[saket77]

Thank you for the information on SU-30. Hats off to the detailed presentation of facts on the aircraft. It is a beautiful sight in air and indeed a potent weapon in the Indian Airforce Fleet.

Thanks again.
Regards,
Saket

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Regarding the "single minded determination of getting exactly what they want" of the PAF, I would like to point out that this has also lead to them being always under control of the Americans as they put strict restrictions on how the F-16s are operated, where they are based and when support is withdrawn(like in Kargil when CAP sorties had to be reduced due to lack of essential spares). They had a single minded frame of mind of acquiring F-16s without thinking about all the factors involved..

I think the Pakistanis knew very well what they were getting into when they first bought the F-16s. Remember, the first US arms embargo was first placed in 1965 for use of US military equipment against India. it is a different matter that they imposed the same embargo on India(which had less effect on us anyway). The Pakistanis could not get spares or attrition replacements from the US for their Sabre, Starfighter & Canberra fleets. Instead they had to beg the Chinese for F-6s, T-59s and the French for Mirage IIIs & 5s. Even the Soviets briefly flirted with Pakistan and supplied them with Mi-8s, T-54 tanks and guns. Believe it nor not, the yeven gave them an Mi-6 heavy lift helicopter and even proposed to sell them MiG-19s and 21s. Indian objections made sure that the proposal stayed only on paper.

When the 1971 war broke out, the French even withheld deliveries of Mirage 5PA/DPAs to Pakistan( delivering them only in 1973). For the Sabres, they had to work a clandestine deal with Iran & West Germany(probably with US kept in the loop) for those ex-West German Canadair Sabre Mk.6s.

Frankly, I fail to understand this drama about US reprimand and out govt sulking about about F-16 use, why US supplied them with F-16s in the first place etc? We would be foolish to expect Pakistan to to use them against us. It would be like Russia asking us not to base Su-30s against the Chinese. If push came to shove, would we hesitate to use P-8Is against the Pakistan Navy?

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Also its unlikely the PAF (about 76 jets) would have become the 2nd largest operator of F-16s as they far off from other larger F-16 operators like Israel (224), Egypt (218) and Turkey (245). It would have been difficult for them to afford these kind of numbers. I remember they had placed an order of 36 F-16C/Ds after sanctions were lifted due to the nuclear tests by the US and due to lack of funds this order was reduced to 18.

What I meant was that the unusually high number of twin seat F-16Bs(12 out of 40) they acquired *probably* pointed towards a plan for acquisition of a much larger number of F-16s. That it didn't fructify because of various reasons, is another matter.

Of the 71 embargoed F-16s that were never delivered, 17 were F-16Bs.

An Air Force acquires such large number of twin seat trainers only when it has plans for a much larger fleet. In comparison, the US had ordered 1388 F-16As and 200 F-16Bs in a 7:1 ratio. The Israeli AF's first batch of 75 F-16s had 8 F-16Bs, an 8:1 ratio. The PAF ins its first order had a ratio of almost 3:1. This probably indicates the clear intentions of the PAF that it would have at all costs wanted to obtain more F-16s and wanted to have a large pool of F-16 pilots ready and trained.

If the Arms embargo had not been placed and the embargoed F-16s had been delivered, the number of F-16s delivered to the PAF would have been around 140(including the 40 F-16A/Bs originally delivered, 18 new F-16C/D Blk 52s and 13 ex-Jordanian F-16A/B Blk 15 MLUs). What was there to have stopped them from ordering F-16s in the late 90s or early 2000s? The numbers could easily have touched 250.

The only reason why they went for more F-7s(P/MP/PG) and went full steam ahead with the JF-17 programme was because they could not get their hands on more F-16s.

[AlphaKilo]

@Skanchan, Your models seem to be the SU-27s and not the MKIs. Are you on the look out for the MKIs or are they not available yet?

Did PAF had canberra, the bomber? I thought other than RAF, only IAF and some other commonwealth (ok, pakistan is also a part of it but...) had gotten them.

I am curious to see how the Turkey-British fighter deal proceeds. On one hand, India was invited to partner but with the current tensions due to anti-citizenship bill, we surely have ruffled some feathers in the EU and amongst the Muslim nations. I don't think this fighter would have helped us in any way other than opening up a link to good deal of OEMs for our AMCA or LCA mk. 2.

Infact, India should propose this to south-east Asian countries like singapore and malaysia, Indonesia to jointly develop the AMCA. That on one hand, will force us to work with tight schedules and second help strengthen our ties. With Malaysia (LCA order) and some other smaller countries already operating our Dhruv and Rudra, it would only boost the morale of the HAL and DRDO engineers.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

@Skanchan, Your models seem to be the SU-27s and not the MKIs.

You are right. It is not an MKI. It is a mistake on part of the manufacturer (JC Wings) to label it as Su-30MKI Flanker-H. It is in fact an early Su-30MK FLanker-C(without canards and thrust vectoring engine nozzles). These early Flankers were sold back to Russia and replaced by the Su-30MKI.
Hogan Wings on the other hands has labelled their 1/200 IAF Su-30 scale model correctly.
A few of these ex-IAF Su-30K/MKs are currently in service with the Angolan Air Force.

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

Are you on the look out for the MKIs or are they not available yet?

No model manufacturer has manufactured a Su-30MKI model yet. Yes, it would be a dream come true if one comes out!!!

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

Did PAF had canberra, the bomber? I thought other than RAF, only IAF and some other commonwealth (ok, pakistan is also a part of it but...) had gotten them.

Yes, the PAF operated Canberras as well. But they were supplied by the US and were Martin built B-57 Canberras(license-built version of the British English Electric Canberra built by Martin Company). In fact, NASA still flies WB-57 Canberras as high-altitude scientific research aircraft.


The Canberras operated by the IAF were supplied by the British and were built by English Electric.

The PAF operated B-57B( Bomber), B-57C(trainer) & RB-57F(Reconnaissance variants of the B-57). While the IAF operated B(I)58 & B(I)66 (Bomber/Interdictor), PR.57 & 67 (Reconnaissance Variants), B(I)12(Bomber/Interdictor - ex-RNZAF) .

The most visible difference between the Martin built & English Electric built Canberras was that on the Martin B-57s Canberras, the Pilot & the Bombardier/Navigator sat in a fighter aircraft type tandem seating arrangement. Both were equipped with Ejection Seats.
PAF B-57B:


While on the English Electric Canberra B(I)58, only the pilot got an ejection seat. The Bombardier/Navigator sat below the pilot, deep in the fuselage, looking out of the window in front. The PR.57 and B(I) 66 had ejection seats for both crew and the crew sat side by side under the bubble canopy.
IAF Canberra B(I)58


IAF Canberra B(I)66 [Note the bubble canopy- very different from the B(I)58's canopy]


IAF Canberra PR.57


In case of a shootdown or an unrecoverable emergency, the pilot could simply eject while the Navigator had to jump out from the hatch door. In the 1971 ar, I remember a case where after an IAF B(I) 58 was hit, the pilot ejected and became a PoW but his Navigator could not get out and died in the crash. It was for this reason that an IAF Senior officer had once remarked that It was unfathomable to think the British built such an aircraft and that the IAF bought such an aircraft knowing fully well that the chances of the Navigator surviving very very minimal. There were occasions where the pilot refused to eject and abandon his Navigator in critical emergencies.

[AlphaKilo]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

...
No model manufacturer has manufactured a Su-30MKI model yet. Yes, it would be a dream come true if one comes out!!!
...
....There were occasions where the pilot refused to eject and abandon his Navigator in critical emergencies.

Why does the PR.57 and 66 still got a glass nose when the Pilot and navigator/Bomber sat tandem? Were they not equipped with Radars? (I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case as IAF is notoriously known for buying bare bone jets, just like how we get our maruti's!). Also, the US built ones seem to be equipped with quite a lot of external sensor (flight instrument) outlets than the English Electric ones? Were they technically different too? In terms of Flight instruments and nav aids etc?

Do we have any such stories (Pilot rejecting ejection) from the IAF or were they only from RAF or other airforces?

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

Why does the PR.57 and 66 still got a glass nose when the Pilot and navigator/Bomber sat tandem? Were they not equipped with Radars?

Bear in mind the Canberras were acquired by the IAF in the late 50s. In those days, unlike today, Navigation to targets was by following visual cues on the ground. The Canberra was first envisaged as a bomber and one of the requirements during its development was the need for a nose glass for visual bombing by a bomb aimer( bombardier). Through the same nose glass, the Navigator could look at the ground for navigational cues.

As a correction to my earlier post, In the PR.57/67 Canberra– the pilot sat in an ejection seat under the canopy, sitting towards the left of the aircraft and the navigator sat a bit lower, behind the pilot in an ejection seat in his own little compartment, probably containing controls for the various cameras the PR Canberra was equipped with. The TT.4 trainer did not have a glass nose and the crew sat side by side.
This is what the Navigator compartment would have look like behind the pilot:

There was a “crawlway” on the right side, which gave access to the nose position. The nose position was usually occupied by the navigator during the run in over the target. The navigator un-strapped and lay down on a cushion in a prone position in the nose. The position has “grab handles” so that the navigator could hang on for dear life if the Canberra was tossed around by turbulence or evasive action by the pilot. There were camera controls duplicated from the navigators station to the nose and there was Doppler read out of drift and speed in the nose station.

The Navigator compartment had a “hatch” over the ejection seat that could be jettisoned before an ejection. The ejection seat could also blow through the hatch. Earlier the hatch had to be manually blown for an ejection but later modifications were made for the sequence to be automatic. The pilot could also jettison his canopy or eject through it. The PR.57 was equipped with ejection seats that needed at least 1000 ft and 200 kts for a successful ejection.

Canberra PR.7 cockpit. Watch from around 04:20 - the camera moves from the pilot station to the Navigator station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRZRvzem-Fs

Both the IAF & PAF Canberras were delivered equipped with auto-pilot( something which even the RAF Canberras did not have at the time). Equipment wise, the PAF Canberras may have been better. But IAF Canberras had an audio only RWR called "Orange Putter", while the PAF did not have an RWR on their Canberras.

Originally Posted by AlphaKilo

Do we have any such stories (Pilot rejecting ejection) from the IAF or were they only from RAF or other airforces?

I have read a couple of IAF ones for sure. Let me see if I can find them In some of the books I have.

[AlphaKilo]

Originally Posted by skanchan95;4713580...
This is what the Navigator compartment would have look like behind the pilot:
[ATTACH=7d94bfa5e4b7c52bbd0d22a91e928664.jpg

1946199[/ATTACH]
There was a “crawlway” on the right side, which gave access to the nose position. The nose position was usually occupied by the navigator during the run in over the target. The navigator un-strapped and lay down on a cushion in a prone position in the nose. The position has “grab handles” so that the navigator could hang on for dear life if the Canberra was tossed around by turbulence or evasive action by the pilot. There were camera controls duplicated from the navigators station to the nose and there was Doppler read out of drift and speed in the nose station.

The Navigator compartment had a “hatch” over the ejection seat that could be jettisoned before an ejection. The ejection seat could also blow through the hatch. Earlier the hatch had to be manually blown for an ejection but later modifications were made for the sequence to be automatic. The pilot could also jettison his canopy or eject through it. The PR.57 was equipped with ejection seats that needed at least 1000 ft and 200 kts for a successful ejection.
...

For sure the most not favourite seat in the flight award goes to this navigator seat! Cold, dingy, shaking violently and get shot at! I would rather sit and land at 200+ knots the blind MiG 21 cockpit than being a Navigator/bomber on a Canberra! Still cannot imagine how the guys back in those days flew in these and all those WW-2 bombers that had such a set-up.

[saket77]

This day, that year...

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

There were occasions where the pilot refused to eject and abandon his Navigator in critical emergencies.

I thought that was a couple of cases involving the V Bombers. Other aircraft in other countries too?

Regards
Sutripta

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

I thought that was a couple of cases involving the V Bombers. Other aircraft in other countries too?

I am pretty sure there have been others. Only one I can think of right now is the Concorski. The original Tupolev TU144 prototype had ejection seats for the pilots, but not the passengers. And it did fly with passengers!

And then there are variations on the ejection too.

Whereas in most cases the ejection is upwards, some aircrafts have downward ejection system for some of the crew members. E.g. on the B52 and the early F104 Starfighter. (that would be for the pilot!)

When flying low downward ejection is simply not an option and puts the pilots in a similar situation as their crew members having no ejection possibility.

Quite an informative link on the B52 upward and downward ejection system and sequencing:

http://www.ejectionsite.com/b-52.htm

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I am pretty sure there have been others. Only one I can think of right now is the Concorski. The original Tupolev TU144 prototype had ejection seats for the pilots, but not the passengers. And it did fly with passengers!

So what did the Anglo Franco think tank come up with? No ejection seats so that in the finest traditions of the British navy the captain goes down with his ship?

Regards
Sutripta

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

So what did the Anglo Franco think tank come up with? No ejection seats so that in the finest traditions of the British navy the captain goes down with his ship?

The British were probably all very “Stiff Upper Lip” about this. However, the French never subscribed to this approach.

So a compromise was reached on the Concorde: No ejection seats, but in a true Socialistic way several emergency hatches were provided for all crew members!

https://www.heritageconcorde.com/escape-hatches

In all honesty, ejection seats were rarely used, if at all, on commercial aircraft, even on prototypes. It is bit more difficult on a pressurised hull obviously. A parachute was the best you could hope for in those days.

Jeroen

[AlphaKilo]

The recently Sworn-in Air Chief of Staff ACM R.K. Bhaduria speaks on Aaj Tak about the future of IAF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xcw4S-jUYY

Highlights:

1. Pan-India radars have been networked
2. New LCA squadrons coming up
3. Embraer based AWAC fully integrated
4. A330 based AWAC project started (6-8 years of timeline)
5. LCA Mk.2 project started (my most favourite news of all!!!)
6. Lot of new squadrons of Aakash missile system
7. ELNIT/Electronic warfare has been indegenioused quite a lot and further Aircrafts are being modified
8. AMCA has been cleared and project study started (long run projects) - Yuhuu!!!! Rafael and S400 has satisfied immediate needs. Now indigenous platform development can go on.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

The British were probably all very “Stiff Upper Lip” about this. However, the French never subscribed to this approach.

What about the Birkenhead protocol?

Regards
Sutripta

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

What about the Birkenhead protocol?

Never heard of it in the context of aviation.

Jeroen