F-15 pilot talks about SU-30MKI at Red Flag [Archive]

gf0012-aust

November 6th, 2008, 01:22 AM

i want to see that shoot, and i really want to see that pilot who will NOT maneuver when he have an enemy in his tail.

and yes, i have seen the marketing video.

What video??

You seem to have missed the discussion over the last few months about how sig management, systems co-operation and VLO gives the pilot the option to exit the fight.

Biggles manouvres finished years ago - it's why exercises such as Red Flag and Blue Flag are run - it enables air forces to redefine the way they can fight.

This thread (or posters) is/are going to have a very very short life if it continues down the "throw away" inane response path.

technology forces change - it's been that way since the B-45 triggered LO jet powered solutions.

Abraham Gubler

November 6th, 2008, 01:51 AM

nice vid.

Some interesting tidbits in that presento. The Tumansky engine can’t handle FOD so FLANKERS can only take off 45-60 seconds after another aircraft has used that runway. No wonder the Chinese are building so many airfields, they need one for each fighter.

That the TVC on an F-22 causes so much drag its arse sinks and it can’t climb. That TVC on a FLANKER causes so much drag that the entire aircraft starts to fall out of the sky!

That without the right data links having an aircraft in your coalition air battle force is very dangerous as they will fratricide you.

Also some reinforcements of well known facts. The French are looking after the French first and they don’t mind showing up as long as they don’t have to participate and can sit around soaking up intelligence. That the Indians are professional and capable but hamstrung by some crap Russian kit.

Abraham Gubler

November 6th, 2008, 01:55 AM

i want to see that shoot, and i really want to see that pilot who will NOT maneuver when he have an enemy in his tail.

I'm not sure what you are getting at about the enemy on the tail? The flight profile is two aircraft head to head flying past each other (like a game of chicken) which is called the merge. With current fighters they will each turn and try and quickly bring the enemy into their frontal arc for a missile or gun shot. Or do some other maneuver to achieve the same aim (why the buzz about the Pugachev Cobra).

Neither aircraft is on the tail of the other. The F-35 at the merge doesn't have to maneuver it just fires a missile over the shoulder at the other fighter that is trying to maneuver so it can engage the F-35.

cobzz

November 6th, 2008, 02:02 AM

I uploaded the video. It was linked to me by a fellow aviation enthusiast! Not sure whether I should delete it or not? In either case, if I do decide to delete it, you can still view it here...: YouTube - Indo-US Red Flag Air Force Exercise Lecture 2008 Part 1

The engines are NPO Saturn AL-31FP, not Tumansky.

This video shows three of them taking off in a little over a minute....?
YouTube - IAF SU-30MKI Launch and Recovery

And I believe he was saying that the Su-35 is slightly better than legacy fighters, and only lost because relative inexperiance. They were going up against the Aggressors...

Abraham Gubler

November 6th, 2008, 02:19 AM

The engines are NPO Saturn AL-31FP, not Tumansky.

This video shows three of them taking off in a little over a minute....?

That's a typical mistake from most defence professionals. You're actually considered pretty wired in the world of defence if you know what the name of everything actually is, ie defence is your job and your hobby.

The video does not show three FLANKERS taking off from the same runway in about a minute. It shows three FLANKERS flying out of a single airbase in about a minute. Each aircraft looks to be taking off from different parallel runways based on their size (ie distance from the camera) as they pass that first tree.

Abraham Gubler

November 6th, 2008, 02:22 AM

And I believe he was saying that the Su-35 is slightly better than legacy fighters, and only lost because relative inexperiance. They were going up against the Aggressors...

Not at all. He was saying that with the right tactics SU-30MK TVC does not provide an WVR advantage because of the drag it causes. He was also saying the PESA radar is inferior and the FLANKER being a big, high RCS aircraft has to do a lot jinking and jamming to even get to the merge (which is wishful thinking).

hellfire

November 6th, 2008, 02:52 AM

gf0012-aust

November 6th, 2008, 03:01 AM

but he did conclude that it is overall a better fighter then legacy fighters and the su30mki will always win in a engagement vs f15,f16 and other fighters.

it was wrt conventional legacy platforms in those families - slight difference.

he said PESA was inferior to AESA, another thing is i never knew they had so much respect for the MIG 21 bison.

well, the RAF learnt that when they went OPFOR against the Romanian Israeli modified "Lancers" (Mod Mig-21's) a few years ago.

with experienced pilots they are still a lethal little plane - unfort they also have a propensity to kill new pilots and are unforgiving with inexperienced pilots. (eg India had a huge problem with her originals)

cobzz

November 6th, 2008, 05:23 AM

Abraham Gubler

November 6th, 2008, 06:16 AM

This is what he said...:

Only in relation to WVR combat. The FLANKERS are going to get thumped in the first 1-3 minutes of ATA when its BVR.

funtz

November 6th, 2008, 07:12 AM

JohanGrön

November 6th, 2008, 07:57 AM

So TVC sucks more than it helps, got that.

Not quite, depends on the drag induced by the airplane and the inexperience of the crews in handling it right.

For example the F-22 wouldn't be able to have a ~28 (26-28) degree sustained turn rate without it's TVC and the Su-30 MKI wouldn't be able to have a ~24 (22-24) degree sustained turn rate without it's TVC (when/if mastered by it's pilots).

The problem arises when the ride is pushed beyond it's limits, then it have it's turn axis in the nose and the "ass" drops and in the case of the Raptor it starts to climb (not sustainable) and the opponent have a little timewindow (not sure if it's the correct english term, makes perfect sense in swedish though) when it can outclimb it and dive at it from above. In the case of the Su-30 MKI it's not even going to climb but simply falls out of the sky so the opponent just have to ease on the stick and dive in on it.

[EDIT] In the case of the IAF Su-30 MKI the TVC has its own finite lifetime and warranty and the IAF only employs it when absolutely required. Dunno about the lifetime of the Raptor TVC though.

What is IAF doing preparing for Israeli AWACS and with a data link that can not connect with an AWAC? (or is it a data link that can not connect to a US/NATO AWAC?)

The MKI has its own data link which was/is/never will be intended to work with anything that NATO has, it was after all designed against them (of Russian manufacture). That does not mean that it does not work with what intended to work with: Phalcon and the DRDO AEW

cobzz

November 6th, 2008, 08:23 AM

SU-30MKI is an unstable aircraft. In an unstable aircraft, the horizontal stab WILL be creating lift, even in a turn (Or else it would flip end over end)... Therefore, would pushing the tail down with TVC really help turn performance?

Aussie Digger

November 6th, 2008, 09:06 AM

but he did conclude that it is overall a better fighter then legacy fighters and the su30mki will always win in a engagement vs f15,f16 and other fighters.
he said PESA was inferior to AESA, another thing is i never knew they had so much respect for the MIG 21 bison.

No aircraft is "always win in a engagement". Air combat depends on SO many variables. It is NEVER a case of aircraft A v aircraft B with both aircraft completely independent of any supporting systems.

GCI, AEW&C, Air to Air refuelling, other C4ISREW assets, supporting aircraft, GBAD / sea based systems etc. They ALL have to be added into the mix.

On top of this, this person was ONLY speaking of within visual range air engagements. He said nothing of beyond visual range air to air combat and THAT is what Western Air Forces concentrate on.

If you've got excellent detection capabilities and excellent long range missiles, why on Earth would you not use these capabilities, but rather go into the merge?

funtz

November 6th, 2008, 09:34 AM

Not quite, depends on the drag induced by the airplane and the inexperience of the crews in handling it right.

For example the F-22 wouldn't be able to have a ~28 (26-28) degree sustained turn rate without it's TVC and the Su-30 MKI wouldn't be able to have a ~24 (22-24) degree sustained turn rate without it's TVC (when/if mastered by it's pilots).

The problem arises when the ride is pushed beyond it's limits, then it have it's turn axis in the nose and the "ass" drops and in the case of the Raptor it starts to climb (not sustainable) and the opponent have a little timewindow (not sure if it's the correct english term, makes perfect sense in swedish though) when it can outclimb it and dive at it from above. In the case of the Su-30 MKI it's not even going to climb but simply falls out of the sky so the opponent just have to ease on the stick and dive in on it.

[EDIT] In the case of the IAF Su-30 MKI the TVC has its own finite lifetime and warranty and the IAF only employes it when absolutely required. Dunno about the lifetime of the Raptor TVC though.

So its know what you do before you do etc. etc.

Well the money for the Red Flag came in handy, one thing they know not to do in combat.

The MKI has its own data link which was/is/never will be intended to work with anything that NATO has, it was after all designed against them (of Russian manufacture). That does not mean that it does not work with what intended to work with: Phalcon and the DRDO AEW

That is what is confusing me even more, all these different type of planes, Russians (Mig-Su), French (Mirage2K), lets assume US (from MMRCA), and a late induction of LCA, what happens to all the data links in all these platforms have to be made operational with the Phalcons and the DRDO AEW planes?

I think some time back in the A-50I program they must have thought of that, so what did they do about it?

What about the Logistics Problem, sending a engine to Russia for repair/modifications that has to be a whole six months at least, these problems seem to me to be more important than buying new planes.

Haavarla

November 6th, 2008, 10:25 AM

What about the Logistics Problem, sending a engine to Russia for repair/modifications that has to be a whole six months at least, these problems seem to me to be more important than buying new planes.[/QUOTE]

I would imagine they get a new engine in return "pronto" for the damage engine they send to Russia..
Still it's not an ideal situation for the IAF.

The Indian pilots(regulars) where inexperienced in the Red Flag.
The last Copa Air India was a different story, the Su-30MKI gave the F-16C's a decent fight.

One thing i don't understand is that the Su-30MKI has seldom use for ext fuel tanks given the big int fuel capasity, but the F-15 & F-16 often do..
Doesn't that give the Su-30MKI an advantage in the "Merge"?

JohanGrön

November 6th, 2008, 10:31 AM

The last Copa Air India was a different story, the Su-30MKI gave the F-16C's a decent fight.

I think it was F-15:s the IAF trained against at Cope India.

hellfire

November 6th, 2008, 10:45 AM

No aircraft is "always win in a engagement". Air combat depends on SO many variables. It is NEVER a case of aircraft A v aircraft B with both aircraft completely independent of any supporting systems.

GCI, AEW&C, Air to Air refuelling, other C4ISREW assets, supporting aircraft, GBAD / sea based systems etc. They ALL have to be added into the mix.

On top of this, this person was ONLY speaking of within visual range air engagements. He said nothing of beyond visual range air to air combat and THAT is what Western Air Forces concentrate on.

If you've got excellent detection capabilities and excellent long range missiles, why on Earth would you not use these capabilities, but rather go into the merge?

well yeah i mean all the stuff like AEW&C,A to A refuelling etc matters,but the US F15 pilot did say "they will able to beat the F15 and F16 on regular basis" once the Su30 pilots know their planes better.

funtz

November 6th, 2008, 10:54 AM

I would imagine they get a new engine in return "pronto" for the damage engine they send to Russia..
Still it's not an ideal situation for the IAF.

The Indian pilots(regulars) where inexperienced in the Red Flag.
The last Copa Air India was a different story, the Su-30MKI gave the F-16C's a decent fight.

One thing i don't understand is that the Su-30MKI has seldom use for ext fuel tanks given the big int fuel capasity, but the F-15 & F-16 often do..
Doesn't that give the Su-30MKI an advantage in the "Merge"?

This is India, if a engine has trouble it might be a whole project sending it to Russia and the whole excercise seems to take too much time on both ends, as has been shown before with news of other aircrafts.

Again this seems to contradict the HAL( Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) website they claim to have the AL-31 FP engine in Current Manufacturing Range
Source: http://www.hal-india.com/EngineKoraput/products.asp

In which case, why send the Engines to Russia, unless they are not fully operational/just assembling the parts coming in from Russia, (again in which case, why not just replace the parts in india.)

funtz

November 6th, 2008, 10:59 AM

I think it was F-15:s the IAF trained against at Cope India.
Cope India 2004,
USAF: F-15, InAF: SU-30K Flanker, Mirage 2000, MIG-29 Fulcrum, MIG-27 Flogger and MIG-21 Bison

Cope India 2006,
USAF:F-16, InAF: Su-30 MKI, MiG-21 Bison, Mirage 2000, MiG-29 Fulcrum, and MiG-27 Flogger.

Also, no news from quoted and named IAF sources in 06, in 04 some US defence report came out with reports of the engagements.

Haavarla

November 6th, 2008, 11:46 AM

Cope India 2004,
USAF: F-15, InAF: SU-30K Flanker, Mirage 2000, MIG-29 Fulcrum, MIG-27 Flogger and MIG-21 Bison

Cope India 2006,
USAF:F-16, InAF: Su-30 MKI, MiG-21 Bison, Mirage 2000, MiG-29 Fulcrum, and MiG-27 Flogger.

Also, no news from quoted and named IAF sources in 06, in 04 some US defence report came out with reports of the engagements.

It is not considerated fair/polite for pilots to talk about the "score & count" etc.. from these engagement to the press.
Thats why there's little info about cope India..
These exercises main purpose is to improve the overall skill for the pilots.

Red

November 6th, 2008, 11:47 AM

Goodness, Cope India are DACTs. They are not exercises to show which aircraft is best. Unless you are privy to what actually went on and know all the facts, it is even pointless to refer to it as it will just be speculative.

The administrators and moderators of this board have professionally "stickied" a thread on this even;

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1157

The pilot was obviously talking about legacy versions of current Western aircrafts. Not the upgraded ones. Not the 4.5 version ones with Aesas et al; Hornets, Eagles, Vipers, etc

Vivendi

November 6th, 2008, 12:47 PM

On top of this, this person was ONLY speaking of within visual range air engagements. He said nothing of beyond visual range air to air combat and THAT is what Western Air Forces concentrate on.

If you've got excellent detection capabilities and excellent long range missiles, why on Earth would you not use these capabilities, but rather go into the merge?
He did mention the MIG-21 with Israeli jamming equipment and that they were "invisible" to F-15/16 until merge... due to a combination of low RCS and jamming.

He even hinted that F-22 should keep the gun in case it encountered a MIG-21 with Israeli jamming equipment.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/RED11058.xml&headline=USAF%20Pilot%20Critiques%20Red%20Flag%20A ction

He praised the F-22 as the next great dogfighter. But he faulted the fact that it carries too few missiles and contends that the on-board cannon could be a life-saver, particularly against aircraft like the MiG-21 Bison flown by the Indians. It has a small radar cross section, as well as an Israeli-made F-16 radar and jammer. The latter makes them "almost invisible to legacy F-15C and F-16 radars" until the aerial merge or until it fires one of its Archer, active radar missiles, the U.S. pilot says.

Perhaps those low-RCS eurocanards with sophisticated EW turn out to be quite survivable after all :) At least if they stay away from F-22s and F-35s.

Vivendi

aayiliam

November 6th, 2008, 01:41 PM

This is my personal view and as such i dont have much knowdege regarding air war

i dont know if we can compare SU-30 MKI with F-15 as mostly the Flankers will be used as bombers and not as airsuperiority planes there will be other planes accompanying them to fulfill this role and the anti-aircraft machinery will be only used for directing other fighters and for self-defence.

Abraham Gubler

November 6th, 2008, 05:11 PM

Perhaps those low-RCS eurocanards with sophisticated EW turn out to be quite survivable after all :) At least if they stay away from F-22s and F-35s.

Only if you are dealing with fighter on fighter exercises with mechanically steered arrays (MSA). Tactically significant stealth aircraft with high end jammers won't be able to hide in a battlefield with AESAs. And volume search radar support from ground based sensors (TPS) and AEW&C.

Human Bass

November 6th, 2008, 08:43 PM

Wait people...lets link some dots here. So we have a pro, someone who really knows about how the tech performs in real life confirming that israeli jamming equipment is really good, so good it give an AESA radar some hard time to detect a fighter.

Does anyone here remember this? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

Im sure Israel used this same tech, and many others to fool syrian defenses. Its good to know at least a small part of what happened back then...

Abraham Gubler

November 6th, 2008, 08:55 PM

Human Bass

November 6th, 2008, 08:57 PM

He never said it went up against an AESA.

Well, he said he was glad the F-22 kept a gatling gun...

Abraham Gubler

November 7th, 2008, 12:37 AM

Well, he said he was glad the F-22 kept a gatling gun...

Yes but I think you'll find they are a bit different to active electronically scanned array radars. Part of the reason these 'knucks want a gun is that a truly stealthly fighter is going to be able chose all the circumstances of the engagement and is going to score kill after kill against FLANKERS, BISONS, etc. With the F-22 limited to eight ATA missiles they want more kills. F-35 with an ATA configuration bay will be able to carry 8-12 ATA missiles and has the 25mm gun.

cobzz

November 7th, 2008, 12:52 AM

Would you recommend that I remove the video?

Abraham Gubler

November 7th, 2008, 02:32 AM

Nope, its kosher and informative.

cobzz

November 7th, 2008, 04:38 AM

Nope, its kosher and informative.

Too late. Can find the same video by searching for "IAF lecture" on youtube.

Transcript is here...:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread408642/pg1

gf0012-aust

November 7th, 2008, 04:46 AM

Too late. Can find the same video by searching for "IAF lecture" on youtube.

Transcript is here...:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread408642/pg1

If someone is going to try and transcribe a piece of work, they could at least have the decency to use proper english - it brings into doubt the quality of the transcription.

as for the end comments - give me strength. :unknown

cobzz

November 7th, 2008, 05:40 AM

If someone is going to try and transcribe a piece of work, they could at least have the decency to use proper english - it brings into doubt the quality of the transcription.

as for the end comments - give me strength. :unknown

I did the transcript, because apparently some people could not view the video.

Thanks.

gf0012-aust

November 7th, 2008, 05:43 AM

I did the transcript, because apparently some people could not view the video.

Original Text Deleted

Well, you probably deserve and apology from me as I was being unnecessarily harsh when your intent was to assist others.

I still disagree with the conclusions though... :)

cobzz

November 7th, 2008, 07:50 AM

Original Text Deleted

Well, you probably deserve and apology from me as I was being unnecessarily harsh when your intent was to assist others.

I still disagree with the conclusions though... :)

Which conclusions? And why?

hellfire

November 7th, 2008, 08:17 AM

well they say the F22 has a higher sustained turn rate, so is it because of the higher trust of the engines or is it bcause of it slighter higher deflecting nozzles?

fltworthy

November 7th, 2008, 09:13 AM

I think it was F-15:s the IAF trained against at Cope India.

The original Cope India 2004 exercise involved only USAF F-15s (which faired poorly against the elite of the Indian Air Force). The more recent Cope India 2006 exercise involved USAF F-16s. I haven't heard too much about the latter exercise, so presumably the USAF did better this time around.

My biggest take-away from this lecture is that training and experience still matters - whether you're USAF or IAF, and no matter what you're flying.

fltworthy

November 7th, 2008, 09:18 AM

well they say the F22 has a higher sustained turn rate, so is it because of the higher trust of the engines or is it bcause of it slighter higher deflecting nozzles?

Turn rate is about generating lift and overcoming drag - not vectoring thrust. There was a good article on this subject in Air Forces Monthly a number of months ago (March 2008). The F-22 has the turn rate that it does because if its exceptionally low wing loading, excellent (low drag) aerodynamic characteristics, and superb thrust-to-weight ratio.

By the way, the original links to the videos no longer work. I came across the following copy:
YouTube - Indo-US Red Flag Air Force Exercise Lecture 2008 Part 1
YouTube - Indo-US Red Flag Air Force Exercise Lecture 2008 Part 2

Once it's loose on the net, these things take on a life of their own.

Aussie Digger

November 7th, 2008, 09:01 PM

The original Cope India 2004 exercise involved only USAF F-15s (which faired poorly against the elite of the Indian Air Force). The more recent Cope India 2006 exercise involved USAF F-16s. I haven't heard too much about the latter exercise, so presumably the USAF did better this time around.

My biggest take-away from this lecture is that training and experience still matters - whether you're USAF or IAF, and no matter what you're flying.

The USAF did poorly in Cope India because they were MEANT to perform poorly. They were performing the Red Air role and were simulating a potential enemy with no BVR capability and no force multiplying capability whilst Indian fighters were taking BVR shots aided by significant force multiplying capability.

Arguing that the USAF performed "poorly" shows ignorance of their role during that exercise and implies a belief that the USAF would turn up to an operation without AMRAAM, without AWACS and without Air to Air refuelling capability.

Cope India was not the slightest representative of USAF capability.

fltworthy

November 8th, 2008, 12:16 AM

The USAF did poorly in Cope India because they were MEANT to perform poorly.

Yes, I would agree that the USAF team was meant to perform poorly. Just like the "leaked" Boeing study two years before, the US team was intentionally handicapped to help promote the need for a more advanced (F-22) weapons system.

Archer

November 9th, 2008, 05:58 PM

Not at all. He was saying that with the right tactics SU-30MK TVC does not provide an WVR advantage because of the drag it causes. He was also saying the PESA radar is inferior and the FLANKER being a big, high RCS aircraft has to do a lot jinking and jamming to even get to the merge (which is wishful thinking).

Your comments, are a quite incorrect interpretation of what the presenter said, and also dont take into account the realities of the exercise. For that matter the presenter made some huge bloopers too, but lets leave that be for now.

The Indians operated the Bars in training mode - given that, the presenters views on the radar are anything but accurate. In IAF eval, the Bars has turned out to be everything it promised to be and more when compared with state of the art sets as available today (bar APG77). FYI, the training mode Bars in RF was sufficient to - the USAFs surprise, in taking on small signature targets and prosecuting them.

Second - the Indians didnt take signature treated Flankers to RF- why would they and nor did they take any of their de facto standard EW gear either to the exercise.

Third, the entire bit about jamming is entirely accurate as the MKI needs to defeat the inbound ARH shots to get to the merge, which is what the jammer is there for.

Fourth, the presenter is also mistaken about the "Tumansky engines" on the MKI being susceptible to FOD. They are not. They are as good (or as bad as) any bog standard engine of its generation. The Indians played cautious as they only took a handful of powerpacks with them in the single IL-78 transport plus other maint spares. FYI, the Indians staged their planes 30 apart unlike what the presenter mentions, and it was later agreed to do it for 1 and agreed before the exercise itself.

Fifth" IAF let down by "crap Russian gear" - I'd sure like you to meet some fine gentleman from the Lightnings and Hawks and discuss the same with them. Because thats the first they'd have heard of it. They are bloody well pleased with the MKI & no, it hasnt let them down at all. Given a cross section of senior crew who have flown everything from the Mirage to foreign types on evaluation, they are quite pleased as punch with the MKI.

For the "Western gear uber alles" brigade, I would request some of you to meet the extremely professional aviators (and no I am serious, they are good blokes!) from the RSAF and ask them of their professional evaluation of the MKI & even the decades old MiG-29 (without upgrade) and ask them about how it worked out when handled to the limit.

Finally "Aussie Digger",

The USAF did poorly in Cope India because they were MEANT to perform poorly. They were performing the Red Air role and were simulating a potential enemy with no BVR capability and no force multiplying capability whilst Indian fighters were taking BVR shots aided by significant force multiplying capability.

ridiculous, I am afraid. The USAF were not meant to lose. They had BVR, they had better radars, better platforms than bulk of the planes they fought against. They lost because they planned poorly and came underestimating their opponent (and paid the price). In Cope India 2006, they didnt repeat the mistake, but still found the Bison a handful. And they came with AWACS & every dinky toy they wanted to, in the ROEs.

Of course, it does not mean that the IAF is a more powerful force than the USAF, it would be farce to suggest so, as farcical as stating that the USAF lost at Cope 04 because they intended to.

There are actually very good reasons why the USAF got a wake up call at Cope 04, and if one of the real reasons came out, it would be open season on a favourite target of many Americans, so lets leave it be.

Archer

November 9th, 2008, 06:04 PM

well they say the F22 has a higher sustained turn rate, so is it because of the higher trust of the engines or is it bcause of it slighter higher deflecting nozzles?

The MKI has a higher STR than presented by the USAF presenter. It does appear the IAF toned down that as well as far as RF is concerned, either by deliberate underrep or by some kind of training mechanism during 1 vs 1s.

BTW, the presenter is wrong when he claims the Indians did 1 vs 1s for 3 days - they didnt. Only the first day, then practise broke up because the RF mission planning took precedence. And from the IAF: "no F-15 dominance was observed during TVC exercises". During standard RF, TVC was not used as well.

Of course, F-22 STR could still be higher than the MKIs.

Another mistake made by the USAF presenter is in noting that Israeli radars are on the Bisons. Perhaps he mixed it up with the Lancer upgrade or read an original incorrect statement in AWST which did the same.

The Bisons have the Kopyo-21 radar. The newer Kopyo-M was offered for some 50 follow on aircraft, but the IAF is not proceeding with the upgrades at this point of time, and the number of Bisons is around 124-125.

Archer

November 9th, 2008, 06:10 PM

iwith experienced pilots they are still a lethal little plane - unfort they also have a propensity to kill new pilots and are unforgiving with inexperienced pilots. (eg India had a huge problem with her originals)

India had a problem with the MiG-21s on account of several factors/things:

- high flying hours doing things they werent designed to do. tank busting in the thar for example, and then a flameout in those conditions. not pretty low over the dunes and the engine cuts out.
- design defects that stayed with the plane - flame tube burning eg was resolved by HAL and not MiG which often refused to own up (comparing sukhoi today to MiG- a far cry!! more professional in many ways!)
- finally very high landing speeds- pilots describe it as the rocket at that stage, and incidentally, many people were lost thanks to bird hits during this crucial stage, and the pilot SA is such that he stays, he pays. flt ltnt shreya shukla (youngest combat pilot to fight at kargil) was lost at palam airport in such a manner, take off and buzzard strike
- lastly, the training factor - in a darwinian process, those who couldnt handle the transition from the iskra/hjt to the mongol paid the price. this criminal attrition was forced upon the iaf by an uncaring govt which held off on the AJT procurement for 21 years!

Archer

November 9th, 2008, 06:12 PM

He never said it went up against an AESA.

deception jamming, as from modern DRFM equipped sets is a pain for any radar set. however, a brand new AESA such as the APG-79/77 should have a suitable number of receivers, including one dedicated for ECCM that should allow relief.
but deception jamming will still reduce the Pk of small battery equipped missiles something fierce, which the USAF colonel, is reasonably accurate about. even HOJ wouldnt necessarily help unlike if it were old fashioned noise jamming.

Abraham Gubler

November 9th, 2008, 06:29 PM

but deception jamming will still reduce the Pk of small battery equipped missiles something fierce, which the USAF colonel, is reasonably accurate about. even HOJ wouldnt necessarily help unlike if it were old fashioned noise jamming.

Deception or seduction is the way to defeat active homing BVR but as a technique is heavily reliant on having good intel of the threat. The Israelis are not selling jammers to defeat AMRAAM and unless the Russians can get their hands on an actual seeker will just be working from a theortical base. The same can not be said for ADDER which compromised years (over a decade) ago. Also AESA radars can have PITBULL support modes where they illuminate the target for the actively homing missile at terminal engagement.

Abraham Gubler

November 9th, 2008, 06:38 PM

Your comments, are a quite incorrect interpretation of what the presenter said, and also dont take into account the realities of the exercise. For that matter the presenter made some huge bloopers too, but lets leave that be for now.

You should read all of the thread rather than wade in with a selective choice of one statement at the end. Further you have presented a lot of excuses; they never impress.

Red

November 9th, 2008, 11:01 PM

For the "Western gear uber alles" brigade, I would request some of you to meet the extremely professional aviators (and no I am serious, they are good blokes!) from the RSAF and ask them of their professional evaluation of the MKI & even the decades old MiG-29 (without upgrade) and ask them about how it worked out when handled to the limit.

RSAF personnel are not allowed to make such evaluations from international(exp Cope India)and local exercises public; to anyone. If this is from the Indian press, I can understand why. As a matter of fact, the Singapore`s Mindef totally rejected the views that were 'flying' in the Indian press subsequent to the Cope India exercise. They never said anything.

If you have heard/read something, the latter is entirely speculative and could have come from anyone. Hence, the reason why Singapore`s Mindef had to make a terse official statement then clarifying its stance; i.e they and thier personnel never said anything as per the operative rules of the exercise and that they are very pleased with the performance of all the jets within exercise parameters.

Aussie Digger

November 10th, 2008, 12:00 AM

Finally "Aussie Digger",

ridiculous, I am afraid. The USAF were not meant to lose. They had BVR, they had better radars, better platforms than bulk of the planes they fought against. They lost because they planned poorly and came underestimating their opponent (and paid the price). In Cope India 2006, they didnt repeat the mistake, but still found the Bison a handful. And they came with AWACS & every dinky toy they wanted to, in the ROEs.

Of course, it does not mean that the IAF is a more powerful force than the USAF, it would be farce to suggest so, as farcical as stating that the USAF lost at Cope 04 because they intended to.

There are actually very good reasons why the USAF got a wake up call at Cope 04, and if one of the real reasons came out, it would be open season on a favourite target of many Americans, so lets leave it be.

Let's look at some facts then shall we?

The USAF took 6x F-15C aircraft fitted with APG-63V1 radar systems to Cope India 2004.

KC-135 aircraft provide air tio air refuelling for both sides.

No AEW&C was brought or used by the USAF.

AMRAAM was NOT used by the USAF because they were representing likely threat aircraft for the IAF (ie: a capability equivalent to PAF F-16 aircraft at that time). As such, AIM-9X, JHMCS weren't employed either.

The main purpose of the exercise was to fly dissimilar air combat training with the IAF, with the F-15's flying offensive counter air and defensive counter air missions as Red Air.

Red Air ALWAYS loses in the end of Airex's. They may have temporary victories, temporary air superiority during various phases of an exercise, but they always LOOSE in the end.

The USAF weren't playing to full "capacity". There was little or no "freeplay" and they did lose because it was intended all along.

There's no need whatsoever to try and make this exercise more than it was.

Talking it up as a "loss" and thereby attempting to imply that "East therefore beats West" is disingenuous in the extreme.

OPSSG

November 10th, 2008, 01:16 AM

The Indians operated the Bars in training mode - given that, the presenters views on the radar are anything but accurate. In IAF eval, the Bars has turned out to be everything it promised to be and more when compared with state of the art sets as available today (bar APG77). FYI, the training mode Bars in RF was sufficient to - the USAFs surprise, in taking on small signature targets and prosecuting them.

For the "Western gear uber alles" brigade, I would request some of you to meet the extremely professional aviators (and no I am serious, they are good blokes!) from the RSAF and ask them of their professional evaluation of the MKI & even the decades old MiG-29 (without upgrade) and ask them about how it worked out when handled to the limit.

1. Dear Archer is it relevant to the "uber allies" brigade that "Bars has turned out to be everything it promised to be"? The answer is NO!

2. Do the "uber allies" have the money to buy an Su-30 squadron? The answer is YES!

3. Have the Russians offered to sell Su-30 to the "uber allies" brigade (and I don't mean Singapore alone)? The answer is YES!

4. Do you think that the respective DSTAs (acting as procurement managers) of the "uber allies" brigade make purchases without an adequate consideration of a technology's limit? If Bars is indeed superior - would it not be considered as a technology to invest in or to buy (so as to give our war fighters an edge)? Please read the DT thread on the F-15SGs before you reply.

5. What is the purpose of DACT? Please read the DT thread on what is DACT before replying.

6. What is the goal of the RSAF in participating in these overseas exercises? The answer is to learn. DACT is only one aspect of an air exercise. IMHO, we can learn both from our failures and successes. Increasingly, the RSAF wants to take part in these exercises so that our LTCs (before they are promoted to higher command positions) can play mission commander roles (http://www.airmanonline.af.mil/articles/story.asp?id=123111817) (i.e. plan for missions involving 50 or more air craft).

7. The RSAF has been taking part in numerous exercises for a number of years. Have you heard them say that Singapore "won" or "lost" in an exercise? As Red says, the RSAF does not comment on the results of international exercises.

8. Have you taken part in international exercises? Do you know what being the "Red force" mean? How can you critique what Aussie Digger says if you don't know what you are talking about. Please read up on air combat theory and air exercises before replying.

9. The SAF and the RSAF are always grateful to be invited to military exercises. In particular, the SAF is grateful to the Indian government for allowing us the privilege to learning from the Indian Air Force. Our press would never be so rude to say that one party won.

gf0012-aust

November 10th, 2008, 02:22 AM

roberto

November 10th, 2008, 02:35 AM

I can see the howls coming from some of the members.

But.

2 weeks ago at a briefing (with a number of Indian Air Force Officers present) we were advised that the IAF were making it clear that they were keen on pursuing the purchase of Western aircraft and systems over Russian and that the wake up calls came with IAF attendance at a number of western "meets".

IAF is looking at better systems symbiosis and they are not getting it. as much as there is noise from some members in here about the love of the Sukhois in the IAF, there is another view coming from their future planners.

BTW one of the senior RAAF tac planners is ex IAF (6000 hrs on various types including late model russian platforms).
If this view is correct than why IAF hasnt signed up for MRCA despite passing of one decade. There is no signup for M2K upgrades either nor there is western AAMs across the fleet. IAF has shown no tendency of Western 5th generation fighter nor there is for organization wide tendency towards Western Strategic transport/Airrefuellers. It seems IAF officers takes Western officials for a ride by talking negative about Russian systems infront of them.

gf0012-aust

November 10th, 2008, 02:41 AM

If this view is correct than why IAF hasnt signed up for MRCA despite passing of one decade. There is no signup for M2K upgrades either nor there is western AAMs across the fleet. IAF has shown no tendency of Western 5th generation fighter nor there is for organization wide tendency towards Western Strategic transport/Airrefuellers. It seems IAF officers takes Western officials for a ride by talking negative about Russian systems infront of them.

Of course you know better, so I'll let you continue that thought.

The IAF are a professional outfit, I've yet to meet any IAF Officer or IN Officer make stupid claims. The relationship with InDF has been getting closer as there are mutual concerns.

I do however see lots of teenagers who make claims outside of their comprehension set.

In fact for the last 3 years, before I went back into Govt Mil I dealt with a number of Indian companies seeking access to western tech - and who still do.

Perhaps you should exercise less conviction on what you think the Indians want.

gf0012-aust

November 10th, 2008, 02:46 AM

If this view is correct than why IAF hasnt signed up for MRCA despite passing of one decade.

whats that got to do with my comment about a briefing held 2 weeks ago?

There is no signup for M2K upgrades either nor there is western AAMs across the fleet.

Why upgrade the M2K when its seen as useful within its current role - but not worth the expense of MLU when the Indians have already openly stated that the focus is on fusion for their RMA?

IAF has shown no tendency of Western 5th generation fighter nor there is for organization wide tendency towards Western Strategic transport/Airrefuellers.

2 weeks ago.. and where did I mention anything about aircraft types?

Apart from the fact that it was a briefing about air combat and future air combat capabilities - so unless you want to turn a C17 into a missileer....

Quite frankly, I'm far more interested in the commentary and dialogue from professional airmen than from internet chatter trying to protect a favourite aircraft because of personal enthusiasm.

If you want to continue the debate then PM me. I'm not going to engage in some idiotic fan club banter and drag the post down in quality just because people don't like the chat.

roberto

November 10th, 2008, 03:29 AM

whats that got to do with my comment about a briefing held 2 weeks ago?
Thats what you wrote about determination of purchasing Western aircraft and systems?. If u read a little bit about MRCA and its condition of technology transfer and offsets. it gives totally different picture.

2 weeks ago at a briefing (with a number of Indian Air Force Officers present) we were advised that the IAF were making it clear that they were keen on pursuing the purchase of Western aircraft and systems over Russian and that the wake up calls came with IAF attendance at a number of western "meets".

Why upgrade the M2K when its seen as useful within its current role - but not worth the expense of MLU when the Indians have already openly stated that the focus is on fusion for their RMA?
M2K will lose what ever role it has once upgraded MIG-29 with new engines come online in Multifunctional form. u cannot continue with 25 year old aircraft without comprehensive upgrades. just like 25 year old US airforce aircraft now with national guards.

2 weeks ago.. and where did I mention anything about aircraft types?
U mentioned determination of purchasing Western aircraft and systems as way of showing some kind of short comings in Russian aircraft. When 150 BVR capable/RCS reduced MIG-21Bison is living example of making old aircraft usefull for 21st century combat.

JohanGrön

November 10th, 2008, 05:52 AM

The original Cope India 2004 exercise involved only USAF F-15s (which faired poorly against the elite of the Indian Air Force). The more recent Cope India 2006 exercise involved USAF F-16s.

Cope India 2004,
USAF: F-15, InAF: SU-30K Flanker, Mirage 2000, MIG-29 Fulcrum, MIG-27 Flogger and MIG-21 Bison

Cope India 2006,
USAF:F-16, InAF: Su-30 MKI, MiG-21 Bison, Mirage 2000, MiG-29 Fulcrum, and MiG-27 Flogger.

Also, no news from quoted and named IAF sources in 06, in 04 some US defence report came out with reports of the engagements.

I stand corrected :)
Thx for the info!

Aussie Digger

November 10th, 2008, 09:45 AM

If this view is correct than why IAF hasnt signed up for MRCA despite passing of one decade. There is no signup for M2K upgrades either nor there is western AAMs across the fleet. IAF has shown no tendency of Western 5th generation fighter nor there is for organization wide tendency towards Western Strategic transport/Airrefuellers. It seems IAF officers takes Western officials for a ride by talking negative about Russian systems infront of them.

Er, they chose 2 Western systems (Phalcon and Erieye) for their AWAC's solution.

They have chosen C-130J-30 for their new tactical airlift requirement and have received bids from only 1x Russian aircraft type, with 5x Western Aircraft types for MRCA (Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F/A-18E/F and F-16IN).

Yeah, they haven't shown much interest in Western products for their Air Force lately, have they???

roberto

November 10th, 2008, 11:02 AM

Er, they chose 2 Western systems (Phalcon and Erieye) for their AWAC's solution.
Phalcon flies on IL-76. All structural tests were done in Russia and it has mix of avionics from various countries. It is not Erieye but there own indigenous system. u have to consider Russia didnot offer anything in this class. The only thing is MTA. but it will come later.

They have chosen C-130J-30 for their new tactical airlift requirement and have received bids from only 1x Russian aircraft type, with 5x Western Aircraft types for MRCA (Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F/A-18E/F and F-16IN).
There is no new offering from Antonov in this class. Only thing is An-70 but it is in development stage. It is limited order for special operations. Not fleet wide upgrade of tactical airlift.

Yeah, they haven't shown much interest in Western products for their Air Force lately, have they???
Yeah i am waiting for seeing anything substantial just like Jaquar and M2K/Sea harrier purchases of 1980s.

stigmata

November 10th, 2008, 11:45 AM

Er, they chose 2 Western systems (Phalcon and Erieye) for their AWAC's solution.Huh?! Has the indians bought EriEye ? i thought it was the pakistanis ?

funtz

November 10th, 2008, 01:45 PM

Yeah i am waiting for seeing anything substantial just like Jaguar and M2K/Sea harrier purchases of 1980s.
Well the only thing to happen after the 80s were the customized Su-30s, the news reports suggest that IAF was looking for buying 126 Mirage2ks and that started the whole MMRCA, which was dragged along till even the Mirage2k went out of production.

gf0012-aust

November 10th, 2008, 04:50 PM

Yeah i am waiting for seeing anything substantial just like Jaquar and M2K/Sea harrier purchases of 1980s.

why do I feel like I'm debating with a teenager?

it's a briefing
it's articulated
it's not a purchase order
it's an indication of mind set
it's an indication of procurement shift
it's an indication that the InDF are looking at diversifying
it shows that the InDF is not wedded to a single fixed wing combat solution

all of it from people who actually are professionals within their own military. NOT some platform fan clubber who has difficulty understanding context and the import of the briefing.

it's irrelevant what the frothing teenage fan club thinks - it's the message from professionals in a professional environment where considered debate has occurred that is significant. (and it's only 2 weeks old) actually generates.

Now they may not, but they may also seek to do it because they're already purchasing western components (israel has high US content that requires State Dept release) - more importantly, it's the Israelis that have the experience in bussing russian and western systems - more than anyone else (incl the French).

The Indian military will make whatever procurement move fits in their political, tactical and strategic national interests - and they have been far more willing to discuss western solutions in the last few years. I have no view on whether they should buy 2 squadrons of Gripens, Rafales, Scooters or B1's with modified scramjet engines - they will decide with whatever procurement clarity determines their needs. It's philisophically irrelevant to me.

and again, one of the senior air combat planners in the RAAF is an ex Indian AF pilot with over 6000 hrs of various types.

who do I have greater confidence at a knowledge base level? the professional? or an enthusiast protecting their belief system.

make the effort to read my response slowly and repeatedly before auto-responding.

Feanor

November 10th, 2008, 05:06 PM

Er, they chose 2 Western systems (Phalcon and Erieye) for their AWAC's solution.

They have chosen C-130J-30 for their new tactical airlift requirement and have received bids from only 1x Russian aircraft type, with 5x Western Aircraft types for MRCA (Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F/A-18E/F and F-16IN).

Yeah, they haven't shown much interest in Western products for their Air Force lately, have they???

That's a misleading view. When you contrast Russian vs Western, you seem to imply that Russia in terms of aviation is a viable alternative to the combined France, pan-Europe (Typhoon), Sweden, and USA. It's not. That distinction, a rather artificial one at this point in time, does not provide anything of value. What it would make much more sense is to contrast American bids vs Russian bids for example. Even then I would argue that the comparison lacks validity since the two American bids are presented by rival companies, while our policy of consolidation, has left Russia with a single United Aircraft Corporation. In any event there is no doubt that India is doing everything it can to get multiple sources for it's defense industry, in order to prevent price hikes, and political limitations on the deals, as well as to be able to get a better deal.

The bottom line: will Russia be able to dominate the Indian weapons market? No. Will Russia remain a major player for the next decade at least? Defenitly.

Abraham Gubler

November 10th, 2008, 05:14 PM

That distinction, a rather artificial one at this point in time, does not provide anything of value. What it would make much more sense is to contrast American bids vs Russian bids for example.

The distinction is still valid because Eastern, ie Russian - to be truthful Soviet because they haven't developed anything new since 1991 - is built to a different technology standard than 'western'. However the stuff from the west is designed to NATO standards of quality and interoperability. While the Israelis make a killing offering E to W conversions there are significant differences across a range of levels harking back to the different Soviet and NATO operational requirements.

The bottom line: will Russia be able to dominate the Indian weapons market? No. Will Russia remain a major player for the next decade at least? Defenitly.

Russia still has a hope with India through the civil side of defence procurement. While the Indian services want western gear and are proud of their leadership role within the India of pushing the country closer to the west many of the civil servants are still very much of the old 'neutral' mindset and in favour of Russian equipment. Also since the Russians are happy to give away all the old Soviet IP in order to gain cash (as with China) they offer a range of attractive technology transfers. Of course you get what you pay for.

As to the rest of the world's arms market Russia has found a niche selling arms to regimes no one else will.

Feanor

November 10th, 2008, 05:53 PM

While nothing purely new has been developed, the standards have improved by quite a long way since then. As to you comment in regards to regimes, I don't see the validity of the point in relation to India. India is not a regime that no one else will sell weapons to, it's a quite popular and at this point hotly contested market. Finally the contracts for India don't consist of giving away old Soviet produce, instead they are (for the most part) new tanks and planes build directly to fullfill those contracts.

Abraham Gubler

November 10th, 2008, 08:34 PM

roberto

November 10th, 2008, 09:55 PM

why do I feel like I'm debating with a teenager?

it's a briefing
it's articulated
it's not a purchase order
it's an indication of mind set
it's an indication of procurement shift
it's an indication that the InDF are looking at diversifying
it shows that the InDF is not wedded to a single fixed wing combat solution

Thats what i want see where which is different than what was different from 60 to 80s. when French/British systems dominated IAF. IAF bought Hawk but they also gave money to Saturn for AL-55 that will be usefull for there own IJT/AJT.
When IAF publicly announce 5th generation and 4++ like MKI with Western manufacturer than we can see change of mind set.

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general/20081001_military_technical.html
India, Russia extend life of military technical cooperation panel by another ten years news
01 October 2008

Now they may not, but they may also seek to do it because they're already purchasing western components (israel has high US content that requires State Dept release) - more importantly, it's the Israelis that have the experience in bussing russian and western systems - more than anyone else (incl the French).
Israels had access to Western semiconductor fabs since 80s and those were not present in East Asia at those times. So naturally IAF has to go with Israeli systems. Now every advances semiconductor is bult in Taiwan/SK or China. and new fabs are going online in Russia as Western EU are bankrupt. Thats why in future systems Russian electronics are way better. Where u think follow up EW systems of Su-35 that India is so impressed.

and again, one of the senior air combat planners in the RAAF is an ex Indian AF pilot with over 6000 hrs of various types.
Admin: Text deleted. 1st Warning Issued. You will read the forum rules about behaviour and respect or you'll be well on the way out of here. I am not going to tolerate your buffoonery like some of the other Mods have. I'm not as patient with trolls

who do I have greater confidence at a knowledge base level? the professional? or an enthusiast protecting their belief system.

make the effort to read my response slowly and repeatedly before auto-responding.
India has long standing contracts across all services with Russia and Russia would remain the largest source of advance military technology untill 2020.
Why do u think Brahmos is tri-service multiplatform missile not a single service missile?. India does not sign this kind of agreements with another country. Just MKI/MIG-29SMT/MIG-21Bison combine will reach 450 combat aircraft. I am not going into PAK-FA. why do u think Kaveri is tested in Russia not in Western Country. This is long standing give and take policy.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168382
Was Nerpa supposed to be leased to India for 10 years? Why have Russian officials been so reluctant to talk about this deal openly?
Barabanov: As far as I know, the submarine will still be leased to India as planned, but the schedule for delivery might be delayed. India demanded secrecy from Russia on this agreement, because they feared that the U.S. might [exert] political pressure to prevent the deal.

gf0012-aust

November 10th, 2008, 10:04 PM

Aussie Digger

November 10th, 2008, 10:50 PM

Phalcon flies on IL-76. All structural tests were done in Russia and it has mix of avionics from various countries. It is not Erieye but there own indigenous system. u have to consider Russia didnot offer anything in this class. The only thing is MTA. but it will come later.

So what's the important part in an AWACS? The radar or the airframe? :)

In any case, think you'll find the IL-76's were delivered from Russia to Israel for modification and testing into their AEW&C configuration...

I suspect you are unaware of the IL-76 based, A-50 Mainstay AWACS, if you think Russia didn't have anything to offer in this "class"?

Yeah i am waiting for seeing anything substantial just like Jaquar and M2K/Sea harrier purchases of 1980s.

100x BAE Hawk Mk 132 lead in fighter jet trainer isn't substantial?

A USD$1b purchase of C-130J-30's isn't substantial?

Perhaps the Green Pine radars SPYDER SAM's and other Western systems aren't demonstrating a shift in "mind set" either?

CBu-105 "sensor fused weapons" and Litening AT targetting pods on SU-30 aircraft. The list goes on...

Okay...

roberto

November 11th, 2008, 12:53 AM

So what's the important part in an AWACS? The radar or the airframe? :)
Clearly the airframe. How many companies in the World that can provide high power engines , large airframes modification for several tonnes antenna in the World.? Ever thought Why A-50 exist in PLAAF but they can produce hundreds of turboprop aircrafts of there own. U have to wake Radar is not big deal. It is the large military specification grade aircraft thats what matter.

In any case, think you'll find the IL-76's were delivered from Russia to Israel for modification and testing into their AEW&C configuration.
Airframe certification was done along with new engines and extended range/MTOW. As i said when India negotiate this contract semiconductors were not built. It takes a decade usually for India to negotiate the contract.

100x BAE Hawk Mk 132 lead in fighter jet trainer isn't substantial?
Yes after 20 years of negotiation.

A USD$1b purchase of C-130J-30's isn't substantial?
$1B is spread over how many years if it is signed. u cannot compare the licenses production of several thousands tanks, Smerch MLRS, Tuguska, Club systems. Every thing is at different level. Israel merely take the place of Western EU. It is not addition of Western of Western Equipment.

Perhaps the Green Pine radars SPYDER SAM's and other Western systems aren't demonstrating a shift in "mind set" either?
Why there is no follow up after Green Pine? As i said Israel took advantage in 90s but that door is closing very soon as every one is now good at semiconductors. Even India is making there own AWACS.

CBu-105 "sensor fused weapons" and Litening AT targetting pods on SU-30 aircraft. The list goes on...
Compare this to several thousands of all kinds of AAMs. Just R-73 alone reaches 4000. I am not going into PGMs. why R-73 was fired from LCA?

roberto

November 11th, 2008, 12:56 AM

Roberto,

seriously lad, make the effort to read what was said.

and for heavens sake, rolling out newsflashes about aircraft and shipping news has no relationship to what I have said.

READ or LEAVE

finally - read the rules about respect. the comment about a professional indian pilot working in another airforce is unacceptable.

in short - change your attitude or you'll get really short shrift from me - I don't have the patience for children who don't pay attention.
Because u made an opinion based on 6000hrs ex-IAF official. I have clearly shown that those decisions are not based on some one opinion. There is large scale give and take between nations. There is no such thing as moving from one kind of equipment to another just like Australlia cannot move away from Boeing despite tremendous dissapointment with Wedgetial and 787 delay for Qantas.

Abraham Gubler

November 11th, 2008, 12:57 AM

Clearly the airframe. How many companies in the World that can provide high power engines , large airframes modification for several tonnes antenna in the World.?

:onfloorl:

Ahh the airframe theory of AEW&C...

U have to wake Radar is not big deal. It is the large military specification grade aircraft thats what matter.

You can't be serious? Is this a wind up? Its very funny. :D

StevoJH

November 11th, 2008, 01:01 AM

Because u made an opinion based on 6000hrs ex-IAF official. I have clearly shown that those decisions are not based on some one opinion. There is large scale give and take between nations. There is no such thing as moving from one kind of equipment to another just like Australlia cannot move away from Boeing despite tremendous dissapointment with Wedgetial and 787 delay for Qantas.

Bad example using Boeing.

The Wedgetail has had several billion dollars spent on it and is the only available platform with the required capability, which is reason enough to stick with it now that they are getting close to being deliverable. The Super Hornets were chosen because they were the best available choice, the only other realistic option (Typhoon) would take too long to deliver due to the needs of the European nations, where as the USN were willing to give up production slots for Australia to get the SH's. The other advantage of the SH's is that they have an AESA radar which the Typhoons will not receive until Tranche 3.

Aussie Digger

November 11th, 2008, 01:32 AM

Clearly the airframe. How many companies in the World that can provide high power engines , large airframes modification for several tonnes antenna in the World.? Ever thought Why A-50 exist in PLAAF but they can produce hundreds of turboprop aircrafts of there own. U have to wake Radar is not big deal. It is the large military specification grade aircraft thats what matter.

You mean apart from Boeing, Airbus, Saab, Embraer, Northrop Grumman, Yakovlev, Tupolev, Lockheed Martin and of course, Ilyushin?

Airframe certification was done along with new engines and extended range/MTOW. As i said when India negotiate this contract semiconductors were not built. It takes a decade usually for India to negotiate the contract.

As I said earlier. Russia built an airlifter. Good for them. What a stunning technical achievement.

It IS the Israelis however, who have designed, built, installed and tested the MISSION SYSTEM, which is THE important part of the AWAC's platform...

Yes after 20 years of negotiation.

And? They chose the Western trainer, despite the bulk of their "current" fleet comprising Russian designed aircraft.

$1B is spread over how many years if it is signed. u cannot compare the licenses production of several thousands tanks, Smerch MLRS, Tuguska, Club systems. Every thing is at different level. Israel merely take the place of Western EU. It is not addition of Western of Western Equipment.

The C-130J-30's are due to be delivered from 2011 onwards. Such a figure doesn't include the support costs for such an aircraft fleet. Such is typically many times as much as the original purchase price...

Why there is no follow up after Green Pine? As i said Israel took advantage in 90s but that door is closing very soon as every one is now good at semiconductors. Even India is making there own AWACS.

SPYDER isn't a follow-up?

As to India's "indigenous" AWACS, try looking at the companies they've invited to bid become a "partner" in the project...

Israel's Elta, European EADS, France's Thales, Sweden's SAAB- Eriksson and the USA's Raytheon and Northrop Grumman...

Oh and of course, Brazil's Embraer who are manufacturing the all important, airframe...

Compare this to several thousands of all kinds of AAMs. Just R-73 alone reaches 4000. I am not going into PGMs. why R-73 was fired from LCA?

LCA. That's the indigenous aircraft utilising General Electric F-404 engines, isn't it?

Anyhoo we are discussing a CHANGING mindset, no-one is doubting the former inclination on behalf of the Indian forces for Russia equipment, but it is patently obvious in recent years that India has commenced leaning more heavily towards the West for it's acquisitions and technical partners in indigenous programs...

Aussie Digger

November 11th, 2008, 01:38 AM

Australlia cannot move away from Boeing despite tremendous dissapointment with Wedgetial and 787 delay for Qantas.

I very much doubt that. Our Minister has demonstrated an ability to do this with Boeing already, with JP-129 our Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program, which Boeing WON, but then subsequently lost because it couldn't deliver as promised...

Our Defence Minister also showed this with the Seasprite contract being taken away from Kaman entirely...

Wedgetail being cancelled would be an enormous call, but not one without precedent.

Todjaeger

November 11th, 2008, 01:59 AM

Clearly the airframe. How many companies in the World that can provide high power engines , large airframes modification for several tonnes antenna in the World.? Ever thought Why A-50 exist in PLAAF but they can produce hundreds of turboprop aircrafts of there own. U have to wake Radar is not big deal. It is the large military specification grade aircraft thats what matter.

Airframe certification was done along with new engines and extended range/MTOW. As i said when India negotiate this contract semiconductors were not built. It takes a decade usually for India to negotiate the contract.

If you feel that the airframe is the important aspect of an AWAC or AEW/AEW&C system, then it would seem you lack a fundamental grasp of the aircraft modification industry.

There are a number of different companies which produce (or have produced) aircraft that can be converted into an airborne surveillance platform, be it as part of an AEW or MPA system.

The IL-76 airliner airframe was adapted into the A-50 Mainstay.
The Boeing E-3 Sentry was an adaptation of the Boeing 707 airframe.
The E-767 is another Boeing adaptation, this time of the Boeing 767.
The EMB-145 (R-99A) is an adapted Embraer ERJ-145 with the Erieye radar.
One version of the Phalcon AEW was built onto a Boeing 707 for Chile.
A Hercules version the EC-130H was used by the USCG with an APS-145 IIRC.
There is of course the E-2 Hawkeye (AWAC mounted on turboprop...)
The Saab 340 (AEW&C) which mounts the Erieye onto the Saab 340 prop airliner...
The forthcoming Boeing E-737 Wedgetail based on the Boeing 737-700 (800?)

This list, which does not include airframes of similar capacity or even delve into MPA aircraft, which frequently have similar requirements, should indicate that there is significant choice for aircraft to carry radar arrays used for AEW.

What is important in terms of airframe/platform, is the needed range/persistance on station, as well as the ability to carry and generate the needed power for the radar array. One thing which I believe has begun to be examined is carring some of these arrays aboard high altitude unmanned airships, so that an array could potentially remain on-station for days at a stretch.

Another argument (or rather, proof) against the importance of airframe vs. radar, is that the E-2A Hawkeye prototype first flew October 21st, 1960. An airframe from 48 years ago is today really not very advanced or special, a number of different companies, in different countries around the world, could build the same or better. The radar array, and the supporting mission systems however, is a different story.

-Cheers

gf0012-aust

November 11th, 2008, 03:03 AM

Because u made an opinion based on 6000hrs ex-IAF official. I have clearly shown that those decisions are not based on some one opinion.

no, you made some internally profound jump in logic and came to your own conclusion.

Disrepespecting someone with 6000hrs experience is pretty cute when you've demonstrated a spectacular lack of understanding of AWACs build issues - let alone fixed wing combat air solutions.

There is large scale give and take between nations. There is no such thing as moving from one kind of equipment to another just like Australlia cannot move away from Boeing despite tremendous dissapointment with Wedgetial and 787 delay for Qantas.

Really? and you base this on what? You do realise that Boeing has been smacked about the executive head for not delivery a few things within timeframes?

btw, who makes our air refuelers? who makes our middle order lifters, who makes our combat helicopters? who makes our executive lifters?

gee, NOT Boeing.

It's a dangerous thing to make claims when its obvious you don't know the subject matter.

Feanor

November 11th, 2008, 06:08 AM

Dear Feanor. Admin: Text Deleted Did you not notice that I wrote a paragraph about India's procurement of Russian equipment and then followed it with a statement 'as to the rest of the world' Admin: Text Deleted

I responded directly to what you wrote. And while roberto may be wrong on multiple counts, he has one thing right. India and Russia are in a long term strategic partnership that includes joint weapon development, multi-faceted technology transfer, and large scale offset projects and licensed production. Now you can say what you want about bureaucrats and army officers, but unless you have hard facts about the procurement process in the Indian military, it's just your opinion. Facts are that India has signed in the last decade, many large scale deals and projects with Russia, from outright purchases, to licensed assembly and joint development projects. If you don't consider that long term military cooperation, or think that Russia won't remain a strategic partner with India in the defense sphere in the forseeable future, then you're wrong.

I would also ask you to keep the discussion civil. I'm not sure what you wrote in the "Admin: Text deleted" areas, but I doubt they deleted kind words of wisdom. I have respect for your knowledge, but the fact that your name is in blue and that you're a defense professional doesn't give you the right to treat others in an uncivil condescending fashion simply because they disagree with you. Argue with facts and serious points or not at all.

Anyhoo we are discussing a CHANGING mindset, no-one is doubting the former inclination on behalf of the Indian forces for Russia equipment, but it is patently obvious in recent years that India has commenced leaning more heavily towards the West for it's acquisitions and technical partners in indigenous programs...

Changing? Yes. absolutely. But not simply in the direction of American hardware. India is doing it's best to multi-source it's equipment as much as possible. For example the MMRCA competition includes aircraft from practically every major export aircraft manufacturer in the world. The reasons for this are many, for example the many problems with certain Russian deliveries, and price hikes that occur from an initial low-balling of the estimated costs, and poor production facilities that can't keep schedules, or costs under control. None the less Russia is far more intimately involved at this point then any of the western competitors, especially in the area of licensed production, indigenization, and more importantly joint development projects. This may change in the coming decade, but at this point the situation is what it is.

Red

November 11th, 2008, 06:34 AM

I take the views surfaced by the USAF pilot with a pinch of salt honestly as I do not have all the details. IMHO, I still feel a certain slant for more F-22s understandably.

A part of me wants to feel good seeing as such that these are old F15Cs and and F16Cs without the nice upgrades(EW systems, newer radars, targetting systems, etc) you see in the many airforces around the world such as the Israeli airforce for instance.

But I appreciate the rationale behind the purchase of F18 E/Fs and F-15K/SG by countries like Australia, South Korea and Singapore over more affordable Su-30s. They would want to dominate the battlespace and they can only do so with these jets and the equipment they carry.

AESAs, excellent EW systems, JHMCS, etc will put control of BVR combat in the hands of the F18s and F15s pilots. These systems together with excellent tactics will win the day in WVR combat as well.

At the end of the day, it is not just about simply aircraft frames but the systems they carry, respective tactics and training and external systems they can hook up with like AWACs/AEW & C systems, ground radars, etc.

It is just simply about who has the best system overall.

Abraham Gubler

November 11th, 2008, 06:44 AM

I would also ask you to keep the discussion civil. I'm not sure what you wrote in the "Admin: Text deleted" areas, but I doubt they deleted kind words of wisdom. I have respect for your knowledge, but the fact that your name is in blue and that you're a defense professional doesn't give you the right to treat others in an uncivil condescending fashion simply because they disagree with you. Argue with facts and serious points or not at all.

I think it was just something like you are 'wasting our time'. The mod. was right to pull it as it could be considering flaming. I hope this isn't considered in the same light I'm just trying to clarify something that seems to be lost in communication.

The point I was trying to make was I wrote a whole paragraph about the India-Russia defence acquisition relationship then another paragraph for "other customers" which was about regimes (Iran, Venezuela, etc.) that other countries wouldn't sell to. Then you responded by saying India wasn't a 'regime' and so on when clearly I had differentiated between them!

Frankly Feanor you should go back and read it again and see the mistake. You're making some good contributions here and I appreciate discussing this with you but I hate being misinterpreted! Though for ALL of us that's a risk we run communicating via message boards like this.

Feanor

November 11th, 2008, 06:56 AM

The point I was trying to make was I wrote a whole paragraph about the India-Russia defence acquisition relationship then another paragraph for "other customers" which was about regimes (Iran, Venezuela, etc.) that other countries wouldn't sell to. Then you responded by saying India wasn't a 'regime' and so on when clearly I had differentiated between them!

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. That did seem to make little sense. But as for no other countries being willing to sell to them, I beg to differ. They might not be lining up with US defense contractors, but Venezuela has a number of contracts with Spain, and China. Russia has also recently made a break through to the Saudi market (helicopter deal). Greece (with the BMP-3, Tor M1,) is also hardly an isolated regime with no other options. Russia clearly has much to offer for mid-lower tier customers that are interested in fairly modern hardware, but have to be mindful of the price.

The other issue of course is that there are pieces of Russian weapon technology that are excellent, inexpensive, effective, and while not quite cutting edge, certainly modern. There are others that are old, poor in quality, have manufacturing problems, and are essentially a waste of money. And of course every variation in between. So when looking at Russian weapons export you have to look carefully at what is being exported, to whom, and under what terms.

Frankly Feanor you should go back and read it again and see the mistake. You're making some good contributions here and I appreciate discussing this with you but I hate being misinterpreted! Though for ALL of us that's a risk we run communicating via message boards like this.

Absolutely. I'm happy we can get this cleared up and move forward with the conversation.

To get back on topic, and moving past roberto's comments to the original topic, are there any other Cope India exercises planned?

nevidimka

November 14th, 2008, 06:43 PM

As far as India moving to Western/Us system is a bit far stretched I believe. India aspires to be a big power. In that case I doubt they would like to ring up pentagon to ask for permission to use the weapons they have bought for every battle.
What I see happening is, The main war machines, that needs to win the battle and survive the war of attrition will be Russian/Indigenous systems. However, They wouldnt mind shopping for other western, lesser of US systems that complement those war machines, like communications, Intelligence, radars systems. These systems do not suffer the most under embargo.

And you can see from the purchases of the Mki's, Smerch, tanks, warships, etc2 that they are still Russian. If they wanna move away from the Russian backbone to a western system it will not be easy. It will not survive the parliment. It would be a bloodbath.

Which is Why I also feel the SH will not win the MMRCA tender. It would put 100+ fighters at the mercy of US diplomacy.

aayiliam

November 18th, 2008, 04:01 PM

Regarding India's dependence on the west i dont think India is going to US but it surely is going to other western countries. I think even in future we will not go complete with russia but not with US too. we might select the vessel from russia but fill it with western and israeli components. or else go to french and german industries and avoid using US equipment. that is why i think in most accquisition by India we hear about Indianisation

gf0012-aust

November 18th, 2008, 04:21 PM

Regarding India's dependence on the west

Nobody has said anything about India being dependant on the west - the discussion is about Indias willingness to look further abroad (to the west) to look at other technoogy and platform solutions.

That is a reality here and now - its got nothing to do with perception and opinion.

The main stumbling block in some of these requests is an Indian insistence that they get full ToT - and in some cases thats not going to happen as commercial entities do not want to sacrifice IP even if it is purchased at a fair market price (which it usually is not)

This is a normal commercial situation which will either work out - or not. There's nothing machiavellian in any of it.

Feanor

November 18th, 2008, 09:11 PM

This is a normal commercial situation which will either work out - or not. There's nothing machiavellian in any of it.

I disagree. I would label the Indian procurement policy as rather Machiavellian. They're working hard to make the defense companies fight over the contracts. :)

cobzz

November 19th, 2008, 01:42 AM

Made up news anyone?

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=%E2%80%98Red+Flag%E2%80%99+offici al+apologises+to+IAF&artid=xQu1m6QLnIA=&SectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&MainSectionID=b7ziAYMenjw=&SectionName=pWehHe7IsSU=&SEO=

Idiots. I'll make sure to ignore Expressbuzz in the future. Read my comments at the bottom.

gf0012-aust

November 19th, 2008, 02:03 AM

I disagree. I would label the Indian procurement policy as rather Machiavellian. They're working hard to make the defense companies fight over the contracts. :)

No, situation normal. :) Having dealt with Indian companies on other military technology issues, I can assure you that this is how they engage.

They're tough negotiaters... (have gone through the same grief with pakistani's so, I'm guessing it's an inherent DNA issue.... :))

Feanor

November 19th, 2008, 02:35 AM

No, situation normal. :) Having dealt with Indian companies on other military technology issues, I can assure you that this is how they engage.

They're tough negotiaters... (have gone through the same grief with pakistani's so, I'm guessing it's an inherent DNA issue.... :))

So they're normally Machiavellian! :p:

aayiliam

November 19th, 2008, 05:41 AM

as a indian i can tell u tht we always look for somthing extra and for some discount while purchasing anything. whenever u come into bargaining with Indians u will c that fist thing they ask is "what are u offering along with this"?

regarding earlier msg i think u misunderstood me what i meant to say that is nowadays when we purchase it will be something of a mix and match it will contain technologies from lot of suppliers and get TOT for important parts so that dependence is not felt at later date. And since now this a buyers market we are likely to get away with it. eg: regarding MRCA we are asking for TOT and we are offered the TOT for the latest products

Ozzy Blizzard

November 20th, 2008, 02:59 AM

deception jamming, as from modern DRFM equipped sets is a pain for any radar set. however, a brand new AESA such as the APG-79/77 should have a suitable number of receivers, including one dedicated for ECCM that should allow relief.
but deception jamming will still reduce the Pk of small battery equipped missiles something fierce, which the USAF colonel, is reasonably accurate about. even HOJ wouldnt necessarily help unlike if it were old fashioned noise jamming.

As Abraham pointed out you need to have a good understanding of the threat system before deception jamming can be effective, and ECCM is one of the fastest advancing area's in AAM development. AIM-120D & meteor are going to be hell to fool with contemporary tech. Additionally deception jamming always has an fundamental flaw, if the missile realizes its being spoofed the EM source will simply make the target more visible.

Also the hideously complicated, rapid and random frequency modulation utilized by LPI AESA radars makes analyzing and the EM signature and returning something to spoof the radar virtually impossible with current tech. The random frequency modulation means unless your transmitting through out the Band you probably wont be on the exact same frequency, and if you broadcasting that loudly ESM gear will geo-locate the source quick smart.

Deception or seduction is the way to defeat active homing BVR but as a technique is heavily reliant on having good intel of the threat. The Israelis are not selling jammers to defeat AMRAAM and unless the Russians can get their hands on an actual seeker will just be working from a theortical base. The same can not be said for ADDER which compromised years (over a decade) ago. Also AESA radars can have PITBULL support modes where they illuminate the target for the actively homing missile at terminal engagement.

AFAIK it takes more than getting your hands on the seeker. The hardware is not the point, its the algorithms that govern the way the missile thinks which determine its ECCM vs deception gear. It takes more than getting your hands on a seeker to figure that out. IIRC one of the primary reasons the Israelis went ahead with Derby was the fact that the US would not release the codes that govern AMRAAM, and i have no doubt they took apart a few seekers trying to figure out what made them tick. They still had to develop their own system. I guess having the missile with software installed is a different kettle of fish to understanding it.

U have to wake Radar is not big deal. It is the large military specification grade aircraft thats what matter.

Is this a joke? Any schlub with a few mil can buy a Boeing 737 or the like, developing a radar capable enough to do the job is literally an order of magnitude more complex and difficult.

Haavarla

November 20th, 2008, 09:30 AM

So TVC sucks more than it helps, got that.

so now,

How is the data on PESA on SU-30MKI in the know? i believe IAF have never used the radars in a exercise?

What is IAF doing preparing for Israeli AWACS and with a data link that can not connect with an AWAC? (or is it a data link that can not connect to a US/NATO AWAC?)

Could someone explain the whole FOD thing with jet engines, and to what degree the FOD screens on SU-30s work/help (well apparently not good enough)?

what is that anything with out AESA?

A comon misunderstanding with the FOD here in this case.
I have digged up all i could find on this issue.
I cant't find ANY info that suggest that the AL-31FP is more vulnerable vs western engine.

The FOD screens helps, but only at a certain speed/thrust power.
If you go with full AFT, i would imagine the FOD screens would have to open up fully?

Now this is a wild guess on my account, but is those inlets fan on the
Su-30MKI situated lower to the ground than F-16c and F-15c??
The F-16 have a pretty low inlet fan i think, but with the F-15 i'm not sure..
If so, maybe it could be some thruth in this FOD report..

I think the Indians just wanted to play safe on those Engine, regarding the service situation for the AL-31FP at Red flag.

Think about it, if the Indians have to send those engines back to Russia for replacement or repairs..
I wonder if the Indians brought with them some extra engine on the transporter, or not?

Haavarla

November 20th, 2008, 10:02 AM

[QUOTE=funtz;158083]So TVC sucks more than it helps, got that.

He did say that the Indians pilot where fairly inexperienced at the Red flag.
He also said don't go there(use the TVC), unless u have to..

I think it's not that black or white with the TVC as you stated here.
You just have to know when to apply the TVC in A2A combat, anyway it all comes down to how skilled the pilots are.

kiranflanker

November 20th, 2008, 10:36 AM

hey guys while i was searching about all this stuff about the colonel and his comments i came across this article and i believe its the closest we can ever get in knowing what really happened at Nellis

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2008/11/livefist-column-vishnu-som-first-hand.html

aayiliam

November 20th, 2008, 11:44 AM

Regarding the TVC i dont think so that it sucks. IAF was not much used to TVC and this is one of the first such kind of TVC aircraft in Asia and even the russians dont have the complete mastery over that at the moment as it is very new technology in these parts. As the pilot has said once the Indian pilots learn to use this effectivly then it will become a potent weapon

hellfire

November 25th, 2008, 10:24 AM

well i came across this while searching about su 30mki rador in red flag.
in this article the author says the USAF are downplaying the SU30.
http://http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html

nevidimka

November 25th, 2008, 07:12 PM

Interesting. I wonder what is the capability of the BARS radar when run under training mode? Like range, targets tracking no, etc2. Is this info available?

Aussie Digger

November 29th, 2008, 08:54 AM

He did say that the Indians pilot where fairly inexperienced at the Red flag.
He also said don't go there(use the TVC), unless u have to..

I think it's not that black or white with the TVC as you stated here.
You just have to know when to apply the TVC in A2A combat, anyway it all comes down to how skilled the pilots are.

No matter how skilled the pilots are, TVC is useful for 2 things only.

Post stall maneuvering and high altitude maneuverability.

To counteract that, the system is heavy, draggy and mechanically complex, adding to significant maintenance issues.

Apart from the F-22 which is the most blatant "all the bells and whistles" aircraft around, the West has largely ignored TVC because of this:

In BVR air to air combat it adds little or nothing to an aircraft's capability, but rather detracts because it IS heavy and draggy as previously mentioned.

In strike/recon operations it adds nothing. Again it detracts.

In WVR combat, it adds capability in one narrow area of the flight regime (post stall).

IMHO the West has rightly ignored the cost (both financially and drag/weight wise) and reliability issues TVC presents in most aircraft.

A focus on improved "high G" WVR missiles has largely negated any usefulness TVC offers. Situational awareness is the name of the game, matched with adequate maneuverability. Super-maneuverability won't give you anything more (unless perhaps if you are down to using guns) and WVR air to air combat capabiliy is increasingly irrelevent in modern warfare.