IAF to retire Canberra jets Wednesday

[Neo]

IAF to retire Canberra jets Wednesday
India Gazette
Tuesday 6th March, 2007

Not a day passed when the skies over this Taj Mahal city did not reverberate to the sturdy Canberra reconnaissance jets on their training missions. This will come to an end as the Indian Air Force (IAF) retires the aircraft Wednesday.

The Canberra, which began life as a bomber, will fly for the last time when President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam reviews the IAF fleet at Chandigarh Wednesday.

Most of the Canberras had been phased out some years ago but a few had remained in service.

The Kheria Air Force base here has since 1957 been the home of the Canberras, which played a crucial role in the 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan. The aircraft's last action was during the Kargil war of 1999, when it landed safely even after one of its engines was hit by a missile.

The Canberra first went into action during the liberation of Goa in 1961 when it was tasked with disabling the Dabolim air base in the Portuguese territory.

It was also deployed on combat operations during the 1962 war with China.

The Canberra's versatility made it a favourite of airmen round the world. Manufactured by the now defunct English Electric company, the twin-seater it has a wing span and length under 20 metres and has a pair of Rolls Royce Avon turbojets.

http://story.indiagazette.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/701ee96610c884a6/id/232400/cs/1/

 

[Neo]

Man, are they still flying the Canberra's?? :huh:
Didn't we retire our fleet ages ago?

 

[Adux]

Such a beautiful piece of engg,
Time to replace them with the SU-34 Fighter/Bomber.

 

[Adux]

Dear sirs,

I wanted to ask the how much payload can it carry, if MIG-29K and Su-33 were to be launched by catapult rathar than the skijump, from its current payload.

 

[Keysersoze]

Something to chew on whilst the hunt for facts and figures goes on.....I have some old data in paper form re the MIG 29k it might be of use.......

June 5, 2005

At the start of World War II, carriers would often have aircraft take off from their flight decks by rolling and gaining speed. There was, however, a problem with this. As the aircraft got bigger and heavier, the stall speed increased, and at times, a plane could find itself going into the ocean when it reached the end of the flight deck. This was a bad thing, not only because of the loss of an aircraft, but also because a highly-trained naval aviator was usually lost in those circumstances. Naval aviators are much more expensive to train not only must they be able to perform combat missions, but taking off and landing from a carrier is perhaps the toughest task any pilot has taken on.

So, as World War II ended, catapults were introduced. These had been used on battleships and cruisers to launch float planes for scouting. However, as carriers began launching heavier planes, the same technology was used, first on the escort carriers. As the Essex-class carriers began to get bigger, they, too, received catapults.

Catapults have some big advantages: They are powerful, and mean that aircraft like the F-14 (weighing in at over 36 tons fully loaded) can be launched easily. They also give the carrier a lower profile, which is important in a day and age where electronic sensors like radar are used. The technology has also worked well for as long as ships have had float planes (for over ninety years since World War I). They also have disadvantages, Catapults are high-maintenance items, requiring constant attention. If something goes wrong with a catapult, like a cold shot (where the catapult generates insufficient force to launch the aircraft), the aircraft is as good as lost and there is the risk of losing the crew.

The alternative, used by India, Russia, and the United Kingdom, is a ski-jump, often at an angle of seven to fifteen degrees. This has the advantage of being much simpler (no moving parts). The aircraft simply can take off, and pilots do not have to worry about cold shots. It is primarily associated with the VSTOL carriers used by the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, India, and Thailand. The only fixed-wing carrier that uses this system is the Russian Kuznetov, although Indias Vikramaditya (formerly the Gorshkov) will also use this system.

The ski-jump has disadvantages, though. It cannot launch as many planes as a catapult, since it is often kept on the bow only (the angled deck either is not present or it is kept flat). The ships profile is also higher creating a better target for radar-guided missiles. If the ships bow is hit, it could be unable to launch planes, making a fixed-wing carrier a mission kill (the VSTOL carriers would be able to operate with reduced effectiveness). Still, for navies unable to afford a big maintenance budget, it is a viable option.

Ultimately, which of these option is better depends on what the navy needs. For those that operate VSTOL aircraft like the Harrier and Freestyle or are on a budget, the ski jump makes a lot of sense. It is capable of operating fixed-wing aircraft, and needs no maintenance. For countries launching heavier aircraft, the catapult is a better option, despite its high-maintenance status and the risks involved. Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20050605.aspx

 

[Muradk]

Looks like you all need to start reading Air Force Monthly Mag , RAF retired them last month.

 

[sword9]

The end of a nostalgic journey for the good old Canberra. They don't make them as sturdy and dependable any more.

Neo,
In Kargil (1999), 2 Migs were downed by A2G missiles, while the good old Canberra flew back to its base, even after one engine was hit by a missile.

MuradK sir, will agrree with me when I say "give me a Canberra anyday".

 

[EagleEyes]

Some nice RAF

 

[Adux]

The end of a nostalgic journey for the good old Canberra. They don't make them as sturdy and dependable any more.

Neo,
In Kargil (1999), 2 Migs were downed by A2G missiles, while the good old Canberra flew back to its base, even after one engine was hit by a missile.

MuradK sir, will agrree with me when I say "give me a Canberra anyday".

Sir,

One Mig-21 crashed, one Mig-27 was shot, Mi-7 was shot, isnt that the tally in Kargil

 

[Adux]

Time to replace them with these Ducks

 

[Muradk]

The end of a nostalgic journey for the good old Canberra. They don't make them as sturdy and dependable any more.

Neo,
In Kargil (1999), 2 Migs were downed by A2G missiles, while the good old Canberra flew back to its base, even after one engine was hit by a missile.

MuradK sir, will agrree with me when I say "give me a Canberra anyday".

Very true IAF is/was lucky to have Canberra's.

 

[EagleEyes]

Very true IAF is/was lucky to have Canberra's.

Sir,

Any interest in the bombers for the PAF? JF-17 has low payload and will take over most of the air force. Except for F-16 and J-10 we have nothing for heavy bombing.

Chinese J-8 bombers are pretty good and are fully capable of replacing our A-5s.

 

[Keysersoze]

Dear sirs,

I wanted to ask the how much payload can it carry, if MIG-29K and Su-33 were to be launched by catapult rathar than the skijump, from its current payload.

The best way to guesstimate this would be to use the example of the F-14 Tomcat. It's weight was 18-19000 kg unloaded and "normal" takeoff weight was listed as 29-32000kg.
The max weight for a Mig 29k (info listed is for the year 1995) is listed as 22400kg (with a weight of 18480kg for the aircraft.)

It also depends on the run up used. If they are using the shorter run up then it will have a lower payload. The use of the whole deck as a "run-up" will facilitate a heavier load.
Please note that the aircraft in the videos are not carrying much payload.

[YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/kuznetsov5.html

 

[Muradk]

We will still use J-10 as a bomber.

 

[Adux]

Keys,

I was looking at the possibilites of MIG-29K becoming more effective, Lets imagine this, what will be the difference of payload when launched in vikramaditya(gorshkov) Ski jump or by the USS CVN catapult.

Russian Aircraft carrier follows a different doctrine and also by the lack of catapults, uses the SU-33K only for Air to Air defence.In my opinion a waste of a great aircraft. I was wondering in the Indian Scenario as well, since the MiG-29K is capable of buddy refuelling, why dont they launch MIG-29K with heavior payload, but less fuel, but once airborne advice buddy-buddy refuelling or IFR. Therefore being able to deliver more payload per sortie during strike missions not air to air defence.


MuradK,

J-10 lacks the payload capacity to become a true bomber, its a multi-role fighter, bombing will be one of its role albeit not in the true sense of the meaning. It cant do a B-1 or Tu-22M, H-6 or even the Su-32