Exercise Indradhanush (Rainbow) '07 @ RAF Waddington, UK

vinayak_d · Post by **vinayak_d** » 06 Jul 2007 13:35

Errr..No it is not???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707

Max length :46.61m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-76

Length : 46.59m

Also we are getting the A-50 which is used by RuAf as awacs. I wouldn't worry too much. The important thing would be to train hard on the awacs once we get it. It also reduces the logistics for IAF.

gauravjkale · Post by **gauravjkale** » 06 Jul 2007 15:07

guys, some problem with the front page. am not able to open bharat-rakshak.com directly

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2007 15:07

Heck those are some seriously beautiful photos from Vilayat!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2007 15:09

The pics are amazingly beautiful

No you cannot fire a R27 at those ranges. No pilot in their right mind would fire a missile at that range. Not only will NEZ envelope be out of reach but the missile would pretty much be useless esp. considering the much draggy airframe older R27s have.

Any "serious" BVR engagement only takes place between 18-35km regardless of what missiles you are carrying. It doesnâ€™t do any good to fire them at 80km and then miss.
I would leave the sim kills to the actual pilots and not get into my toy is better than yours arguments.

Logan agreed , The problem associated with extreme range engagement can be solved by using a different kind of propulsion namely a Ramjet variant , The solid fuel will ultimately bleed its energy no matter what type of missile it is , The best bet for AAM is to use Ramjet propulsion like Meteor or R-77/Astra Ramjet variant.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2007 15:19

It appears that the UK actually makes facilities for enthusiasts.

We really need to demand that from Indian authorities because most of our Press and official photographers haven't a clue about aircraft photography. Some have no idea about photography in fact. Kapil knows the guy..

gauravjkale · Post by **gauravjkale** » 06 Jul 2007 18:43

some more amazing images at this link:

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/cgi-bin/uk ... =9;t=34754

Rahul Shukla · Post by **Rahul Shukla** » 06 Jul 2007 20:03

Source: Clicky

Thank you 'gauravjkale' for posting the link. The previous pics I posted are also from link provided by gauravjkale.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Jul 2007 20:19

Guru log before I get into this Typhy v/s MKI thingy I had a few elementary questions .

1.How does one decide a victor in a simulated BVR engagement ? i.e is it as straightforward as getting a first lock on the target ? In this particular scenario when both the aircraft are pretty much on par wrt Radar and BVR AAM range then how does one decide the outcome of an air to air duel ?

How do ECM and ECCM come into play for there aint any actual missile aproaching the aircraft ,how are different valus of Pk(probability of kill) for different AAMs accounted for given the fact that both the aggresor and interceptor are armed with missiles comparable in terms of range ?

Somehow I feel there are just too many variables in a BVR scenario to confirm the outcome of a duel between comparable platfroms,WVR simulations are perhaps pretty much close to real life scenarios for obvious reasons.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Jul 2007 20:42

Austin wrote:All this scenerio is good to beat some one on board with assumptions and presumptions , But in real world such assumptions and presumptions dont work , You simply assumed that Slotted array will not detect beyond this range and how MKI will get the first shot .

Well, obviously we work on certain basic assumptions on forums don't we? or what did you base your bet on the typhoon for? No assumptions there? Certain things are pretty darned basic - ESAs (whether active or passive) generally have distinct advantages over mechs, esp. when you consider a 1 meter monster such as the Bars. I "assumed" based on open source data - such as the Ef2000 typhoon test pilot claiming a detection of F4 sized targets @ 165/180 km; again I "assumed" Bars range based on open source data given by the manufacturer. Based on this, the Bars comes out on top.

Since I belive you are so well versed with Typhoon capablity and have been briefed in and out by both RAF and IAF on Su-30 MKI that now you can speak with authority on the subject , Pardon me but beyond Brochure we dont know the real thing and no one will ever tell us the real thing.

Take it easy with the sarcasm bud, I never claimed anything to the effect that either the RAF or the IAF had given me insider scoops. I was just pointing out to some probable loopholes in your bet against the MKI. Just wanting to ensure that you don't lose that hard earned moolah in your fascination for the "pretty lady"

As far as WVR is concerned you are expecting the EF2000 to overcome a TVC equipped HMS+R73 combo exploited by 2 very sharp set of IAF eyes.

YES

Alas, to each his own - there goes another sane man to his doom.

Regards,
CM.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 06 Jul 2007 21:09

Rahul Shukla wrote:

All lined up resting their large behinds

.
What a beautiful shot.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2007 21:09

CM I know you and other here belong to Su-30 fan boy club

, I was not trying to be crtical of you , But the manner in which you put it makes it believe that its Game ,Set & Match for the MKI.

The bottom line is we simply dont know ( neither me , you or any one on board ) to claim either this way or that , The IAF will hold the *real* capabilities of MKI close to its chest with all the publicity withstanding the RAF would do similarly with Typhoon. Which not only limits to technical capability of aircraft but also includes Tactics , Strategy and employment.

IMHO the key features which makes Typhoon a winnable aircraft is

>> Low RCS by Design which ofcourse can be bettered if comprehensive LO techniques are implemented on Typhoon not withstanding its external carriage
>> Excellent T/W ratio
>> Supercruise Capability with weapons system (~ M 1.2 )
>> Optimised for Supersonic Flight regime ( unline subsonic in case of MKI )
>> Excellent MMI ( which ofcourse MKI also has it )

As of now Typhoon lacks the Strike capability that MKI has and MKI has clearly an edge over that area.

But as I mentioned your assumption is as good as mine , So you can vouch for MKI while I feel Typhoon has a better chance

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jul 2007 21:20

a good harvest. most beautiful set of MKI pics ever. the wing body blending and complex shapes devised with relatively primitive computational support by TsAGI in late 1970s ussr gives an idea of the kind of talent they had and what they can do now that $$ and tech flows are more open

Inshallah the 5th gen raptorski shall be a fearsome beast

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Jul 2007 21:24

Raymond wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:The great difference is that the MKI has R27s that can actually be fired @ around 100km+ and even though they are SARH they will still give the MKI first shot - the EF2000 is already on the defensive.
regards,
CM
Nope.
R27T1/ET1
R27R1/ER1

You are probly right on those figures, however, different sites show different figures. Irrespective, giving the typhoon the benefit of the doubt and assuming similar detection times, the MKI probly still gets to shoot first considering the AMRAAM C5 can't get an effective shot any earlier than 60-65km - No wonder the MKI ate up RSAF f16 blk 52 and even the Bisons fared pretty well against them. My bet's still on the MKI.

Regards,
CM.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2007 21:25

Singha thats true , But the other part of the story goes that if they didnt deliver within the resources that they had something equal or better than Ameriski , Then the designers really had hard times ahead under Soviet

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2007 21:28

pradeepe wrote:
Rahul Shukla wrote:

All lined up resting their large behinds .
What a beautiful shot.

Bloody English weather. The MKIs are in sunshine. Look at those clouds in the background.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 06 Jul 2007 21:40

True, might have used a filter. It looks very overcast, but the planes seem bright and the grass in front looks good. The contrast came out very nice.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jul 2007 21:44

the photographer had this to say...

Just want to mention we went down to shoot the Flanker line up again at lunchtime and some crews came over and spoke to us and they are so amazed and pleased to see so many people interested in there jets that they actually parked them facing the other way and moved the generators the over side of the jets just for us photographers, what a bunch of good guys. Pics to follow...

---

yeah yeah

now how about doing the same for us back home eh ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Jul 2007 21:46

Austin wrote:CM I know you and other here belong to Su-30 fan boy club , I was not trying to be crtical of you , But the manner in which you put it makes it believe that its Game ,Set & Match for the MKI.

Actually Austin, its not that I feel the MKI is invincible, its just that i've seen the claim far too many times that western birds such as the rafale or the ef2000 are going to chew and spit out Migs and flankers like so much tobacco. And that just gets under my craw so i play a bit of the devil's advocate

The bottom line is we simply dont know ( neither me , you or any one on board ) to claim either this way or that , The IAF will hold the *real* capabilities of MKI close to its chest with all the publicity withstanding the RAF would do similarly with Typhoon. Which not only limits to technical capability of aircraft but also includes Tactics , Strategy and employment.

Agreed.

>> Low RCS by Design which ofcourse can be bettered if comprehensive LO techniques are implemented on Typhoon not withstanding its external carriage

Debatable point here - at least in terms of external looks, the Typhoon hardly shows any signs of RCS reduction on the airframe. However, we may assume a marginal advantage to give it the benefit of the doubt. Also, remember that Russki flankers (Su 27s and not superflankers such as the MKI or Su 35) are supposed to have RAM treatment bringing down RCS figures to 3sqm. Who knows what RCS treatments the MKI has received?

>> Excellent T/W ratio

Undoubtedly, but put on an EFT or 2 along with the AAM load out and it might change.

>> Supercruise Capability with weapons system (~ M 1.2 )

How far will supercruise help in a BVR engagement against a Flanker with abnormal endurance and fuel stores?

>> Optimised for Supersonic Flight regime ( unline subsonic in case of MKI )

Then God help it in the WVR arena although the MKI is no slouch in the supersonic regime either esp. with TVC helping cut out some drag.

As of now Typhoon lacks the Strike capability that MKI has and MKI has clearly an edge over that area.

True.

But as I mentioned your assumption is as good as mine , So you can vouch for MKI while I feel Typhoon has a better chance

Overall, a very, very tight match indeed.

REgards,
CM.

mandrake · Post by **mandrake** » 06 Jul 2007 22:05

pradeepe wrote:
Rahul Shukla wrote:

All lined up resting their large behinds .
What a beautiful shot.

Man bhar geya bhai, what a beautiful pic.

Can we get the bigger version for walpappers?

And oh Austin, MKI is no slouch either, you dont even know what RCS treatment has been done to MKI, just looking at the nicely silvery painted edges of wings gives you an idea of RAM treatment, RCS gets more-or-less negated if one uses external storages.

My money is on MKI due to its growth potential, put a 3000 AESA modules Radar and a uprated Engine, now bring on EF with AMSAR AESA and lets see the game

To me both Typhoon and MKI has its own weaknesses and drawbacks, A single bird cannot be termed as superior to other when one has such close resemblance with the other.

They are in their league of their own.

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 06 Jul 2007 22:10

joey wrote:
My money is on MKI due to its growth potential, put a 3000 AESA modules Radar and a uprated Engine, now bring on EF with AMSAR AESA and lets see the game

Joey bhaiyya, you are sounding a lot like someone whom Kartman ( and others ) know, but who shall remain unnamed. Please don't go that way.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jul 2007 22:36

See my answer to RCS is simple , No doubt if they can achieve a RCS of 3 m sq for plain vanila MKI its a wonder full achievement , But there is no denying the fact that the MKI basic design comes from early 80's where RCS was of little or no consideration in designers mind , so by design MKI dosent have low RCS but that RAM thing and some other coating makes it possible.

The Typhoon design is of 90's vintage and RCS reduction was taken into account while designing it , not as extensive as an F-22 but many basic stuff goes into it , That equally well applies for Rafale , Now if they can do some comprehensive RCS reduction on plain vanila Typhoon using RAM/Coating etc as Russians have done for MKI then you can well imagine that it can achieve far better results.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jul 2007 23:06

imho MKI should borrow a leaf from EF and arrange for semi conformal carriage of 6-8 AAMs under the fuselage. Mig31 also had this feature for AA-9.

http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/missiles/r33-2.jpg

F14 had it for lead pair of phoenixs
http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2006/ ... cat_02.jpg

keeping the wings clean helps to reduce RCS, drag and wing stress all of
which are good things, wingtop EW pods & tower decoys are ok thought MKI has two big vertical tail roots bays to play with also

there's no reason why we cant ask for tinkering on these lines, the basic
aerodynamic design is not frozen in stone.

secondly note how EF has taken care to minimize the number of aeriels
sticking out including neat conformal antenna near the cockpit, Su30
is better than Mig29 but more work can easily be done if necessary in
india onlee to replace for example the air data probe below the cockpit
side with a conformal opening. the vertical tailplanes can be cleaned up
and the gap between rudder and fin reduced

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 06 Jul 2007 23:55

Singha wrote:imho MKI should borrow a leaf from EF and arrange for semi conformal carriage of 6-8 AAMs under the fuselage. Mig31 also had this feature for AA-9.

I thought the flanker could already do that

- perhaps not 8 AAMs, but at least 4-6.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Info/ ... oi-30.html
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/pix/su27sk2.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c52/b ... mament.jpg

Pit · Post by **Pit** » 07 Jul 2007 00:35

Cain Marko wrote:You are probly right on those figures, however, different sites show different figures. Irrespective, giving the typhoon the benefit of the doubt and assuming similar detection times, the MKI probly still gets to shoot first considering the AMRAAM C5 can't get an effective shot any earlier than 60-65km - No wonder the MKI ate up RSAF f16 blk 52 and even the Bisons fared pretty well against them. My bet's still on the MKI.

One correction, current Typhoon used on RAF, aren't cleared for AIM-120C-5, that would only happens from Tranche 1 Block 10 aircrafts, 2008-2009. They're currently cleared for AIM-120B.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 07 Jul 2007 02:04

Logan wrote:And presumably you do know about the unreleased details of the MKI?

I wouldnt say they are unreleased...in total. But yes, theres a lot about the MKI that can be & should be discussed a decade from now, when the MLU comes in..or when the MRCAs arrive. If ever, that is.

No you cannot fire a R27 at those ranges. No pilot in their right mind would fire a missile at that range. Not only will NEZ envelope be out of reach but the missile would pretty much be useless esp. considering the much draggy airframe older R27s have. Any "serious" BVR engagement only takes place between 18-35km regardless of what missiles you are carrying. It doesnâ€™t do any good to fire them at 80km and then miss.

You are mistaken here. Again, there is a good reason why the R-27 is being retained in the IAF inventory and will be for some time.

Austin wrote:So you think that RAF has released all the details on Typhoon for all to see

Actually - wrt many key parameters, yes! They have been very very public with the access to the bird about many key operational capabilities. Not the RAF per se, but the EADS combine. Partly to counter public criticism of the program & partly because of the participating nations strong democratic credentials, and most importantly, because they have been very concerned with export sales.

If you actually look at the open reports, its fairly possible to build up a good capability overview of the EF. Of course, I am not getting my hands on operational frequencies, beam widths of the captor etc etc - but the rest, many people worldwide have a good idea. And by the end of this exercise, so will the IAF. I have kept pointing you to some data sources, with good reason!

See my answer to RCS is simple , No doubt if they can achieve a RCS of 3 m sq for plain vanila MKI its a wonder full achievement , But there is no denying the fact that the MKI basic design comes from early 80's where RCS was of little or no consideration in designers mind , so by design MKI dosent have low RCS but that RAM thing and some other coating makes it possible.

The Typhoon design is of 90's vintage and RCS reduction was taken into account while designing it , not as extensive as an F-22 but many basic stuff goes into it , That equally well applies for Rafale , Now if they can do some comprehensive RCS reduction on plain vanila Typhoon using RAM/Coating etc as Russians have done for MKI then you can well imagine that it can achieve far better results.

You are thoroughly mixing up things here! The EF design, and to a fair extent the Rafales too, come from the 80's not the 90s! The EF program was born way back, but the design aims of the program need to be kept in mind, as do the Rafales. There is little doubt that the EF was more of a classic air superiority fighter with RCS reduction being in the form of band aids that were added to the original design in order to reduce the RCS, but a combination of long range radar, and superb aerodynamic performance was deemed the critical factor. In contrast, the Rafale designers chose the discrete option. This included a low signature, a radar with LPI characteristics (and that is also the reason why the range of the RBE-2 is RDY equivalent) & they also invested a lot in optronic development and even the Mica-IR program. As things would have it, market pressure is now forcing both design teams to stress upon aspects of their airframes, the original designers didnt consider as "that important".
Coming to the Su-27/30-MKI, the airframe treatment prescribed by the Russians is pretty much the same in theme and content, with what has been implemented on the EF. The EF team has gone a different way when it comes to the fan blades however, and the Russians state that their method is also workable.

I have been following the EF program for ages, and in fact even before the MKI, ditto for the Rafale- shoot, I even have detailed reports on the EAP lying around somewhere. This entire reduced RCS - EF hosanna is of the recent times, thanks to the JSF marketing campaign. And even that bird...wonder what its actual RCS will be, for grade-3 (grade-1 US, grade-2 UK/RAAF) customers..

But the reality is that unless you go below the 0.1 mtr threshold (and that aint gonna happen with EF's/ Rafales/ MKIs festooned with munitions), in fact a tenth of that..you arent going to get any discernible performance advantages in terms of detection when both sides have high powered AWACs. And that is exactly why the US went for stealth...quickly deciding (with good reason!), that airframe performance could be traded down, but true detectability reduction..with internal carriage is the way to go. Uncle Sam has led the way, as usual! Wonder when the rest of the world will catch up.

Coming to aerodynamics & propulsion & supercruise and all that...heres the funny thing...compare the released data by the EF consortium...and you'll see that that while SC gives the EF good performance vis a vis teen series fighters..the Flanker carries enough fuel to call it a draw in most critical (especially air to air) parameters.

In fact, given the size & hauling capacity of the Flanker, the IAF made an excellent choice by going for it! And unlike the PRC Su-27SK clones, ours are beefed up internally by design (a process which we are involved in), making this aircrafts innards more accessible & transparent to us. And when I state this- I am looking towards the Russian approach of KISS! A powerful radar & LRAAMs- thats the Flankers forte. And any non pure stealth fighter bar the F-22, will not find this bird a walkover.

Pit · Post by **Pit** » 07 Jul 2007 02:29

Some Typhoon RAM pics:

Typhoon also uses S-shaped air-intakes and that brings good benefits for LO. Rafale made use of this feature too.

Very nice site for learning about Typhoon:

http://eurofighter.airpower.at/

German, you will need translation software.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 07 Jul 2007 02:30

JCage wrote:You are mistaken here. Again, there is a good reason why the R-27 is being retained in the IAF inventory and will be for some time.

Didn't someone mention some time back (Aero India, I guess) that the IAF had almost done away with the R-27 for the MKI?

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 07 Jul 2007 02:35

Could be, especially if the MKIs are going to get even more stuff.. but the R27 ER is going to be in the IAF inventory for quite some time and not be discarded/ pushed out asap..there are reasons for that (ie the huge stockpile of R-27s that we have being the sole criteria is not the case)..

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jul 2007 02:49

Thanks Pit.
While we are on this topic I was wondering if someone could shed some light on this:
Since SARH AAMs (R27 ERs for eg) are primarily guided to the target by the launch platform (such as the MKI), wouldn't they be more stealthy and likely to catch targets unaware since they don't have seekers that turn on during terminal stages? So, while the target is mainly concerned with breaking launch platform radar lock, it would never know if an Alamo is sneaking up on it until its all too late. Couldn't this be a HUGE advantage usable by monster radars like the BARS or IRBIS? Or will modern a/c equipped with a MAWS be able to detect an incoming R27?
OTOH, while an ARH missile provides the convenience of fire and forget, its seeker would have to light up in the terminal phase thereby giving the target some warning to use ECM or evasive manouvers?
Just thinking out aloud.
CM.

Lkawamoto · Post by **Lkawamoto** » 07 Jul 2007 02:50

Singha wrote:a good harvest. most beautiful set of MKI pics ever. the wing body blending and complex shapes devised with relatively primitive computational support by TsAGI in late 1970s ussr gives an idea of the kind of talent they had and what they can do now that $$ and tech flows are more open

Inshallah the 5th gen raptorski shall be a fearsome beast

computer simulations allow verification of a platform while creative part of the complex design comes from experience, artistic instincts, inspiration (from flying birds, insects), and lessons learned from mistakes.

there are guru's of mil aircraft design (Clarence L. â€œKellyâ€

gashish · Post by **gashish** » 07 Jul 2007 03:40

[quote="Lkawamoto"]
there are guru's of mil aircraft design (Clarence L. â€œKellyâ€

JaiS · Post by **JaiS** » 07 Jul 2007 06:28

Video

RAF Waddington 2007 - Various take-offs & landings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8lTAjRYkkY

Featuring :

Su-30
Il-76
Typhoon
Hunter
Spitfire
Tornado

Tilak · Post by **Tilak** » 07 Jul 2007 06:59

More Pics

by MHZ Spotter

Raymond · Post by **Raymond** » 07 Jul 2007 11:21

Cain Marko wrote: You are probly right on those figures, however, different sites show different figures.

Those are the official figures.Anywhere else doesnt count.And even those are achieved very rarely.

Irrespective, giving the typhoon the benefit of the doubt and assuming similar detection times, the MKI probly still gets to shoot first considering the AMRAAM C5 can't get an effective shot any earlier than 60-65km

Probably,probably not.From what I know about the MKI and the Typhoon,the two seem very similar.So cannot judge them sitting here.

- No wonder the MKI ate up RSAF f16 blk 52 and even the Bisons fared pretty well against them. My bet's still on the MKI.

Regards,
CM.

Typhoon is no blk-52.And besides,excercises with F-16s ,scoring good against them doesnt matter.Both parties use notional missiles with the same ranges in the exercises.It doesnt depend on characteristics of the C5 and R77.(or R27 for that matter).

Wait and see whether any reports emerge...although I doubt it.Maybe something from informal sources.Prejudging will be erroneous.

Raymond · Post by **Raymond** » 07 Jul 2007 11:47

Cain Marko wrote:Thanks Pit.
While we are on this topic I was wondering if someone could shed some light on this:
Since SARH AAMs (R27 ERs for eg) are primarily guided to the target by the launch platform (such as the MKI), wouldn't they be more stealthy and likely to catch targets unaware since they don't have seekers that turn on during terminal stages?So, while the target is mainly concerned with breaking launch platform radar lock, it would never know if an Alamo is sneaking up on it until its all too late.

SARHs cant sneak up.The enemy aircraft have to be locked on to all the time the missile is on the way and then the enemy has MAWS.ARH can be stealth if its seeker goes online beyond the range of the enemy's MAWS.

Or will modern a/c equipped with a MAWS be able to detect an incoming R27?

MAWS/MLWS detects radiation from the incoming missile's exhaust..

OTOH, while an ARH missile provides the convenience of fire and forget, its seeker would have to light up in the terminal phase thereby giving the target some warning to use ECM or evasive manouvers?

MAWS cannot say when/if the ARH seeker has become active.

Ajay K · Post by **Ajay K** » 07 Jul 2007 13:04

My favourite snap of the RAF electronic arms

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c168/ ... 19_800.jpg

What are those probes under the nose of the Tornado F2?

http://www.pbase.com/markymc/image/80150910.jpg

srai · Post by **srai** » 07 Jul 2007 13:32

As part of marketing and selling efforts, over the course of next couple of years expect to see pretty much all the MRCA contenders participate in an exercise with IAF and its MKI:

UK ->
EF2000 (happened Indradhanush) / (future Indradhanush II)

France ->
Rafale (future GARUDA III)

USA ->
F-16 version? (happened Cope India 2006),
F-18E/F (future Cope India 2008)

Maybes:
Sweden/South Africa? -> Gripen
Russia -> MiG-29 version?

These exercises should give IAF somewhat of a more "realistic" capabilities of these MRCA birds which hopefully will help them with their eventual decision.

Kapil · Post by **Kapil** » 07 Jul 2007 16:52

shiv wrote:It appears that the UK actually makes facilities for enthusiasts.

We really need to demand that from Indian authorities because most of our Press and official photographers haven't a clue about aircraft photography. Some have no idea about photography in fact. Kapil knows the guy..

Hush Shiv,Hush .Not so loud

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jul 2007 21:13

Raymond wrote:Those are the official figures.Anywhere else doesnt count.And even those are achieved very rarely.

Right, in that case the Amraam B equipped EF2000s are in even deeper trouble than initially thought since the USAF officially puts the range of the Amraam A/B @ a mere 20 miles ( ~ 35km).

Irrespective, giving the typhoon the benefit of the doubt and assuming similar detection times, the MKI probly still gets to shoot first considering the AMRAAM C5 can't get an effective shot any earlier than 60-65km

Probably,probably not.From what I know about the MKI and the Typhoon,the two seem very similar.So cannot judge them sitting here.

So long as the typhoons just have the Aim 120B, they have an uphill battle; with the C5, it will make it a lot more interesting.

Both parties use notional missiles with the same ranges in the exercises.It doesnt depend on characteristics of the C5 and R77.(or R27 for that matter).

Thats the way it should be, it would depend on the ROE of the exercise. The scenario I was creating was without any such artificial parameters.

Wait and see whether any reports emerge...although I doubt it.Maybe something from informal sources.Prejudging will be erroneous.

Fair enough.

Regards,
CM

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 07 Jul 2007 21:51

Raymond wrote:SARHs cant sneak up.The enemy aircraft have to be locked on to all the time the missile is on the way and then the enemy has MAWS.ARH can be stealth if its seeker goes online beyond the range of the enemy's MAWS.

Okay, I need some more clarification. My original point was that since ARH AAMs have a radar transmitter (seeker?) that goes "on" in the terminal phase, won't it light up the target's RWR? OTOH, since the SARH missile does not emit any radio waves (no transmitting radar), how is the target going to know that it is approaching and is in its end game?. No doubt, it has already been notified by its RWR of the launch platform, But if there are a couple of enemy a/c emitting at the same time, how does the target know a) a missile has been launched by either of the a/c and b) which a/c has actually launched it? If it is entirely dependent on the MAWS (which work on heat emissions as you point out), then does a MAWS have 360 deg coverage and @ what distance will it detect exhaust emissions from a missile?

MAWS/MLWS detects radiation from the incoming missile's exhaust..

which would be no different for the ARH.

MAWS cannot say when/if the ARH seeker has become active.

Yeah, but the RWR should right? Although by then its probly too late for the target to do anything but last ditch manouvers?
Try to imagine the following scenario:
AWACS/GCI being constant, 3 MKIs detect a bunch of EF2000s head on, @ a distance of about 70km+ they engage with a salvo of 4 R27s. AT this distance neither group of a/c is able to engage with ARHs. WHat can the typhoons do? If they continue on a head on course, they run the danger of an Alamo interception, if they turn tail an MKI or 2 could give chase and use a couple of R27ETs. Either way, the EF2000s are immediately put in a defensive position.
Even if the Typhoons detected the MKIs at the same time, there is little they could do but take defensive measures. THe MKI otoh, having the advantage of 2 pilots can perhaps try to avoid detection while at the same time attack with SARHs, without providing a clue to the enemy.
I know it might sound a little far fetched but extrapolate this to a situation on the subcontinent vs F16s or chinki flankers. Ahem, just put the MKIs on the offensive this time.

Regards,
CM