how Pakistan makes cars. As per him assembling cars imported from outside is equivalent of producing cars within the country.