Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Commercial Vehicles (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/)

-   -   Combat Aircraft of the Indian Air Force (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/182868-combat-aircraft-indian-air-force-14.html)

Any idea why IAF never picked up fighter jets from Sukhoi corporation? Why did we buy -

Mig 21
Mig 23
Mig 25
Mig 27
Mig 29

instead of these guys?

Su-9
Su-17
Su-24
Su-25 (close air support)
Su-27

Were Sukhois more expensive than Migs?

I would like to go for (ii) option. :)

Smartcat, a question like this I cannot leave unanswered and still manage to go to sleep. I have a morning flight tomorrow and if I miss it you will be to blame.:)

The genesis to your very pertinent question is the structure of the Soviet air forces. There wasn't one AF in the USSR even though their was one Navy, one Army and one Rocket Forces (ICBMs etc). They had several independent air forces serving different roles. The FA (Frontal Aviation), the DA (Strategic Bomber Aviation), AVMF (Naval Aviation), PVO (Homeland Air Defence - aircraft, missiles, guns and radars all integrated into one command structure) & VTA (military transport aviation). At the top of the hierarchy FA and DA had a common commanding leadership but at the operating levels they were independent air forces. FA and VTA operated aircraft most closely allied to our needs of firepower and range {MiG-21, MiG-27, Mil Mi-8, An-12, IL-76, Su-7, MiG-23 and so on}. The Soviets had a policy of not exporting PVO and DA aircraft even to their Warsaw Pact allies. MiG designed machines for the FA - short range, highly maneuverable, fire support for the army, recce. Sukhoi largely designed aircraft for the PVO (Su-9, Su-11, Su-15) or DA (Su-24*); same for Tupolev - their main customers were the DA and the PVO. When the Mig-21 was selected for indigenous production in 1964 the Su-9/Su-11 were not aircraft USSR would export. Same with MiG-23 and Su-15 a decade and half later. The PVO aircraft were designed for range not maneuverability and were single purpose aircraft - scramble, climb fast, intercept under ground control, return to base. The MiG-21 and the MiG-23/27 were more multi-purpose albeit with a slant towards interception or tactical attack - our need was also aircraft with at least some ground attack capability. The Su-17 we evaluated in mid-1970s and found to be too short on range with a meaningful war load though it was built like a battle tank. Instead we went the route of the MiG-23BN which evolved into procuring the really competent MiG-27M. The Su-24 would have been a great alternative to the Sepecat Jaguar but the Soviets were not willing to sell till ~1989. The Su-25 (Frogfoot) is the one aircraft we should have started license production of as what we lack most of all is the ability to support the army on the battle field with a well armoured Shturmovik. Su-27 eventually came to us as the Su-30MKI.

Also MiG built a great customer relationship with HAL and the IAF which also played a part in strengthening an already well founded relationship. Where price is concerned with the USSR political expediency decided the price. In the 1978 a MiG-21M from HAL costed Rs 3 crores in then rupees versus a Jaguar at Rs 20 crores and in 1982 a Hawker Harrier (hold your breath) at Rs 60 crores. The first Kashin class guided missile destroyer came in 1980 at Rs 60 crores including training and spares. But when we started buying Jaguars, Harriers and Mirage 2000s the 5th Kashin destroyer in 1988 came for Rs 600 crores. The Soviets got peeved and up went the price. To answer your question the Sukhoi's in 1960s to 1980s could have come as cheap as a MiG product.

Hope this helps.

* Su-24 was half an FA aircraft and half a DA one

Please do sir. This is team-bhp after all. We are all suckers for such goldmine of information. Bring it on! :):thumbs up

Thanks on your above answer - seems FA and DA were like Indian airlines and Air India ;)

Don't egg him on, man. He will miss the flight.

Like how some families own Honda Activa, Maruti Alto and Honda City for grocery runs, office commute and outstation trips eh?

The IAF did get Su-7s from USSR from 1968 onwards and they played a stellar role in the 1971 war( flying with six IAF squadrons - Nos. 26, 32, 101, 108, 221) .

Even though the Su-7s primary role was CAS & Strike missions, a Su-7 on a PR mission flown by Flt Lt S.S. "Mad Mally" Malhotra of No.32 Squadron managed to shoot down a PAF F-6 (J-6/MiG-19).

For a SAAB fan, here's a nice little piece to lead you down the rabbit hole. Also the Viggen had some interesting tricks up it's sleeve. I almost feel like it's built like a power lifter.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...-other-fighter

Thank you phamilyman. I will put in a post on this by tomorrow.

Lovely & informative response V.Narayan. Just to give viewers a comparison between sizes of MiG 21 and Su 7. Smaller one is MiG.




Thanks... Vikas

Following up on dialogue in the last few posts this post is meant to cover some of the specialness of Sweden's Saab fighters and the way some or all were path breaking in their own unique way. The post does not cover details or history of each. I have kept it to a narrative style and content (and not technical) so that it can be enjoyed by all readers. The aviation community may find it simplistic - apologies.




The Saab J21 a pusher propeller piston powered started the Saab jet fighter story. The J21 entered service just as WW2 was ending and the lure of the centrifugal turbojet peeped over the threshold. To save time to service and avoid a long development phase SAAB replaced the rear facing piston with a British de Havilland Goblin turbojet of 1400 kgf thrust. Thus Sweden became the 5th country to commission its own jet fighter after Nazi Germany, UK, USA, USSR (in that order). With this the J21R became the only aircraft to enter squadron service having carried a piston in one avtar and a jet in the next. Others tried it but only the Swedes succeeded.



In 1945 Saab started the concept study of a clean sheet of paper design for a jet fighter. At that time it was realized that a rearward thrusting turbojet by definition meant that the order in which the parts of an aircraft are arranged needs to be changed. Many configurations were tried - cigar ie one behind the other (MiG-15, Dassault Ouragan), central jet with divided exhaust efflux (Hawker Seahawk), twin boom (de Havilland Vampire) and a few others more off beat. Saab after trying many combinations came out with an almost unique arrangement with the aircraft on top and engine with a straight through intake beneath. Interestingly & suprisingly wind tunnel tests revealed this gave lower drag and greater lateral stability than a cigar shaped design. Thus was born the J29 Tunnan. Tunnan was actually a nickname meaning 'barrel' a joke on its shape. Research on swept wings and thin wings was in its infancy relative to what we know today but the Swedes were a few years ahead of their time by building a thin swept wing for speed (575 knots) and primitive (what are now called) leading edge root extensions which improve airflow and stability at high angles of attack. Why this happened was not quite understood in 1950 but the Swedes were the first to venture here and took it further later with the Draken and its double delta wing. Interestingly the J29 set the world speed with endurance record flying a 1000kms closed circuit at an average of 900 kmph in 1955.



Next came the Saab 32 Lansen. This was an early example of an aircraft being designed at the very start for 4 differing roles and built in those 4 different configurations to best suit the role. The roles were - Attack, Fighter, Recce & Electronic Warfare. Today multi-role combat aircraft are the norm mainly due to advanced & flexible avionics and multi-role radars. In 1948 when the design concept started this was futuristic thinking to say the least. At that time aircraft had one primary role and some had a secondary role at which they were much less capable. Given the early stage of avionics in the 1940s and 50s Saab built a two seater. The large nose (with ample volume for avionics) and two-seater configuration lent itself to several avionic upgrades that kept this machine in front line service till 1997, 45 years after the prototype flew in 1952.



Then in 1955 flew the futuristic looking Draken. It introduced the concept of the double delta wing which improved stability at high angles of attack and lowered take off/landing speeds enough to enable routine off runway operations from highways and packed mud & gravel runways. It was also an early attempt at a blended wing/body to the extent possible with metal. Later blended bodies like that of the F-16 used carbon fibre for those smooth curves.



And finally in 1967 flew the Saab Viggen with its delta wing+foreplane combination called the canard configuration. Today this is the norm seen in the Sukhoi Su-30, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon but none of these was even on the drawing board when the Viggen first put skylight beneath its wings. In all fairness the value of canards has been known since 1903 but the Viggen, from a small country with less people than Hyderabad, was the first to solve the mechanical and aerodynamic and simultaneous control issues. The last mentioned is the most complex and Sweden was the first to solve it for a production aircraft i.e. how to ensure the airflow over the foreplane does not disturb the airflow over the main lift generating wing; how to figure out the co-ordination of the exact movements of the foreplane with the flaps and ailerons of the main wing. This delta canard gave greater lift for the same thrust, greater maneuverability, lower landing speeds and operations at higher angles of attack. The foreplanes of the Viggen understandably were not as advanced as those on the Rafale or Su-30, which are all flying surfaces, but it came 2 and more decades earlier. And like the Lansen they built it in 4 different versions -Fighter, Attack, Recce, Maritime Attack.

Hope you enjoyed reading this.

The official LCA Tejas channel has published the interview of Group Captain Suneet Krishna. He is the man behind making ‘Tejas’ a completely pilot-friendly and world-class fighter jet by logging the highest number of hours on board Tejas and his inputs helped modify the cockpit over the years. In fact, he has flown the prototypes, the production and operational versions of ‘Tejas’, even test-fired missiles and laser-guided bombs.

During the course of interview he mentions how other countries have designed so many aircraft and only one out of them made to production. He emphasizes how as a country we need to move forward with our learnings and he applauds the hard work of all the people associated with the project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dc0x4HJbZ8

IAF pitches for 36 more Rafale fighters
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/60226329.cms

Thank you for this. Share more.

One thing we Indians don't do is publicity for our selves. Look at the British or Americans. Just as an example if you read about the English Electric Lighting (the only supersonic fighter UK developed on its own) in books or the web you would think it was the best thing in the history of motion pictures. Reality was the opposite but all that is glossed over - very short endurance, Red Top missile was a failure, to start with it didn't have guns, the tyres literally exploded every so many landings, it had an accident rate that was probably the worst in modern RAF history etc. But nothing on the main websites would tell you that. Nothing at all. I could give so many western examples of the like.

We need more positive publicity for the Tejas in my opinion.

Please do. We are very much interested to know.

one example that comes to mind is the Eurofighter Typhoon. Even to Date its a WIP.

Ditto for the F 35.

Then who can forget the much vaunted F22 Raptor that literally asphyxiates its pilots on account of a faulty OBOG. Not to mention that it needs 10.x hours of maintenance for every x hours of flight!

Mr. Narayanan could perhaps shed more light on these and other such instances.

Here is the part 2 of the interview. You can skip to 7:11 as till then there are some very generic questions which are not related to Tejas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z4Uyhib-gA

I agree. As a country we have lots of talent, hardworking and motivated people, but we lack when we have to think about the bigger picture. Group Captain Suneet moved to corporate world as he was denied the captain’s seat (pilot-in-command) in the 'Eye-in-the-sky', the Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft. Reason as he took voluntary retirement from IAF and hence was a civilian test pilot. :Frustrati Link