Has Australia been out-Flanked?

[Gekko_1]

Hi guys,

Am I correct in thinking that Australia is being beaten to death in the Fighter arms race?

What I mean is, most of our Asian neighbours either have or are about to acquire one form or another of the Su-27/30 Flanker, these include: China, Indonesian, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.

The RAAF won’t be getting the JSF for at least another 9 years and our F/A-18’s and F-111’s will surely be operationally ‘worn out’ by then. In the mean time the Flanker could have been significantly upgraded by Russian/Chinese/French/Israeli technology to keep it effective against the F-22.

So are we going to see a time when the RAAF is way behind our Asian neighbours in terms of an effective Fighter?

Also, even if/when we get the JSF, is it effective enough to be able to fill the roles of the F/A-18 and F-111, plus be able to take on any future variants and versions of the Flanker in terms of weapons carriage capability and range?

Cheers

Richard.

[Rich]

Poor old Australia with all those junky Yank made aircraft. Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Israeli/Arab, Gulf-1.....et al All those conflicts where communist bloc warplanes have wiped the skys clean of "made in USA".:rolleyes:

Put it this way. When the F-35s of the RAAF become operational you are going to have the dominant regional air forces.

[Lanz0r]

I don't like moderen fighter planes any how, theres no sport in guided missiles, we shoud scap all the F-111 and F/A -18's and get some bi-planes, or Spitfires or something with more of a "hold the trigger down till the other fella catches fire"

[gf0012-aust]

Am I correct in thinking that Australia is being beaten to death in the Fighter arms race?

Not by a long shot. Outside of Singapores new build F-15's, the HUG-Bugs are the most competent platform in the region. Why would you think that? Look at systems as well as platforms.

What I mean is, most of our Asian neighbours either have or are about to acquire one form or another of the Su-27/30 Flanker, these include: China, Indonesian, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.

and that means very little. look at the threat matrix, look at the pilot and system capability and look at the supporting systems - who in our region would constitute an effective threat? - ans = no one.

The RAAF won’t be getting the JSF for at least another 9 years and our F/A-18’s and F-111’s will surely be operationally ‘worn out’ by then. In the mean time the Flanker could have been significantly upgraded by Russian/Chinese/French/Israeli technology to keep it effective against the F-22.

I think you've been influenced by too much SMH, Kopp and Goon. I'm not going to go into it ad-nauseum again in here- but the above 3 have been caught with their pants down severely in the past for misrepresenting capability against some glaringly obvious factors.

So are we going to see a time when the RAAF is way behind our Asian neighbours in terms of an effective Fighter?

No, not national policy is to stay ahead of the curve.

Also, even if/when we get the JSF, is it effective enough to be able to fill the roles of the F/A-18 and F-111, plus be able to take on any future variants and versions of the Flanker in terms of weapons carriage capability and range?

RAAF pilots flying F-35As in Ex Op Agile Endeavour 1 Sim have had no trouble shooting down multiple Su-35s in all the air-to-air engagements - with no losses. More details will be made avail over the next 2-3 weeks, but there is no nervousness at all on our ability to deal with the most modern Sukhois even if they were deployed into our region. Su-27's are certainly not seen as a viable threat as there are a number of advantages purely at the platform level - let alone battlespace level. Su-30's, although accorded more respect, still don't warrant the kind of idiotic pressure that some of these clowns are creating - they do have their own agendas. Again I don't want to rewrite and copy everything thats been debunked in the past - as its quite substantial.

Let me make it kind of obvious. Some of the people who are making a big song and dance about Sukhoi emerging threats etc don't have the security clearances and thus access to all info about platform capability. In the harshest of terms, they are internet warriors only able to scrape data together from the internet and publicly cleared sources. In other words - they have NFI. Drawing impressive graphs and collating nice photos with an overstated text does not make someone an expert - esp when they don;t have the clearances to get access to real useful data.

[gf0012-aust]

I don't like moderen fighter planes any how, theres no sport in guided missiles, we shoud scap all the F-111 and F/A -18's and get some bi-planes, or Spitfires or something with more of a "hold the trigger down till the other fella catches fire"

Huh? a fat lot of good a gun is going to be against a target that you could slot at 100km. To use the cowboy analogy, why go into a knife fight when you can shoot someone from 1km away?

We have responsibility to protect and police 1/9th of the worlds major oceans and waterways - restricting our capability is lunacy

If we can see aircraft entering our airspace at 2000+km via JORN etc, then you could assume that we aren't going to wait for them to get in gun range before we remove them.

Warfighting is not about sport - this isn't the days of Biggles and Snoopy - people actually get killed protecting national interests. The idea is to win the war - not get caught up in some game of aerial tennis.

[tphuang]

the fact that the Russians are offering su-30s to Thailand for chickens should calm anyone who is getting nervous about the flanker prowess. Bottomline, su-35 hasn't managed to get close to the final round of a bidding competition that contains other advanced fighters like F-15, typhoon and Rafale despite price advantage and generous ToT offers. It saddens me that certain people would use the recent Indonesian purchase of su-30mkk as a sign of arms race. Despite the aggressive sukhoi marketting and constant re-designation of the flanker to have bigger numbers (27 to 30 to 35 to who knows what), the best it can probably do in the future is the current capability of F-15E. I'm not saying they are there right now, but rather they probably will get there when the Americans are mass producing JSF.

Basically, Australia has no worries.

[gf0012-aust]

It saddens me that certain people would use the recent Indonesian purchase of su-30mkk as a sign of arms race.

Esp seeing that the poor old Indons don't even have missiles for them, they're a guns only platform.

As for their future 48, I can't see that happening. Their economy is stuffed and Aust has donated the equiv of $1.25bn in aid money to help them through recent crisis. They have no money for warfighting.

On top of which, they are very keen to get access back into US platforms, I'd suggest that they are manouvreing for US platforms so as to attract US FMS aid as well as reconstruction monies.

Relationships between Aust and Malaysia have improved since the retirement of Matahir, and Vietnam and Aust have a very strong relationship that has built up over the last 12 years. Then there is the FPDA.

Thailand is a long term political ally and has had australian advisers in place for the last 5 years at some significant levels of govt - and they have very close links to the King. Thailand has also accepted donor F-16's from Singapore - and trains regularly with Aust in DACT.

I could go on.... but this nonesense about an asian arms race in region ignores a lot of issues that were prevalent prior to the economic meltdown in region circa 1997

[MIGleader]

Australia may have been out-flanked, but its not in a corner yet. Even if all these naeighbors do have more advanced aircraft, its not like they intend to use them on Australia any time in the near future. Thus, the country has plenty of time to wait for its JSF's, though im not sure how a downgraded one might hold agaisnt an upgraded flanker.

[gf0012-aust]

Australia may have been out-flanked, but its not in a corner yet. Even if all these naeighbors do have more advanced aircraft, its not like they intend to use them on Australia any time in the near future.

The issue is that there would have to be a rapid and dramatic change of relationship for deterioration to occur to the point of going to war. All of the countries that some people get frantic about actually engage in military exercises, are negotiating for military exercises or are conflict neutral to us. The bottom line is that talking up the regional Su-27nn and Su-3nn-nn as a threat is pretty removed from reality.

Thus, the country has plenty of time to wait for its JSF's, though im not sure how a downgraded one might hold agaisnt an upgraded flanker.

Contrary to press reports - and publicly denied last week - australia is not getting downgraded capability - neither is the UK. again, its important to understand the local personalities who were involved in writing those articles - they were, quite frankly not in a position to know, misunderstood the answers they were given, and actually don't have the right access at both the security level and contact level to know the facts. On top of that the articles were replete with errors, and they deliberately skewed the comments. Not good serious military journalism. Thats why its important to understand the authors - and their motives.

as for upgraded Flankers - there has been extensive modelling done against Su-35's - and to date the JSF has more than held its own.

I'm hoping that some more detail will be available soon - but, as it is, release of info is going to hit the public domain in 2-3 weeks.

[Whiskyjack]

If you look at the air forces closest to Australia and say IF they were to threaten Australia (and that is a very very BIG if for all of them) how much of a threat would they be now then the answer is pretty much none. The most capable is Singapore and that is not structured to threaten at long range.

As for the rest I may be going out on a limb here but with the exception of Indonesia none have the range to fly over any Australian cities and Indonesia which is close enough to does not have the equipment, training or infrastructure to actually be a threat!

In 10 years time I don’t think that the situation will be much different. In most scenarios I can think of it is most likely that these nations will be allies and the RAAF would deploy into them to help defend them from any external threat.

[alexsa]

This is definately third had information but; I understand from a mate who is an ex-RAAF jock that the Russian aircraft, while potent, are a bit of a maintenace handful and in real operations the engine are pretty short lived.

The other fact IMHO is these aircraft are still a generation behind and all the thrust vectoring and engine power is not worth a damn if you don't have a clear picture, i.e. know here the bad guy is before flying into hostile airspace and, more importantly, be able to see him before he sees you when you do.

Just a comment from a complete novice.

[gf0012-aust]

This is definately third had information but; I understand from a mate who is an ex-RAAF jock that the Russian aircraft, while potent, are a bit of a maintenace handful and in real operations the engine are pretty short lived.

the russians were keen to flog off Su-27's to aust about 5 years ago. so we do have an idea about serviceability issues - plus the US has a pair of Su-27's - and we get access to some other data.

we do know that atypically, the russian service and maint rates are a min of 3 times higher than a typical western equiv - and sometimes its 4 times higher.

couple that with the pretty tragic track record of sukhoi (and mikoyan) not being able to provide critical parts on time (and this has been exp by both malaysia and indonesia) - and we get a pretty good feel of overall system reliability.

[abramsteve]

Not being an expert, but would it be safe to say that the standards of the Indonesian Air force would be well below that of the RAAF? If so then surely them operating matainence intensive aircraft is a mistake. In this case maybe we have very little to fear from a small number of poorly maintained aircraft. It may be our saving grace.

This is a bit off track but would the Grippen have been a better choice for them?

[vinnanater]

...Contrary to press reports - and publicly denied last week - australia is not getting downgraded capability - neither is the UK. again, its important to understand the local personalities who were involved in writing those articles - ......

Yep, I know a lot of people working on the JSF, including foreign nationals from the various partner countries, so far there has been no talk about "downgraded" equipment for the partner countries...if there is such a thing...it is a "super duper top secret" so much so, that the people who are working on the airplane are unaware of it ;). The only thing that is ever talked about is that all potential customers have unique requirements, and the planes will be fitted to the CUSTOMERS' unique requirements, Ofcourse, this has to be within reason...and are you the customer willing to pay for that "unique" requirement.

[Cootamundra]

Not being an expert, but would it be safe to say that the standards of the Indonesian Air force would be well below that of the RAAF? If so then surely them operating matainence intensive aircraft is a mistake. In this case maybe we have very little to fear from a small number of poorly maintained aircraft. It may be our saving grace.

Well below would be an understatement and it has nothing to do with patriotism. They have no weapons for starters, they have no force multipliers to go one step further and at prsent they hardly have enough $$$ to fly them in training - so to be frank the Indo AF and the RAAF are not even in the same league

This is a bit off track but would the Grippen have been a better choice for them?

Yes, if they had the money to buy Grippens and weapons to operate from the platform.images/icons/icon10.gif

[Whiskyjack]

Guys, I can’t help but be a wee bit frustrated by the threads that turn into platform based discussions. Quite a few of you will know what I mean:
‘this tank, fighter, missile, ship, sub etc…is better than this one.’
‘we have 100, you only have 50’

The simple fact is that for an air force (or any military force/unit) to conduct combat operations, effective combat operations is extremely difficult and most underrated ability. It has taken me years to pick this fact up. Fondly I remember the days where I thought fighters roared across the sky and dropped bombs, shot missiles etc.
Never thought about the following things (I’ll restrict my comments to Aircraft as this is the theme of the thread.):

1. Training, how many hours a year do the pilots fly and exercise? How realistic is the training? Do they train against other aircraft, ships GBAD? I think NATO standard is 180 hrs (?) not many achieve that. If you are flying in a coalition with allies, have you trained with them? Do you use the same tactics? Logistics? etc…
2. Critical mass of aircraft. For every 1 aircraft on operations I estimate that you need 1.5 to 2 other aircraft that will be in maintenance, training other pilots and used as attrition replacement. So for 12 aircraft on deployment there will be around 18 at home. Now consider that 12 aircraft a reasonable distance from the targets can probably sortie 10 aircraft per day. Now think about how many aircraft you need to support those 10 aircraft, fighter escort, SEAD, AWACS, Tankers, ECM (if you are lucky enough to have these support aircraft), which also need to be protected. Then you need your base protected just in case the enemy is mounting the same sort of strike. How many aircraft do you need now? You may be in a coalition, but that has problems as well (see 1).
3. Logistics. If you aircraft is forward deployed to another airbase/country etc, can you maintain the logistics to keep up combat operations. Fuel, ammunition, spare parts etc.. will be needed in great numbers. It may be a long supply line, is it secure? What resources do you need to make it secure? Are there decent war stocks as more may not be forthcoming!
4. Intel/Recon/planning, you have to find the targets, monitor damage, plan missions in enough time to hit the non-fixed targets, what is the threat level? GBAD? Fighters? What is the safe route in and out? Is there a secondary target if the first is not acquired? What about collateral damage around the target areas? What ordinance should be used?

There is much more I have not even touched upon!

Just because a country is buying an aircraft does not threaten anyone. The cheaper the purchase price the less threat. The greater the price usually means training, spares, war stock and a more prepared air force.

Spleen vented please continue

[alexsa]

Yes, if they had the money to buy Grippens and weapons to operate from the platform.images/icons/icon10.gif

This appears to be the nub of the issue. some of the 'cheaper' Russian equipment is bloody (can we now use that word) expensive to operate and maintain while aircraft like the Grippen cost more to purchase but much less to operate. From an economics perspective perhaps we should look at whole of life costs on expected flying hours rather than the initial cost of the airframe.

[Cootamundra]

Guys, I can’t help but be a wee bit frustrated by the threads that turn into platform based discussions. Blah, blah, blah......Spleen vented please continue

I couldn't agree more Whiskey - not to mention the fact that all these questions have been discussed ad naseum in other threads. In fact the F-111 thread and the F-35 thread both have multiple pages listing all of this stuff. I think gf said as much in his responses:o
Cheers, Coota

[Whiskyjack]

I couldn't agree more Whiskey - not to mention the fact that all these questions have been discussed ad naseum in other threads. In fact the F-111 thread and the F-35 thread both have multiple pages listing all of this stuff. I think gf said as much in his responses:o
Cheers, Coota

Yeah, well what ya gonna do? Round and Round we go. :cool:

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah, well what ya gonna do? Round and Round we go. :cool:

if you want to sort the stayers from the players then talk about logistics. ;)

quite a few threads in here would empty faster than free beer going off at a wharfies picnic.

although to be fair - the number of people in here who just look at bright shiny planes and ships and think that it equals capability has dropped dramtically...

[Rich]

Some good points made here. The biggest of which is that "platforms" and "toys" alone dont even begin to tell the whole picture. History is rife with air battles won between equal air forces in equipment, or even by the lesser one, thru superior training, tactics, and maintenance.

Also another point. Like Britain in the Falklands only more so, Australia is wired into the Military Intel network of the USA. Actually Australia is a valuable part of it with many Intel assets on its land-space as well as being locked in by treaty and a "special relationship". So this means the RAAF would control the information battlefield as well.

No matter how you look at it there is no nation in the region capable of controlling the air around Australia. When the F-35 JSF comes on line the door will close even more.

[chrisrobsoar]

There is a lot more to war fighting than "kicking the tyres and lighting the fires" (and similarly for land and sea based forces).

The NATO standard is 180hrs. I've flown with some fast jet pilots who have clocked up less than 200hrs in the whole of their careers (including basic training and simulators).

Long haul commercial pilots get lots of hours in the air but have little hands on time and very few landings.

Being current is very important in flying.

(BTW: I teach flying, gliders and GA., mainly gliding (80%) 4,000hrs & 10, 000+ launches at 300-500hrs per year, 1,000 – 1,200 launches per year. During discussions with a RAF Tornado F3 pilot who was converting to gliders we worked out that each year I had more take-offs and landings than the whole of his squadron [I am also my ex-squadron 29 Sqn] and more than half the hours flown by his squadron.)

Most countries do not train enough, to be safe in peace-time let alone during war.

Train hard, fight easy.

And that’s my spleen emptied.

[Paxter]

urm i doubt any nation in asia would want to attack and take over australia it would be nearly impossible to do so cause of the australian land mass... besides msia singapore and australians are under FPDA and i dont think either one(msia singapore) would want to mess that up its our life line!

about the SU-30s i guess just wait and see prob when the mkm become active maybe australia and msia can have a little wargame together:D btw dont under rate asian pilots ESP singaporeans and malaysians both nations have year to year wargames with america and from what i hear american pilots have been impressed by the F-16s singapore flies and the mig 29s the malaysians fly. Btw about the spare parts comment from what i read in local defence mags. Sukhoi has open up a service center in malaysia to compliment the SU-30s which would be great!:D

i wouldnt really count indonesia as a threat 2 su-30s with gun pods wont do much... and 48 new su-30s? They cant even maintain their F-16s let alone 48 su-30s:duel

[410Cougar]

As many people have said before in this thread it all comes down to your pilots. Some of the best air forces in the world are operating planes that are 25 years old and have been upgraded so many times that you lose track. Canada, Germany, Australia, UK are all in this boat. The good news is that alot of pilots, particularly from AUS and the UK are seeing combat action more and more each year. Nothing beats practical training.

Countries like Canada and Germany are involved in alot of training exercises each year with our allies either here at Cold Lake, down in Nellis or overseas with our Euro friends. That also ensures pilot readiness.

Canada hasn't made an air to air kill in a very long while and hopefully it won't have to. However, all things being equal, I would take any Hornet pilot from the US, AUS, and CA and put them up against any one of the countries listed above.

Just my 0.02 worth...

Attila

[srev2004]

Admin: Text Deleted.

I realise this is your first post and that its easy to make mistakes initially but please note the following:

read the forum rules:

- no one liner comments
- comments need to be relevant to the thread topic - and they should have some substance.

[Ding]

If i may give my 2 cents....

I do agree with Paxter. In regards to Indonesia, they do not have the capability to maintain their russian planes (or any planes they have for that matter) but it's different with Malaysia. Granted, the Hornets have a higher availability rate than the Fulcrums, but it's not to say that the Fulcrum is in a constant state of maintenance. We do have a good availability rate for the Fulcrums too.

In regards to 410Cougar... for the comment on taking a hornet pilot and putting it up against any 'country' above... here's a quote taken from a wikipedia website (not sure if it is reliable info... as far as i know it is. Confirmed by an Aussie pilot who was in Malaysia for the FPDA ex.)

The most recent event involving the MiG-29 occurred during the military exercise of nations under the Five Power Defense Arrangement, namely Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and United Kingdom. Malaysian MiG-29s, upgraded with recent Russian and Western technology, fought mock air battles with Australian F/A-18A Hornets. The MiGs succeeded in downing all of the Australian Hornets during simulated air combat battles in both medium and short range combat. The Malaysians used AA-10, AA-12 and AA-11 missiles, against Australia's AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. It has been reported that Malaysian AA-11 Archer missiles have a better warhead, longer range and a better IR sensor.

Many pundits such as the Federation of American Scientists recognize that in an individual dogfight, the MiG-29 is potentially better than the F-15 Eagle or F-16 Falcon.

In regards to the above matter... as what most of the forumers here believe, the aircraft is just a tool. it's the pilot that makes the difference.

[Pursuit Curve]

The Su and MiG problem harkens back to the days of "MiG Diplomacy" when the Soviets would literally give MiG's to friendlt states, then shut down the parts pipeline when that state was no longer friendly or cooperative to Soviet diplomacy etc.

Aircraft performance on paper is always impressive, I guess thats why Mr Kopp is such a paper tiger himself (Yes, I have finally read some of his articles now, I am not impressed!)

[Scorpius]

it's the pilot that makes the difference.
the F-22's case is different.It reduces the workload of the pilot(advanced avionics).but I agree the pilot makes the difference.
will the Australian air force acquire F-22s after F-35s?

[Ding]

well judging by history, after the first salvo of BVR missiles are fired, there will still be yanking and banking, turning and burning! So stick and rudder skills remain important. ;)

[Aussie Digger]

If i may give my 2 cents....

I do agree with Paxter. In regards to Indonesia, they do not have the capability to maintain their russian planes (or any planes they have for that matter) but it's different with Malaysia. Granted, the Hornets have a higher availability rate than the Fulcrums, but it's not to say that the Fulcrum is in a constant state of maintenance. We do have a good availability rate for the Fulcrums too.

In regards to 410Cougar... for the comment on taking a hornet pilot and putting it up against any 'country' above... here's a quote taken from a wikipedia website (not sure if it is reliable info... as far as i know it is. Confirmed by an Aussie pilot who was in Malaysia for the FPDA ex.)

The most recent event involving the MiG-29 occurred during the military exercise of nations under the Five Power Defense Arrangement, namely Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and United Kingdom. Malaysian MiG-29s, upgraded with recent Russian and Western technology, fought mock air battles with Australian F/A-18A Hornets. The MiGs succeeded in downing all of the Australian Hornets during simulated air combat battles in both medium and short range combat. The Malaysians used AA-10, AA-12 and AA-11 missiles, against Australia's AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. It has been reported that Malaysian AA-11 Archer missiles have a better warhead, longer range and a better IR sensor.

Many pundits such as the Federation of American Scientists recognize that in an individual dogfight, the MiG-29 is potentially better than the F-15 Eagle or F-16 Falcon.

In regards to the above matter... as what most of the forumers here believe, the aircraft is just a tool. it's the pilot that makes the difference.

Ding, that info though extremely simplistic is essentially correct. What info is not revealed is the roles of the aircraft. What was intended by the exercise. Were the RAAF, defenders, offenders, etc. What "rules" with respect to EW/BVR shots were allowed?

Most airex's are completely scripted. Cope India was (the exercise everyone quotes up as proof of the SU-30's alleged "superiority" over F-15, regarded as the best current Western fighter) FPDA ex's are too.

AS to the MiG29 v Hornet, I'd like to see a "freeplay" ex nowadays. How do you think the Malay MiG's would go against our Hornet HUG's (with ASRAAM and AMRAAM missiles, plus a host of other upgrades)...

I personally think the MiG pilots would be in for a rude shock as the RAAF's Hornets are considered to be the best "legacy" (ie: non-Super Hornet) Hornet's in the world. The current head of Boeing, went on record and stated as much publicly...

As to rudder and stick skills, they are important, but not as important has high quality radar and BVR missiles. Anyone who thinks modern air combat is going to be decided by who can pull the most 'g's' is going to be in for a VERY rude shock...

[srev2004]

The Australians don't have force multipliers such as Mid Air Refuelers or AESA for that matter. How are they looking to incorporate such new things in their training in such a short time to utilize the JSF plane.

[Magoo]

In regards to 410Cougar... for the comment on taking a hornet pilot and putting it up against any 'country' above... here's a quote taken from a wikipedia website (not sure if it is reliable info... as far as i know it is. Confirmed by an Aussie pilot who was in Malaysia for the FPDA ex.)

The most recent event involving the MiG-29 occurred during the military exercise of nations under the Five Power Defense Arrangement, namely Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and United Kingdom. Malaysian MiG-29s, upgraded with recent Russian and Western technology, fought mock air battles with Australian F/A-18A Hornets. The MiGs succeeded in downing all of the Australian Hornets during simulated air combat battles in both medium and short range combat. The Malaysians used AA-10, AA-12 and AA-11 missiles, against Australia's AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. It has been reported that Malaysian AA-11 Archer missiles have a better warhead, longer range and a better IR sensor.

The RAAF's Hornets have not used AIM-7s or AIM-9s for about three years now, and I can be almost certain that no Australian Hornet pilot would talk in such a way in an open forum.

The AA-11 is better than the AIM-9M, but lacks the range and seeker capability of the ASRAAM, Python 5, and AIM-9X. The AIM-120C-5 is a new world compared the AIM-7M in speed, range, radar performance, and most importantly perhaps, reliability.

Magoo

[Magoo]

The Australians don't have force multipliers such as Mid Air Refuelers or AESA for that matter. How are they looking to incorporate such new things in their training in such a short time to utilize the JSF plane.

The RAAF currently has a limited training air-to-air refuelling capability in the form of three 707s which will be replaced by five A330MRTTs from 2008 (the first aircraft actually left the Toulouse production line last week!). In anticipation of the arrival of the new tankers, we currently have several pilots and boom operators on exchange with US units, occasionally flying combat missions over Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll be ready.

As for other force multipliers, the Hornets have the APG-73 which, although not an AESA radar, is very capable. They also have Link-16/MIDS, will soon have datalinked Litening AT pods, JDAM, and datalinked JASSM stand off strike missiles. The RAAF will also have six Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft by late 2008, probably the most capable AEW&C platform flying, and to this end, again, several RAAF crews are currently on exchange with USAF and RAF E-3 units.

Add to this mix the ISR capabilities of the AP-3C which will also soon have datalinks, the coming UAVs for Army (JP129) and Air Force (AIR7000), JORN which is one of the most underestimated (and under-acknowledged) capabilities the ADF (or anyone) has, and Vigilare (which will tie it all together through EASTROC, NORTHROC and Glenbrook), and it's probably fair to say within the next five years, the RAAF's force multipliers will ALL be in place and fully operational before a single JSF sets foot in-country.

Magoo

[Ding]

Aussie Digger

I do not know the full rule of the airex. what I do know is that the RAAF is the Blue force and the RMAF is the red force. The RAAF is tasked to attack a ground target (i think it was a radar installation in Batu Arang) and the RMAF is to protect it at all cost. No EW involved other that EW on the attacking and defending aircrafts. BVR and VR simulations are used.

Magoo

the Aussie pilot was not talking on the forum. The RAAF squadron was hosted in Kuantan AB and they were staying in a hotel close by. I had the chance of having dinner with them (nice fellas:cool: ) and we were talking about the airex.

[Pursuit Curve]

One thing to keep in mind with international military excersises. Pilots or other Military Personel will always be very generous and modest about their own capabilities and success. But on the other hand they will go out of their way to compliment and build the confidense of a host nation by extilling the virtues of that paticular military or country. While I have no doubt as to the capabilities of the Malaysian Air Arm, I also know that the capabiliteis and kit that the Aussie F 18 is the envie of most other nations. This sounds like the same press that was given after the Indian Airforce/USAF cooperative ex, where the IAF were given superman status because the ROE Imposed on USAF Eagles were very restrictive.

Lets get real and regarding a Radar station target, sounds like a target worthy of a Tomahawk, or a JSAM, or a HARM, not a direct old fashioned attack.....

[Ding]

One thing to keep in mind with international military excersises. Pilots or other Military Personel will always be very generous and modest about their own capabilities and success. But on the other hand they will go out of their way to compliment and build the confidense of a host nation by extilling the virtues of that paticular military or country. While I have no doubt as to the capabilities of the Malaysian Air Arm, I also know that the capabiliteis and kit that the Aussie F 18 is the envie of most other nations. This sounds like the same press that was given after the Indian Airforce/USAF cooperative ex, where the IAF were given superman status because the ROE Imposed on USAF Eagles were very restrictive.

Lets get real and regarding a Radar station target, sounds like a target worthy of a Tomahawk, or a JSAM, or a HARM, not a direct old fashioned attack.....

Yep I understand that. They were very generous of the compliments. Thing is the Aussie currently have the best AF in the region. I was just replying to 410Cougar post where "all things being equal, I would take any Hornet pilot from the US, AUS, and CA and put them up against any one of the countries listed above".

That said, I'm very excited that we will be receiving our Su30MKMs soon, and I think it's a well rounded MRCA. Hopefully the next MRCA squadrons will be the SuperHornets. Our Fulcrums gave good service for us, it's just that they have short legs. Our Hawk 100 are okay, but the Hawk 200 are lemons in their "light fighter" configuration.

If I could give an opinion on RAAF, they wont be out flanked anytime soon. I'd be very happy if the RMAF can get to the level of the RAAF. Which will happen soon I hope.

[Pursuit Curve]

Ding, I fully concur with you, I just wanted to point out the realities of International Air Ex as I have seen in the past.

I wasn't aware that the HAwk 200 was such a lomen, it sure looks neat, sort of a super Gnat!

As far as the SU 30 goes, I am not convinced regards its real comabat power. I only say that because of the country that makes it, and the weapons acquisition problems for it.

By western, it at least guarranties product support.

[tphuang]

Yep I understand that. They were very generous of the compliments. Thing is the Aussie currently have the best AF in the region. I was just replying to 410Cougar post where "all things being equal, I would take any Hornet pilot from the US, AUS, and CA and put them up against any one of the countries listed above".

That said, I'm very excited that we will be receiving our Su30MKMs soon, and I think it's a well rounded MRCA. Hopefully the next MRCA squadrons will be the SuperHornets. Our Fulcrums gave good service for us, it's just that they have short legs. Our Hawk 100 are okay, but the Hawk 200 are lemons in their "light fighter" configuration.

If I could give an opinion on RAAF, they wont be out flanked anytime soon. I'd be very happy if the RMAF can get to the level of the RAAF. Which will happen soon I hope.
If you are expecting MKM to be a well rounded MRCA, I think that's a little on the iffy side. Let's just say that MKK are suppose to be a lot more multirole than MKI/MKM, but the Russians are just simply slow with their PGM developments and such. MKM - good for air superiority, but if you want an MRCA squadron, it would have to be the superhornets

[srev2004]

If you are expecting MKM to be a well rounded MRCA, I think that's a little on the iffy side. Let's just say that MKK are suppose to be a lot more multirole than MKI/MKM, but the Russians are just simply slow with their PGM developments and such. MKM - good for air superiority, but if you want an MRCA squadron, it would have to be the superhornets

the MKI has a range of 8000 K.M. The F-18 is no where close to that.

[Pursuit Curve]

8,000 km is a long way to fly to get shot down! Especially when you consider that there is no AWACS support. BUt 8,000 KM! Hmmm, can that be qualified please, or is that the maximum Ferry range? Not combat range!

[tphuang]

the MKI has a range of 8000 K.M. The F-18 is no where close to that.
that's total rubbish. su-30mkk operating radius is 1500 KM and MKI is 1500 KM too.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/su-30.htm

[Ding]

I have to agree that the Su30 is actually more towards the air defence role. That's why i'm hoping the next batch of MRCA would be the SH.:D It could happen if Malaysia can come up with the budget, as Boeing is throwing in a nice maintenance/training/weapons package..... say AMRAAM!

Pursuit Curve... in regards to the Hawk200, I'm goint to quote Adm Tom Conelly of the USN "all the thrust in Christendom won't make a fighter out of this aircraft"

as for weapons and sparepart aquisitions, we bought the MiGs as a sort of 'test' of sorts for the relieability and availability of weapons, aircraft and logistics supply by the russians. also, it was a test of our capability in maintaining and operating a 'full blown' fighter. As you know, before the MiGs, we dont have any real fighters (F-5 not withstanding). As far as I know, we've had no problems in maintaining and operating the aircraft ie the russians have been reliable is supplying parts and expertise. Because of this we have selected the Su30MKM to fill one of our MRCA sqn requirement. Also the russians have been willing to set up a regional maintenance and overhaul center here in Malaysia. The other thing is the russians do not have any limits to what weapons we can or cannot have from their inventory... so we can pick, mix and match with western avionics and weapons ie our Su30 will be having the MICA and the R77 as the BVR missile

That said, hopefully there will be more airex between RMAF and RAAF. To be the best, we have to learn from the best. ;)

[LancerMc]

Yes, it is true the Su-27/30 is a far more advance fighter aircraft then the F/A-18. Again many people who post about the topic duels and capabilities between fighter aircraft forget how important training and combat experience is.

Western nations like Australia have an excellent training program for its pilots, and allows them to be well experienced in working alone and with other ally nations. If any conflict did erupt in South Pacific, I am sure Australia would receive support from its allies. This interoperability is crucial when fighting in the modern war. With the exception of China all the other countries operating have very limited defense budgets, and while I don't know the exact amounts, I am sure they are not flying and training nearly as often as the RAAF. While China can afford more training then its poorer neighbors, it followed its strict almost soviet style war fighting doctrine which has been proven to be very ineffective in combat. I have also heard their fleet of Su-27/30's have suffered large amounts accidents and crashes since their introduction into service. So while its seems China and other countries have advantages in a more agile fighter, their training systems will probably ill prepare them for actual combat.

With Australia supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, some of its pilots have gained actual combat experience. While none of these missions actually involved fighter combat, any experience in a war zone allows pilots to be better prepared for any future conflict. Pilots with combat experience if any are much more likely to survive in combat then pilots who have not. Australia's participation with exercises like Red Flag also give its pilots near combat experience. While no allies fly the Su-27/30, RAAF pilots have received dissimilar pilot training, thus giving them the training in how to gain the advantage in their own aircraft in combat. This considerably better prepares the RAAF for any future conflicts then its neighbors.

While the RAAF doesn't have the biggest bark in its regions it does have one of the largest bites with its training and combat experience over its neighbors.

[Pursuit Curve]

I totally agree with Lancer. The true capabilities of any combat aircraft comes down to the pilot, the training, experience. It is trivial to compare the raw data available regards aircraft range, weapon load, systems etc. Give me pilots that are well trained and motivated, put them in a mature platform that has many resources and history behind it, and I will take on all comers in any aircraft now flying!

Airshow demonstrations of "cobras" and fancy, useless somersaults and energy bleeding tight 9+ G manuevers are great crowd pleasers, but in the real world of aircraft fully loaded, radar screens fuzzy because of jamming, static filled comms and bingo fuel warnings...thats where the rubber meets the runway.

Australia has nothing to fear unless of course said nations also decide to invest heavily in amphibious and naval power. Of course if an over confident nation wishes to find out just how far a combat configured Flanker can fly, and then get its tail feathers shot off over the outback just to say that they have a better aircraft, then be my guest.

[Ding]

Malaysian pilots train as per Nato standard of 180hrs (i think it's 180hrs) of flight time. Also we are involved in airex. Sorry, just have to put the record straight.we do have budgets for training.;)

[kmaster_bhr]

The Australian Air Force, is a professional air force. It certainly has its challenges in Region, as its neighbours are acquiring aircraft that are superior to its current inventory. This will change as Australia recognises that it must change its tactics and its inventory to that it is better equipped to defend itself. Some of these changes have already started, especially with its SF ofrces, its airlift capability, missile defence MBTs and APCs. I
t is still a member of ANZAC and has its committments in the Region and from the USA. Its system of training its crews are far better than some of its immediate neighbours, as are its time spent of equipment and maintenance.
It is a force to be reckoned with for sure.

[srev2004]

8,000 km is a long way to fly to get shot down! Especially when you consider that there is no AWACS support. BUt 8,000 KM! Hmmm, can that be qualified please, or is that the maximum Ferry range? Not combat range!

8000k.m. with external fuel tanks, or in flight refueling. It can also carry upto 3 cruise missiles.

The SU-30 MKI is the best Russian variant Jet. It has never been fully used against any other plane. People don't know it's radar capability. It's radar was switched off during Cope India 2006.

[gf0012-aust]

8000k.m. with external fuel tanks, or in flight refueling. It can also carry upto 3 cruise missiles.

The SU-30 MKI is the best Russian variant Jet. It has never been fully used against any other plane. People don't know it's radar capability. It's radar was switched off during Cope India 2006.

perhaps you need to look at the ROE's for Cope India 2005 (not 2006) and comprehend the nature of DACT before making statements that seem empirical.

Quoring DACT as evidence of a platforms superiority unfortunately is not something that implies credibility.

I suggest that you search within DT on a summary that was made about the Cope India exercices. Within the body of that response, I also provided a comprehensive breakdown of DACT to deal with these kinds of assessments.

[srev2004]

perhaps you need to look at the ROE's for Cope India 2005 (not 2006) and comprehend the nature of DACT before making statements that seem empirical.

Quoring DACT as evidence of a platforms superiority unfortunately is not something that implies credibility.

I suggest that you search within DT on a summary that was made about the Cope India exercices. Within the body of that response, I also provided a comprehensive breakdown of DACT to deal with these kinds of assessments.

The ROE's handicapped both sides, each side didn't use their best equipment, but the Indian could afford to perform better, how? Their maximum potential is better than the Americans especially in Cope India 2006.

The Sukhois Radars were shut off during the exercises, atleast the US planes had their radars on. The 30's were feeding of Mig-21 Bison radars and relaying it to other fighters, acting as mini awacs. So yeah, what you say is just an excuse to get out of being beaten. There are two perspectives to every story, and my understanding of being an intern at HAL tells me that the Indians beat the Americans in both exercises fair and square because we train for Nuclear powers such as Pakistan and China, while America trains for powers such as Iraq and Iran, mere pushovers compared to the previous two.

[Aussie Digger]

The ROE's handicapped both sides, each side didn't use their best equipment, but the Indian could afford to perform better, how? Their maximum potential is better than the Americans especially in Cope India 2006.

The Sukhois Radars were shut off during the exercises, atleast the US planes had their radars on. The 30's were feeding of Mig-21 Bison radars and relaying it to other fighters, acting as mini awacs. So yeah, what you say is just an excuse to get out of being beaten. There are two perspectives to every story, and my understanding of being an intern at HAL tells me that the Indians beat the Americans in both exercises fair and square because we train for Nuclear powers such as Pakistan and China, while America trains for powers such as Iraq and Iran, mere pushovers compared to the previous two.

So India's potential is greater than the USA's potential is it? That's nice. Unfortunately potential does not equate to combat power. If America attacked India, with the intention of invading, the exact same result as has happened in Iraq on 2 occasions would occur. India would be utterley defeated militarily.

There are no "2 sides" to this argument at all. America is THE pre-eminent military power on earth and has been for the last 60 years. America only trains for Iraq and Iran you say?

Has it forgotten about Russia, China, North Korea and developing military capability in India, Pakistan and numerous other Countries around the world?

As to best equipment, the USA has F-22 Raptors in operational service now. If they truly wanted to trounce India, they would simply deploy them and your Sukhoi's would not stand a chance irregardless of whether their radars were switched on or off.

I am not an "intern" at HAL, but I know for a fact, that working there would not give you any particular insight into the capability of the USAF.

It's good to be proud of your military forces. Many people are on these boards. Making fanciful statements however, makes you appear foolish. There's no need for it. Talk up the achievements of your military forces, by all means, just don't go overboard is all.

Cheers.

[tphuang]

The ROE's handicapped both sides, each side didn't use their best equipment, but the Indian could afford to perform better, how? Their maximum potential is better than the Americans especially in Cope India 2006.

The Sukhois Radars were shut off during the exercises, atleast the US planes had their radars on. The 30's were feeding of Mig-21 Bison radars and relaying it to other fighters, acting as mini awacs. So yeah, what you say is just an excuse to get out of being beaten. There are two perspectives to every story, and my understanding of being an intern at HAL tells me that the Indians beat the Americans in both exercises fair and square because we train for Nuclear powers such as Pakistan and China, while America trains for powers such as Iraq and Iran, mere pushovers compared to the previous two.
I think the su-30k's were still equipped with N-001E radar, so it's probably a good thing they didn't turn on their radar. I believe su-30Ks were also using their IRST in the exercise to detect F-15s. Actually, that's one of the few good things about flankers. It's one of the first fighters to have IRST. Also, you have to realize that Americans loose out a lot more when their BVR capability is restricted, because F-15 just isn't as maneuverable as su-27 variants. In real war situation, USAF would never put themselves in that kind of scenario.

[gf0012-aust]

So yeah, what you say is just an excuse to get out of being beaten.


I'm not an american
If you were an american and making the same silly statements you'd be getting the same answer
your very response indicates that you know very little about DACT - and you obviously know very little about the structure of the ROE's for Cope India.I have no vested interest in either military - and I respect both. As a moderator, and as someone who is familiar with ROE's for training exercises then I will jump in and correct patriotic silly statements that ignore some fundamentals.

Instead of sticking the hat of patriotism on your head, do some research first about the fundamentals of DACT - and in particular the training profiles that were resquested by the Indian Air Force.

Pursuing a path of patriotic comment will shorten your debating life - especially when people are judged by their competency and background when contributing to debate in general.

You actually do the Indian Air Force a disservice by blowing things out of context.

Hint: DACT is not structured to have a winner or a loser - I suggest that search for the article on DACT in here that was provided by someone who actually does combat profiling for a job.

[WebMaster]

And what does this thread have anything to do with USAF or India? Nationalistic bragging aside, please try to stick to the topic.

[srev2004]

And what does this thread have anything to do with USAF or India? Nationalistic bragging aside, please try to stick to the topic.

Australia flies US export variant planes and is situated close to Asia where it could be outflanked. This is still relevant because USAF planes versus IAF planes is indirectly Australian planes versus Indian planes.

But I will try not to divert to external examples in arguements next time.

[srev2004]

So India's potential is greater than the USA's potential is it? That's nice. Unfortunately potential does not equate to combat power. If America attacked India, with the intention of invading, the exact same result as has happened in Iraq on 2 occasions would occur. India would be utterley defeated militarily.

There are no "2 sides" to this argument at all. America is THE pre-eminent military power on earth and has been for the last 60 years. America only trains for Iraq and Iran you say?

Has it forgotten about Russia, China, North Korea and developing military capability in India, Pakistan and numerous other Countries around the world?

As to best equipment, the USA has F-22 Raptors in operational service now. If they truly wanted to trounce India, they would simply deploy them and your Sukhoi's would not stand a chance irregardless of whether their radars were switched on or off.

I am not an "intern" at HAL, but I know for a fact, that working there would not give you any particular insight into the capability of the USAF.

It's good to be proud of your military forces. Many people are on these boards. Making fanciful statements however, makes you appear foolish. There's no need for it. Talk up the achievements of your military forces, by all means, just don't go overboard is all.

Cheers.

The avionics for the LCA were simulated on a simulator built for a F-16 XL and the LCA avoinics improved performance by 30%, this is just one example.

[Pursuit Curve]

8000k.m. with external fuel tanks, or in flight refueling. It can also carry upto 3 cruise missiles.

The SU-30 MKI is the best Russian variant Jet. It has never been fully used against any other plane. People don't know it's radar capability. It's radar was switched off during Cope India 2006.


Srev, the unrefueled range of a B 52H is 16,093 KM, you are trying to say that the Su 30MKIhas a 8,000 km range, with cruise imssiles and external tanks?

Also, do not forget that the F 15's at Cope India were not ASEA equipped.

This amazes me more and more, the F 15 was first flown and introduced into service in the seventies, and it still rules the skies in every engagement, that is , every engagement where there are real missiles flying!

By responding to your post, I digress.....

[srev2004]

Srev, the unrefueled range of a B 52H is 16,093 KM, you are trying to say that the Su 30MKIhas a 8,000 km range, with cruise imssiles and external tanks?

Also, do not forget that the F 15's at Cope India were not ASEA equipped.

This amazes me more and more, the F 15 was first flown and introduced into service in the seventies, and it still rules the skies in every engagement, that is , every engagement where there are real missiles flying!

By responding to your post, I digress.....

Moscow, Russia: Russian military planes flew undetected through the U.S. zone of the Arctic Ocean to Canada during recent military exercises, a senior Air Force commander said Saturday.

To view pictures of the Russian Military, Click Here
(http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/../pictures/showgallery.php/cat/10)
The commander of the country's long-range strategic bombers, Lieutenant General Igor Khvorov, said the U.S. Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers.

"They were unable to detect the planes either with radars or visually," he said.
Khorov said that during the military exercises in April, Tu-160 Blackjack bombers and Tu-95 Bears had successfully carried out four missile launches. Bombing exercises were held using Tu-22 Blinders.
By the end of the year, two more Tu-160s will be commissioned for the long-range strategic bomber fleet, Khorov said.
Both new planes will incorporate numerous upgrades from the initial Soviet models, the commander said. The bombers will be able to launch both cruise missiles and aviation bombs, and communicate via satellite.

Now this is another example of relative truth. Everyone thinks their machines are the best and unbeaten. Now you will never know until you engage the enemy in combat. The USA can't even manage to hold Iraq which is open plains and desert.

The Sukhois had their Radar off. Both sides were handicapped, the Sukhois also only used R-77's now, each side had ROE's and it's fair. Please read up on Cope India 2006. The MKI didn't even participate in the F-15 exercise, it was against mirages and Mig-21's.

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8453/f18fgunf22020lz.jpg
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/6020/elm2052aesaradar6dt.jpg

IAF has AESA too FYI.

[srev2004]

Srev, the unrefueled range of a B 52H is 16,093 KM, you are trying to say that the Su 30MKIhas a 8,000 km range, with cruise imssiles and external tanks?

Also, do not forget that the F 15's at Cope India were not ASEA equipped.

This amazes me more and more, the F 15 was first flown and introduced into service in the seventies, and it still rules the skies in every engagement, that is , every engagement where there are real missiles flying!

By responding to your post, I digress.....

The B-52 is a different Class. if you want to compare it, compare it to the T series bombers that India has. Anyways there were more than one engagement with India regarding exercises. There was Cope Thunder 04,05. And Cope India 04,06. RSAF and Sindex. And the USN and Indian Navy also engaged in exercises.

[Pursuit Curve]

Whisky, I want to be the first one to thank you for your voice of reason.

If anything is to be learned from 50 plus years of evolving Air Combat and technology it is this.

1) Turn and burn is definitely a good thing to have capability in, but airframes are now weapon systems and will probably get the kills long before the merge, that is depending on the ROE

2) You fight as well as you train

3) Numbers do not decide air superiority, information does, situational awareness is the deciding factor

4) Excersises and wargames between dissimilar air arms and ground based assets hone the edge, alot of times a participant will not put all the cards on the table, this tactic allows the other guy to show it all, and those tricks or tactics are used later for countermeasure (of course depending on the relationship between the two or more nations).

5) Western Aircraft have gotten older, but that is because their design and technical excellence has meant a longer life and excellent technology has given them an edge, where in the past it would have meant a new design and role every 5 years.

6) Like the personal computer development, there was a lag between the hardware and the software, it was the same with Tactical aircraft, The airframes were good, but the weapon systems were lagging, now that has changed definitely, weapon systems are keeping pace now with airframe propulsion development

7) Yes, there will always be comparisons and national pride in these forums, those who make wild assertions regarding capabilities are par for the course, but to keep it in context is the job of those who research and speak with facts, not fishing stories. Heym everyone knows I am 10 feet tall :OP

[pshamim]

The avionics for the LCA were simulated on a simulator built for a F-16 XL and the LCA avoinics improved performance by 30%, this is just one example.

F16-XL data was never provided to India. It is still classified. Nor a simulator was ever provided. I know this for sure as a former Senior Manager with the General Dynamics-International Sales Team.

Stop spreading and putting in your comments that do not even close to reality.

In future, before you post such comments, please back them up with references. Take this as a WARNING.

[Pursuit Curve]

F16-XL data was never provided to India. It is still classified. Nor a simulator was ever provided. I know this for sure as a former Senior Manager with the General Dynamics-International Sales Team.

Stop spreading and putting in your comments that do not even close to reality.

In future, before you post such comments, please back them up with references. Take this as a WARNING.

Pshamim, As I remember it, the F 16XL was a airframe demonstrator. maybe you can clarify that for me, I remember it demonstrating new weapons carriage and the cranked delta married to an F 16. Thank goodness he didn't mention the X 29! :))

[srev2004]

F16-XL data was never provided to India. It is still classified. Nor a simulator was ever provided. I know this for sure as a former Senior Manager with the General Dynamics-International Sales Team.

Stop spreading and putting in your comments that do not even close to reality.

In future, before you post such comments, please back them up with references. Take this as a WARNING.

The LCA avionics were tested on the F-16XL simulator in the USA. I never claimed it was given to India. I can't really reference it, it was a word of mouth in HAL after we submitted our software and hardware. Unfetted power invested in a individual who utilizes it for unfair purposes such as yourself is dangerous to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. Now one can argue that this isn't really opinion but fact. Well does my fact change into opinion without a source? Hence if I don't provide a source right away, you shouldn't consider it to be rubbish either and claim I invented things out of the blue.

Now that i've expressed my opinion, I will go out of my way to find a source if you really want one.

[Pursuit Curve]

The LCA avionics were tested on the F-16XL simulator in the USA. I never claimed it was given to India. I can't really reference it, it was a word of mouth in HAL after we submitted our software and hardware. Unfetted power invested in a individual who utilizes it for unfair purposes such as yourself is dangerous to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. Now one can argue that this isn't really opinion but fact. Well does my fact change into opinion without a source? Hence if I don't provide a source right away, you shouldn't consider it to be rubbish either and claim I invented things out of the blue.

Now that i've expressed my opinion, I will go out of my way to find a source if you really want one.

Umm, didn't the F 16XL, which is in the USAF museum now, stop flying in the eighties? Or is it the FBW that is similar to the F 16 that the LCA, which looks like an F 16. which the LCA is using, I mean really...........

[srev2004]

Umm, didn't the F 16XL, which is in the USAF museum now, stop flying in the eighties? Or is it the FBW that is similar to the F 16 that the LCA, which looks like an F 16. which the LCA is using, I mean really...........

It is the simulator for the avoinics software. so this includes Fly by wire, equalizers, and other software applications which are part of the avoinics suite.

[pshamim]

Umm, didn't the F 16XL, which is in the USAF museum now, stop flying in the eighties? Or is it the FBW that is similar to the F 16 that the LCA, which looks like an F 16. which the LCA is using, I mean really...........

Since when LCA looks like a F-16. Exept for having no vertical fins, there is nothing common between the two. F-16XL has cranked arrow delta wings whereas LCA shows a double delta wings. Size wise, LCA is smaller than a standard F-16. Whereas F-16XL's wings were twise the size of a standard F-16s in service. How are the two similar? Could you kindly explain.

Regarding all data regarding the F-16XL was never shared with any other country including NATO. It is classified.

[Pursuit Curve]

Since when LCA looks like a F-16. Exept for having no vertical fins, there is nothing common between the two. F-16XL has cranked arrow delta wings whereas LCA shows a double delta wings. Size wise, LCA is smaller than a standard F-16. Whereas F-16XL's wings were twise the size of a standard F-16s in service. How are the two similar? Could you kindly explain.

Actually I sit corrected, The LCA is more similar in layout to the Mirage 2000.
I was erely pointing out that the FCS being FBW that was pioneered on the F 16 for operational aircraft (Getting beyond test and development).

[srev2004]

Flight Control and Software and Other Avionics
The LCA uses advanced digital fly-by-wire technology which essentially employs computers to optimise the aircraft's performance. Foreign companies were consulted. Infact, LCA avionics were first flight tested on a US F-16XL.

Witout the automatic flight control, the LCA will not be flyable, due to the Delta wing's inherent instability. As more and more flights are conducted, the software is updated to allow the aircraft to do more complex maneuvours.

To combat the threat of obsolescence in the LCA Programme, a concerted effort has been made to introduce an Open-architecture Avionics system which permits hardware scalability and upgradability to state-of-the-art technology levels with reusability of the software.

LCA Avionics architecture is configured around a three bus system (MIL-STD-1553B) in a distributed environment. The heart of the system is a 32-bit Mission Computer (MC) which performs mission oriented computations, flight management, reconfiguration / redundancy management and in-flight system self-tests. In compliance with MIL-STD-1521 and 2167A standards, Ada language has been adopted for mission computer software.Accurate navigation and guidance is realised through RLG based Inertial Navigation System (INS) with provision for INS / Global Positioning System (GPS) integration. Jam resistant radio commumication system with advanced Electronic Warfare (EW) environment. In the EW suite, Electromagnetic and Electroptic receivers and jammers provide the necessary "soft-kill" capability.
DFCS Computer

The digital FBW system of the LCA is built around a quadruplex redundant architecture to give it a fail op-fail op-fail safe capability. It employs a powerful Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) comprising four computing channels, each powered by an independent power supply and all housed in a single line replaceable unit (LRU). The system is designed to meet a probability of loss of control of better than 1x10-7 per flight hour. The DFCC channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a safe subset of Ada language for the implementation of software. The DFCC receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The DFCC channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multifunction displays through MIL-STD-1553B avionics bus and RS 422 serial link.

For maintenance the aircraft has more than five hundred Line Replaceable Units (LRUs), each tested for performance and capability to meet the severe operational conditions to be encountered.

* Mission Computer(MC): MC performs the central processing functions apart from performing as Bus Controller and is the central core of the Avionics system. The hardware architecture is based on a dual 80386 based computer with dual port RAM for interprocessor communication. There are three dual redundant communication channels meeting with MIL-STD-1553B data bus specifications. The hardware unit development was done by ASIEO, Bangalore and Software Design & Development by ADA.
* Control & Coding Unit (CCU): In the normal mode, CCU provides real time I/O access which are essentially pilot's controls and power on controls for certain equipment. In the reversionary mode, when MC fails, CCU performs the central processing functions of MC. The CCU also generates voice warning signals. The main processor is Intel 80386 microprocessor. The hardware is developed by RCI, Hyderabad and software by ADA.
* Display Processors (DP): DP is one of the mission critical software intensive LRUs of LCA. The DP drives two types of display surfaces viz. a monochrome Head Up display (HUD) and two colour multifunction displays (MFDs). The equipment is based on four Intel 80960 microprocessors. There are two DPs provided (one normal and one backup) in LCA. These units are developed by ADE, Bangalore
* Mission Preparation & Data Retrieval Unit (MPRU): MPRU is a data entry and retrieval unit of LCA Avionics architecture. The unit performs mission preparation and data retrieval functions. In the preparation mode, it transfers mission data prepared on Data Preparation Cartridge (DPC) with the help of ground compliment, to various Avionics equipment. In the second function, the MPRU receives data from various equipment during the Operational Flight Program (OFP) and stores data on Resident Cartridge Card (RCC). This unit is developed by LRDE, Bangalore.
* USMS Electronic Units: The following processor based digital Electronics Units (EU) are used for control and monitoring, data logging for fault diagnosis and maintenance.
o Environment Control System Controller (ECSC)
o Engine and Electrical Monitoring System Electronics Unit (EEMS-EU)
o Digital Fuel Monitoring System Electronics Unit (DFM-EU)
o Digital Hydraulics and Brake Management System Electronics Unit (DH-EU)
* V/UHF Equipment: V/UHF equipment is a secure jam resisant airborne radio communication set which provides simplex two way voice and data communication in the VHF and UHF frequency bands. This unit is developed by HAL, Hyderabad.
* Multi Function Keyboard (MFK): MFK is an interfce for pilot dialogue concerning certain selected equipment of Avionics system. It comprises LCD panel, alphanumeric keys, push buttions for power ON / OFF and LEDs indicating power ON / OFF status of certain Avionics equipment. This unit is developed by BEL, Bangalore.
* Head Up Display (HUD): HUD is of conventional type with a Total Field of View (TFOV) of 24 degrees circular. A Change Coupled Device (CCD) based camera is mounted on the HUD for recording purposes. HUD dsplays various navigation and weapon related data. This unit is developed by CSIO, Chandigarh.
* Colour Multi Function Displays (MFDs): LCD based colour MFDs hava a useful screen area of 125 mm x 125 mm. They have soft keys around their periphery for interaction with the systems. This display provides various aircraft system pages and navigation pages in addition to RADAR & FLIR display.

Digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System is another advanced feature of LCA. The unstable configuration of LCA demands a highly efficient Integrated Flight Control System (IFCS) to fly the aircraft. Control law resident in the flight control computer synthesises inputs from pilot's stick and rudder pedals with flight parameters from inertial and airdata measurements to generate commands to the actuators that move various control surfaces. The design of the control law is evaluated susing real-time flight simulator for acceptable flight handling qualities. The IFCS ensures stability, agility, manoeuvrability and carefree handling over the entire operating envelope of LCA. The Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) is the heart of IFCS, and uses a quadruplex redundant system to achieve high reliability and safety.

Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) activity is an integral part of the Software development process. From requirement specification to final testing, IV&V ensures correctness, consistency, completeness and adherence to MIL standards of the software.

The flight control system along with all the associated software is tested and validated at the iron-bird rig.

http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/aircraft-lca.html

Happy now?

[Pursuit Curve]

Flight Control and Software and Other Avionics
The LCA uses advanced digital fly-by-wire technology which essentially employs computers to optimise the aircraft's performance. Foreign companies were consulted. Infact, LCA avionics were first flight tested on a US F-16XL.

Witout the automatic flight control, the LCA will not be flyable, due to the Delta wing's inherent instability. As more and more flights are conducted, the software is updated to allow the aircraft to do more complex maneuvours.

To combat the threat of obsolescence in the LCA Programme, a concerted effort has been made to introduce an Open-architecture Avionics system which permits hardware scalability and upgradability to state-of-the-art technology levels with reusability of the software.

LCA Avionics architecture is configured around a three bus system (MIL-STD-1553B) in a distributed environment. The heart of the system is a 32-bit Mission Computer (MC) which performs mission oriented computations, flight management, reconfiguration / redundancy management and in-flight system self-tests. In compliance with MIL-STD-1521 and 2167A standards, Ada language has been adopted for mission computer software.Accurate navigation and guidance is realised through RLG based Inertial Navigation System (INS) with provision for INS / Global Positioning System (GPS) integration. Jam resistant radio commumication system with advanced Electronic Warfare (EW) environment. In the EW suite, Electromagnetic and Electroptic receivers and jammers provide the necessary "soft-kill" capability.
DFCS Computer

The digital FBW system of the LCA is built around a quadruplex redundant architecture to give it a fail op-fail op-fail safe capability. It employs a powerful Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) comprising four computing channels, each powered by an independent power supply and all housed in a single line replaceable unit (LRU). The system is designed to meet a probability of loss of control of better than 1x10-7 per flight hour. The DFCC channels are built around 32-bit microprocessors and use a safe subset of Ada language for the implementation of software. The DFCC receives signals from quad rate, acceleration sensors, pilot control stick, rudder pedal, triplex air data system, dual air flow angle sensors, etc. The DFCC channels excite and control the elevon, rudder and leading edge slat hydraulic actuators. The computer interfaces with pilot display elements like multifunction displays through MIL-STD-1553B avionics bus and RS 422 serial link.

For maintenance the aircraft has more than five hundred Line Replaceable Units (LRUs), each tested for performance and capability to meet the severe operational conditions to be encountered.

* Mission Computer(MC): MC performs the central processing functions apart from performing as Bus Controller and is the central core of the Avionics system. The hardware architecture is based on a dual 80386 based computer with dual port RAM for interprocessor communication. There are three dual redundant communication channels meeting with MIL-STD-1553B data bus specifications. The hardware unit development was done by ASIEO, Bangalore and Software Design & Development by ADA.
* Control & Coding Unit (CCU): In the normal mode, CCU provides real time I/O access which are essentially pilot's controls and power on controls for certain equipment. In the reversionary mode, when MC fails, CCU performs the central processing functions of MC. The CCU also generates voice warning signals. The main processor is Intel 80386 microprocessor. The hardware is developed by RCI, Hyderabad and software by ADA.
* Display Processors (DP): DP is one of the mission critical software intensive LRUs of LCA. The DP drives two types of display surfaces viz. a monochrome Head Up display (HUD) and two colour multifunction displays (MFDs). The equipment is based on four Intel 80960 microprocessors. There are two DPs provided (one normal and one backup) in LCA. These units are developed by ADE, Bangalore
* Mission Preparation & Data Retrieval Unit (MPRU): MPRU is a data entry and retrieval unit of LCA Avionics architecture. The unit performs mission preparation and data retrieval functions. In the preparation mode, it transfers mission data prepared on Data Preparation Cartridge (DPC) with the help of ground compliment, to various Avionics equipment. In the second function, the MPRU receives data from various equipment during the Operational Flight Program (OFP) and stores data on Resident Cartridge Card (RCC). This unit is developed by LRDE, Bangalore.
* USMS Electronic Units: The following processor based digital Electronics Units (EU) are used for control and monitoring, data logging for fault diagnosis and maintenance.
o Environment Control System Controller (ECSC)
o Engine and Electrical Monitoring System Electronics Unit (EEMS-EU)
o Digital Fuel Monitoring System Electronics Unit (DFM-EU)
o Digital Hydraulics and Brake Management System Electronics Unit (DH-EU)
* V/UHF Equipment: V/UHF equipment is a secure jam resisant airborne radio communication set which provides simplex two way voice and data communication in the VHF and UHF frequency bands. This unit is developed by HAL, Hyderabad.
* Multi Function Keyboard (MFK): MFK is an interfce for pilot dialogue concerning certain selected equipment of Avionics system. It comprises LCD panel, alphanumeric keys, push buttions for power ON / OFF and LEDs indicating power ON / OFF status of certain Avionics equipment. This unit is developed by BEL, Bangalore.
* Head Up Display (HUD): HUD is of conventional type with a Total Field of View (TFOV) of 24 degrees circular. A Change Coupled Device (CCD) based camera is mounted on the HUD for recording purposes. HUD dsplays various navigation and weapon related data. This unit is developed by CSIO, Chandigarh.
* Colour Multi Function Displays (MFDs): LCD based colour MFDs hava a useful screen area of 125 mm x 125 mm. They have soft keys around their periphery for interaction with the systems. This display provides various aircraft system pages and navigation pages in addition to RADAR & FLIR display.

Digital fly-by-wire Flight Control System is another advanced feature of LCA. The unstable configuration of LCA demands a highly efficient Integrated Flight Control System (IFCS) to fly the aircraft. Control law resident in the flight control computer synthesises inputs from pilot's stick and rudder pedals with flight parameters from inertial and airdata measurements to generate commands to the actuators that move various control surfaces. The design of the control law is evaluated susing real-time flight simulator for acceptable flight handling qualities. The IFCS ensures stability, agility, manoeuvrability and carefree handling over the entire operating envelope of LCA. The Digital Flight Control Computer (DFCC) is the heart of IFCS, and uses a quadruplex redundant system to achieve high reliability and safety.

Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) activity is an integral part of the Software development process. From requirement specification to final testing, IV&V ensures correctness, consistency, completeness and adherence to MIL standards of the software.

The flight control system along with all the associated software is tested and validated at the iron-bird rig.

http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/aircraft-lca.html

Happy now?


Okay, you have just described what FBW does, and has been doing for the last 26 years Srev.

[tphuang]

http://www.nal.res.in/pages/ipjun01.htm
actually, there are other links that state LCA's FBW software was tested on a F-16 simulator. Apparently, it worked alright. But that's simply saying that the software is passable for the task it is asked to do. At the same time, if I understood the test correctly, it was just using the simulator to make sure that the FBW software would work when it's put on LCA. Do you realize that you can't put LCA FBW software on a F-16 and expect it to do anything? This is common sense.

To be fair, quadriplex FBW is still quite a milestone (not many countries have the capability to develop a quadriplex FBW), but you are going to have to find something else to show that all of LCA's avionics was tested on F-16 XL and that improved the original performance by 30%. So far, we've only read that the FBW was tested out on a F-16 simulator, which is probably what happened. Your full claim really has no evidence.

[Aussie Digger]

Isn't this thread a discussion about the Royal Australian Air Force and it's ability to deal with the proliferation of SU-27/30 series Flankers within our region???

Why the LCA/F-16 discussion???

[Pursuit Curve]

Aussie, it seems to be the trend in forums now, and I am as guilty as the next guy.

I do not see any threat to Australia from the Su 30 pruchase, I would be more concerned from the Singapore F 15E purchase as this constitutes a real offensive capability. The Su 30, while on paper is potent, should be no problem when facing experienced and well trained pilots like the RAAF.

Does Australia have plans to get a AWACS system soon, ot do you already have one? That would be the greatest asset to have in my opinion when facing a SU 30.

[Aussie Digger]

Yep, Australia has 6x Wedgetail "pocket AWACS" on order. These will be extremely capable aircraft, combining almost the same level of radar and C2 capability as the E-3C AWACS, but into a smaller 737 based aircraft. Full (public) details and pics can be found here: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/737aewc/

In addition the RAAF is buying a new fleet of 5x Airbus A330-200 MRTT air to air refuelling aircraft, which will increase the range and persistence of our F-18 and AWACS fleets. Rumor has it that additional refuelling aircraft are to be ordered soon, possibly second hand Qantas aircraft (it's standardising on 787's), which are practically brand new, but are reputedly quite a bit cheaper than new-builds. An additional 3-5 have been proposed to be added to the RAAF fleet, giving us a pretty reasonable capability, should it happen...

[Big-E]

Yep, Australia has 6x Wedgetail "pocket AWACS" on order. These will be extremely capable aircraft, combining almost the same level of radar and C2 capability as the E-3C AWACS, but into a smaller 737 based aircraft. Full (public) details and pics can be found here: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/737aewc/

In addition the RAAF is buying a new fleet of 5x Airbus A330-200 MRTT air to air refuelling aircraft, which will increase the range and persistence of our F-18 and AWACS fleets. Rumor has it that additional refuelling aircraft are to be ordered soon, possibly second hand Qantas aircraft (it's standardising on 787's), which are practically brand new, but are reputedly quite a bit cheaper than new-builds. An additional 3-5 have been proposed to be added to the RAAF fleet, giving us a pretty reasonable capability, should it happen...

What is the furthest operational range of RAAF aircraft with tanker support from the mainland???

[srev2004]

Okay, you have just described what FBW does, and has been doing for the last 26 years Srev.

All i wanted to prove was that the FBW was tested on F16 simulator.

[umair]

Listen up srev2004. What you are harping on about has been refuted by atleast two people in the know of things. Gary(gf0012) and Pshamim both of whom have either worked or are still (in Gary's case) working in the defence industry and would safely still know more than a "HAL Intern" .

And as for Cope India and DACT, this one example may open you'r eyes(again it may not). In 1978 a series of DACT exercises was held between the USAF and PAF involving F-111s,F-4s and the uber fighter of that time the F-15.

PAF Mirages and F-6s scored numerous kills against the F-15s. Wow! so now does that mean that in reality an F-6 could've sat prettily on an Eagle's six?:rolleyes: Go figure Einstien.:duel

And get back to the topic, that is Australia and it's neighbourhood Sukhois.

[Aussie Digger]

What is the furthest operational range of RAAF aircraft with tanker support from the mainland???

Depends how many aircraft are involved, how many tankers are employed, how much ordnance/targetting pods is being carried etc. 1x "clean" F/A-18A and ALL five tankers could probably fly to 5-7000k's and back again with no trouble.

A strike force of 8 aircraft, plus 4-8 escorts for instance, would be quite a bit different. 1000-1500k's may be lucky in those circumstances.

[SABRE]

And as for Cope India and DACT, this one example may open you'r eyes(again it may not). In 1978 a series of DACT exercises was held between the USAF and PAF involving F-111s,F-4s and the uber fighter of that time the F-15.

PAF Mirages and F-6s scored numerous kills against the F-15s. Wow! so now does that mean that in reality an F-6 could've sat prettily on an Eagle's six?images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Go figure Einstien

couple of F-7s got score against USNavy's F-14 not long ago (Pic of PAF F-7 flying with USNavy's F-14 available on DT)... if multinational-airforce war games and exercise make one country's airforce better than the other or rather say one aircraft better than the other, than considering F-7 scoring against F-14 makes it superior to Su-30. lol.

Anyways coming back to topic, why doesnt Australia operate more than 1 fighter in a High-Low possition? They are going for JSF for a multirole aircraft, than why not go for EF-2000 (or may be a sqdn or two of F-22, if US is willing and roumers are true that they will sell to trusted allies) for air superiority. That is if they realy think Indonaisan Su-30s are any threat to them. Other option is to get the F-18 MLUed and get more Air to Air capability for it and operate them with JSF in future. I hope they are not phasing all F-18s out after JSF induction.

[Aussie Digger]

The RAAF doesn't seem to think that the Typhoon WOULD provide the "hi" part of the HiLo mix. It appears convinced that the JSF will be second to none in strike/recce/CAS missions and second only to the F-22 in A2A combat. As such, it sees little point in investing it's limited resources, in aircraft of what it views as a lesser capability.

Our current generation F/A-18's are undergoing the final stages of being upgraded (MLU'd, if you like). This program is upgrading them about as far as they realistically can be. The aircraft are actually being completely stripped and re-built with a new "centre barrel", which is basically an entirely new fuselage.

The Head of Boeing recently described Australia's Hornets as the "best" legacy Hornets (not including Super Hornets) in the world. Which is a pretty fair complement considering the users of "legacy" F/A-18 (US Navy, US Marine Corps, Spain, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Malaysia and Kuwait).

With the new weapons coming on board (JDAM and JASSM) and other recent weapons and targetting pod upgrades (AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM and AIM-132 ASRAAM, Harpoon Block II, Litening AT targetting pods), plus our "force multipliers (Wedgetail AWACS, A330MRTT A2A refuellers, etc) our Hornets are extremely well placed to counter any realistic threat to Australia, including regional SU-27/30 series purchases.

The only real issues I have with the path the Government and RAAF have chosen, is that Australia will only operate 71 F/A-18A/B Hornets as it's combat aircraft, with only around 57 operational airframes (the rest are for training, development and attrition birds).

If we are REQUIRED to conduct concurrent operations over a dispersed area, we are going to be very thin on the ground, (particularly with the cancellation of the medium ranged ground based air defence project). I would like to see Australia acquire sufficient additional airframes, to form another fighter Sqn based on the F/A-18 platform.

I just read the latest AirForces Monthly magazine (May 06). Apparently Bulgaria has just been offered the sale of up to 24 second-hand F/A-18C/D Hornets by the US, with these aircraft having significant airframe life left. Similar C/D model aircraft would be pretty close to the standard of the RAAF's Bugs and would do the job nicely IMHO. (The point being that the US obviously has "legacy" Hornets to spare and available for sale)...

I'd also like to see a sufficient F-35 purchase to equip at least 4 and preferrably 5 frontline fighter Sqn's (as per the Kokoda Foundation report) to ensure our ability to operate concurrently or in dispersed operations. If this costs more (as is likely) well bugger it. Peter Costello is sitting on an $11.6 BILLION surplus like Scrooge McDuck.

Pry some of that out from under him...

[Magoo]

Just to amuse Srev for a moment, when he talks about the F-16XL being reprogrammed to test the LCA's software, I think he means the NF-16D variable stability in-flight simulator, or 'VISTA'.

The VISTA is an F-16 airframe which is basically a re-programmable flying simulator. It is operated by the US Test Pilot's School at Edwards, and is used to test FCS software for new aircraft, including UAVs, JSF, F-22, and I presume LCA.

Here's a pic...

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/simulators/Tech38G7.jpg

Some other links...

http://www.stormingmedia.us/54/5473/A547343.html

http://www.edwards.af.mil/tps/vista/VISTA-21st%20Century%20UAV%20Testbed.pdf#search='NF16D%2 0VISTA'

http://www.edwards.af.mil/tps/vista.htm

http://www.tireresearch.com/pdfs/VISTA062705.pdf#search='NF16D%20VISTA'

And this brief explanation from f-16.net...

VISTA program
In 1988, a contract was awarded to General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division to develop the VISTA (Variable stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft). Calspan, a subcontractor to GD, installed a center stick and integrated the computers needed to perform variable stability flights. Wright Labs bought the aircraft in 1988 and from 1988 until 1992, the VISTA/F-16 program was being accomplished. There was no connection between thrust vectoring and VISTA/F-16 at this time.
The VISTA F-16D was redesignated NF-16D, the N prefix meaning that the aircraft had a special test status and that the modifications were sufficiently drastic that it would be impractical to restore the plane to its original condition. The NF-16D has two variable feel sticks.
The sidestick is over on the console, while the center stick is mounted on a short pedestal between the pilot's knees. The upfront controller had to be remove to put the center stick in, but since the VISTA is a research plane and not a fighter, the loss was acceptable. Both sticks can be either force or motion sticks, with complete control of force gradients, shaping and range of motion.
Three Rolm hawk computers, mounted in the aircraft's dorsal fin, provide the variable stability functions and make VISTA an in-flight simulator. The computer system monitors the pilot's inputs and then moves the aircraft's control surfaces to produce the required motions. The controls to access the computer to change flight characteristics and engage the front seat controls are mounted in the back seat. The Variable Stability System (VSS) commands symmetric and asymmetric horizontal tail movement, symmetric and asymmetric flaperon movement, rudder and throttle control. The only surfaces not controlled by the VSS are the leading edge flaps and speedbrakes.
Other modifications included in the VISTA configuration include heavy weight landing gear and a larger capacity hydraulic pump and lines to accommodate the increased surface motions needed to simulate other aircraft.
The program objectives itself included the demonstration of the tactical utility of thrust vectoring in close-in air combat and in the use of integrated control of thrust vectoring in flight. The aircraft has demonstrated a steady angle of attack of as much as 86 degrees and a transient angle of attack of up to 180 degrees. In other words, the aircraft can fly BACKWARDS for a brief time. Thrust vectoring provides a significant advantage in terms of bringing armament to bear on a threat more quickly and in avoiding the risk of departure from controlled flight during violent maneuvers. However, the use of really high AoA maneuvers should only be a last-ditch operation in aerial combat in view of the increased vulnerability of the aircraft when it is in a low-energy state.

Now, back to the subject at hand... Flankers, right?

Magoo

[srev2004]

Just to amuse Srev for a moment, when he talks about the F-16XL being reprogrammed to test the LCA's software, I think he means the NF-16D variable stability in-flight simulator, or 'VISTA'.

The VISTA is an F-16 airframe which is basically a re-programmable flying simulator. It is operated by the US Test Pilot's School at Edwards, and is used to test FCS software for new aircraft, including UAVs, JSF, F-22, and I presume LCA.

Here's a pic...

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/simulators/Tech38G7.jpg

Some other links...

http://www.stormingmedia.us/54/5473/A547343.html

http://www.edwards.af.mil/tps/vista/VISTA-21st%20Century%20UAV%20Testbed.pdf#search='NF16D%2 0VISTA'

http://www.edwards.af.mil/tps/vista.htm

http://www.tireresearch.com/pdfs/VISTA062705.pdf#search='NF16D%20VISTA'

And this brief explanation from f-16.net...

VISTA program
In 1988, a contract was awarded to General Dynamics, Fort Worth Division to develop the VISTA (Variable stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft). Calspan, a subcontractor to GD, installed a center stick and integrated the computers needed to perform variable stability flights. Wright Labs bought the aircraft in 1988 and from 1988 until 1992, the VISTA/F-16 program was being accomplished. There was no connection between thrust vectoring and VISTA/F-16 at this time.
The VISTA F-16D was redesignated NF-16D, the N prefix meaning that the aircraft had a special test status and that the modifications were sufficiently drastic that it would be impractical to restore the plane to its original condition. The NF-16D has two variable feel sticks.
The sidestick is over on the console, while the center stick is mounted on a short pedestal between the pilot's knees. The upfront controller had to be remove to put the center stick in, but since the VISTA is a research plane and not a fighter, the loss was acceptable. Both sticks can be either force or motion sticks, with complete control of force gradients, shaping and range of motion.
Three Rolm hawk computers, mounted in the aircraft's dorsal fin, provide the variable stability functions and make VISTA an in-flight simulator. The computer system monitors the pilot's inputs and then moves the aircraft's control surfaces to produce the required motions. The controls to access the computer to change flight characteristics and engage the front seat controls are mounted in the back seat. The Variable Stability System (VSS) commands symmetric and asymmetric horizontal tail movement, symmetric and asymmetric flaperon movement, rudder and throttle control. The only surfaces not controlled by the VSS are the leading edge flaps and speedbrakes.
Other modifications included in the VISTA configuration include heavy weight landing gear and a larger capacity hydraulic pump and lines to accommodate the increased surface motions needed to simulate other aircraft.
The program objectives itself included the demonstration of the tactical utility of thrust vectoring in close-in air combat and in the use of integrated control of thrust vectoring in flight. The aircraft has demonstrated a steady angle of attack of as much as 86 degrees and a transient angle of attack of up to 180 degrees. In other words, the aircraft can fly BACKWARDS for a brief time. Thrust vectoring provides a significant advantage in terms of bringing armament to bear on a threat more quickly and in avoiding the risk of departure from controlled flight during violent maneuvers. However, the use of really high AoA maneuvers should only be a last-ditch operation in aerial combat in view of the increased vulnerability of the aircraft when it is in a low-energy state.

Now, back to the subject at hand... Flankers, right?

Magoo

Thank you.

[srev2004]

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Aug03.pdf

This is what Australia has to say about our flankers. It is equivalent to the F-15 E/I/K/S. Thanks for your time. I'd appreciate it if you guys read it before trying to debunk anything.

"
At the induction ceremony, the IAF could barely hide its excitement as was evident from an official statement released on the occasion: "...the Su-30MKI offers a comprehensive package that combines super manoeuverability with lethal firepower, making it an excellent instrument of deterrence as well as power projection at long ranges. Its state-of-the-art avionics suite, modern cockpit and integrated fire control system would ensure decisive response to any air opposition in the foreseeable future. In view of its ability to undertake a wide variety of missions, undeterred by any opposition, the aircraft can be aptly termed as an Air Dominance Fighter. This is the order-of-combat-aircraft that other combat aircraft in the world are measured against. Indeed, barring the F/A-22 for the USAF, there is not a fighter in the world that is in sum, better than the Su-30MKI today. The IAF is proud and grateful to the nation and the Ministry of Defence for having filled a void in its inventory so magnificently"."


We are the only country in the world to have an ocean named after us. The Indian ocean, and there is a reason no one contests that name.

[Magoo]

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Aug03.pdf

This is what Australia has to say about our flankers. It is equivalent to the F-15 E/I/K/S. Thanks for your time. I'd appreciate it if you guys read it before trying to debunk anything.

No, this is what Carlo Kopp has to say about what India says about its Flankers, NOT what Australia says. Dr Kopp runs his own 'thinktank' under the 'ausairpower' banner, but many of Dr Kopp's theories and thoughts have been debunked by the ADF and by many other observers and analysts, many of whom are regular contributors here.

The RAAF's and the government's position is that the Flankers entering service in the region are neither politically nor capability-wise considered as threats due to their limited numbers, lack of precision guided weapons, lack of networking, lack of training, and lack of political conflict.

Magoo

[Big-E]

The RAAF's and the government's position is that the Flankers entering service in the region are neither politically nor capability-wise considered as threats due to their limited numbers, lack of precision guided weapons, lack of networking, lack of training, and lack of political conflict.

Magoo

Don't you just hate propoganda? :rel

[gf0012-aust]

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Aug03.pdf

This is what Australia has to say about our flankers. It is equivalent to the F-15 E/I/K/S. Thanks for your time. I'd appreciate it if you guys read it before trying to debunk anything.

You obviously know very little about how much credibility Carlo Kopp has in military circles. He is australias version of Riccioni, Meyers and Sparks.

He also thinks that Australia is about to be attacked by India and China (ever heard of logistics bub?)

Mr Kopp (who is a very good mobile phone engineer) was comprehensively smacked about in the recent Joint Senate Committee hearings when he was trying to promote his "Super F-111" (again) as a solution to the (again) non existent Su-27/30 threat.

Its also worthwhile pointing out that Kopp does not have any of the requisite security clearances that would allow him to support his often bizaare and factually denuded claims

But, he is a very good communications engineer, and he does excellent graphics.

Carlo obviously dislikes indians and chinese, and that truncated view of the strategic environment colours his analysis of threats to the extent where he convinces the amateurs, but confirms for the "real ones" - that he's short on facts and original ideas as well as structured and considered debate.

When you wish to quote foreign sources, it sometimes pays to understand the credibility level of those you quote. refer to Sparks and Meyers for examples.

[Occum]

Don't you just hate propoganda? :rel

***************************
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magoo

The RAAF's and the government's position is that the Flankers entering service in the region are neither politically nor capability-wise considered as threats due to their limited numbers, lack of precision guided weapons, lack of networking, lack of training, and lack of political conflict.

Magoo
***************************

Sadly, it seems some folks down here truly believe this. Of equal concern is the apparent difficulty to project out to 2015 and beyond in terms of likely capability rankings in the region.

As to the point on 'debunking', am working <slowly> through the evidence from 2004 inquiry, related documents from Defence, and the latest inquiry into air superiority.

As reported, the 2004 inquiry unanimously recommended there needed to be the one that is now happening. Then Defence Minister, Senator Hill, rejected the Committee's recommendation. The Senate then referred their previously recommended inquiry back to the Joint Standing Committee, overruling Senator Hill. Have yet to find anything substantive which debunks the contrary view being put to that of Defence.

The Defence papers, 'RAAF Air Combat Capability' (June 2004) and 'Is the JSF Good Enough' are the only Defence documents found (other than the transcripts of hearings). The data in these would seem to support the contrary arguments -

For example -


Half the strike capability post 2010 (refer Figure 3 in RAAF Air Combat Capability paper).
Total operating expense of F-111 out to 2020 is stated as A$2.5bn to A$3.5bn, including upgrades such as EWSP/RWR and JASSM while F/A-18 HUG+ upgrade is costing about this much, according to the Defence Capability Plan, to get the aircraft out to 2015, not including operating and maintenance expenses.
CAF states in the Strategic Insight that 'The F/A-22 will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built. It may even represent the end of the line in manned fighters. Every fighter pilot in the Air Force would dearly love to fly it.'


Can someone point to where this 'debunking' may be found?

By the way, what is the total annual cost (ie. total operating expenses) for operating and maintaining the F/A-18s?


:)

[Supe]

Carlo obviously dislikes indians and chinese

Could you be more specific? That comment is open to interpretation and implies a sort of racist view from Kopp.

[Aussie Digger]

***************************
Quote:

***************************

Sadly, it seems some folks down here truly believe this. Of equal concern is the apparent difficulty to project out to 2015 and beyond in terms of likely capability rankings in the region.

As to the point on 'debunking', am working <slowly> through the evidence from 2004 inquiry, related documents from Defence, and the latest inquiry into air superiority.

As reported, the 2004 inquiry unanimously recommended there needed to be the one that is now happening. Then Defence Minister, Senator Hill, rejected the Committee's recommendation. The Senate then referred their previously recommended inquiry back to the Joint Standing Committee, overruling Senator Hill. Have yet to find anything substantive which debunks the contrary view being put to that of Defence.

The Defence papers, 'RAAF Air Combat Capability' (June 2004) and 'Is the JSF Good Enough' are the only Defence documents found (other than the transcripts of hearings). The data in these would seem to support the contrary arguments -

For example -

Half the strike capability post 2010 (refer Figure 3 in RAAF Air Combat Capability paper).
Total operating expense of F-111 out to 2020 is stated as A$2.5bn to A$3.5bn, including upgrades such as EWSP/RWR and JASSM while F/A-18 HUG+ upgrade is costing about this much, according to the Defence Capability Plan, to get the aircraft out to 2015, not including operating and maintenance expenses.
CAF states in the Strategic Insight that 'The F/A-22 will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built. It may even represent the end of the line in manned fighters. Every fighter pilot in the Air Force would dearly love to fly it.'
Can someone point to where this 'debunking' may be found?

By the way, what is the total annual cost (ie. total operating expenses) for operating and maintaining the F/A-18s?


:)

Sure thing, it's right here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs.htm

and here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/hearings.htm

Annual cost for operating RAAF F/A-18's is about $4-5m per aircraft per year, IIRC, which I may not. They can be found in defence annual reports at the defence force website, however require a bit of wading through and I can't be bothered at present...

As to the retiring of the F-111's an interesting point was brought up recently, by Defmin Nelson I believe, which I never bothered considering before is the issue of actually introducing a new capability.

If you continue to operate a capability, when your are attempting to convert over to the new capability, where are you supposed to find the facilities and persons who are supposed to operate your new capability???

From interviews with DefMin NELSON, it seems that 1 Sqn (current operational F-111 Sqn) will be the first operational unit to acquire the F-35. The personnel from this unit, once the F-111 is retired will be concentrating on getting prepared for the F-35 capability. I'd imagine that they will at times deploy to the USA for training, etc because the first RAAF F-35's will trained upon in the USA, as they apparently won't be allowed "outside" the USA. If large portions of the Sqn are in the USA, training for F-35, they won't be operating F-111's anyway, even if they were available...

[contedicavour]

In an age where stand-off cruise missiles are all the rage, it is easy to forget that some missions still require a jet to get real close to a target, through heavy AAW defenses, in all weather conditions and potentially at night.
For those missions there were wonderful fighterbombers such as the A6 Intruder (may it rest in peace;) ), the F-111 (only Australia still has it operational) and of course the Tornado IDS.
Once an air force replaces these jets with less "specific" fighters such as F-15E, advanced versions of the F-16 or of the F-18, or even with tomorrow's JSF, I wonder if we are not losing a whole set of capabilities ... :confused:

cheers

[Big-E]

or even with tomorrow's JSF, I wonder if we are not losing a whole set of capabilities ... :confused:

cheers

The only capability they lose is the one where they get shot down.:o

[pshamim]

Basis of this thread is purely hypothetical.
Australia has a very powerful force even with the assetts it currently posseses. There have been talk of alleged threats by Indonesia. But Indonesia neither has a Naval Force nor an Air Force capable enough to mount a threat against Australia.

Australian Government has ascertained that there are no credible threats to Australia for the next 15 years. There are surely security threats after the 9/11 but F-15s/F-111 etc are not expected to be a part to combat it. Internal security threats yes but externel military threats no.

It looks more and more that this thread eas started to talk about Flankers abd not threats to Australia. Many who may have Flankers found this thread to boast about Flankers and please themselves.

All this talk about Flankers being a threat to Australia has not been anything but to be boastful.

Australia does not plan to invade any country but all its assetts are more than capable to defend its territory and vipe out its adversary-no matter who they are.

Web: This thread needs to be closed.

[SABRE]

In an age where stand-off cruise missiles are all the rage, it is easy to forget that some missions still require a jet to get real close to a target, through heavy AAW defenses, in all weather conditions and potentially at night.
For those missions there were wonderful fighterbombers such as the A6 Intruder (may it rest in peace;) ), the F-111 (only Australia still has it operational) and of course the Tornado IDS.
Once an air force replaces these jets with less "specific" fighters such as F-15E, advanced versions of the F-16 or of the F-18, or even with tomorrow's JSF, I wonder if we are not losing a whole set of capabilities ... :confused:

cheers

The age of free fall bombing is at the edge of the end line. Its verually over. It is being replaced by Precision guided and other smart missiles and bombs. Many times free fall bombing uses more bombs than required and destroys more than what is targeted. So the only capability being lost is the one considered as a 'draw back of bombing.' The Australian Pig (F-111) has got to go sooner or later. JSF will be a proper replacement. Its ground attack capability is quite good, specially for carrying guided/smart weapons.