Bharat Rakshak

Vayu Sena artical states 30-50 Km range, with +/-60 Degree in azimuth and elevation. Enables the pilot to fire a R-73RDM2.

Can you give an exact source for that Niranjan ?

MKI has N012 rearfacing radar the same radar was also carried by now extinct Mig-1.42.

Su-30MKI

Anantd:

The same article mentions that the MKI uses a N011M with a range of 350 km in search and a 200 Km for tracking. Can track 20 tragets and engage 8 "most threatening targets simultaneously". +/- 90 Deg in azimuth and +/- 55 Deg in elevation.

Sukumar ...

Not quite sure what your question on "packages" is ... You argue that a 2 aircraft attack formation is not a strike package. Fair enough.

You've also misunderstood my initial post a bit ... I never said that this was the first time IAF pilots were involved in BVR engagements.

Thanks
Vishnu

Vishnu, after explaining the package concept, I had the following question:

....the IAF/PAF have never used "packages" in previous wars. Usually they have done piecemeal commitment of flights of aircraft (or even loners) and in a very tactical fashion. If the IAF is beginning to use "packages" thats a good thing. Perhaps you can clarify if they indeed are or do they still think of sending in a quad of 21s or 27s to take out a target ??

Thanks

Niranjan, I've seen that article and with respect I'm not sure whether to take it as confirmation of rearward radar on the Su-30MKI of the IAF.

Any other confirmation ?

web page

Quote:

The aircraft also has a rearward facing NO12 radar - fitted in the tail sting - which alerts a pilot to the approach of an enemy aircraft on his tail. This radar has a range of 50 km for a 3 square metre RCS target and 100 km for larger ones. It features a surveillance area of ±60º in azimuth and elevation. It enables the pilot to fire the R-73RDM2 missile without turning to get a positive lock on the enemy aircraft. The missile will be launched as usual and will then flip 180º to intercept the enemy aircraft.

I couldn't find any place on the cutaway as well for the N012.

Man i have a problem believeing this because the website of the company which made SU-30MKI says different :

http://eng.irkut.ru/production/military/su30mki.shtml

" The Su-30 MKI aircraft is fitted with new generation onboard avionics including:

integrated radar sighting system capable of detecting and tracking of up to 15 air targets while simultaneously attacking of 4 of these targets; "

So see the diff. in how many targets can be tracked and engaged.

Also on that page there is no mention of Su-30MKI having a rearward facing radar.

None (so far).

I have a couple of three OLDER refs that state (mostly) that the Su-34 (SU-27IB?) and Su-35 (of course) "prototype" had this feature. Only one among them states that the MKI has it, but all these articles are in the 1997-99 or so time frame and I would not rely on them as sources.

I recall another article - actually a one-on-one interview with teh designer of the Su-27 (MKI(?)) that may have some reference. I have not been able to locate it - must have kept it in a real safe place, a place that I cannot recall - old age catching up . Sorry.

I do have a ref (JDW, 29Feb93, pg6) that the first Su-35 did have a dev radar placed in place of the chute. I do not know if that is of any help.

Will dig at when time permits.

Added latter:
This article from the Defence Journal does say that the rearward facing radar has a range of 2-3 Km. But, IMHO, the article is more for humor than anything else. Read it when you have some time late at night and are unable to catch sleep. It is funny.

Sukumar/Vishnu: This is what the US calls a package..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13971-2003Feb15.html

A succession of American technological wizardry quickly follows: an RC-135 "Rivet Joint" reconnaissance plane, for intercepting enemy communications; EA-6B jets, for jamming enemy radars and radios; F-16CJs, which specialize in destroying enemy antiaircraft installations, and, finally, a big tanker aircraft that refuels the "package" of aircraft in midair.

Ahh does it matter.. Let it be. As long as the enemy beleives we got all round coverage, he is gonna be careful even getting in the 6 o clock position. So forget it about. Lets leave some edge where it rightfully belongs! with IAF!!!

Sukumar:

There are many larger unresolved questions around the stories on exercise GARUDA (valuable and interesting as the info that's coming out is), so I don't necessarily want this to become another lengthy discussion point -- but it's not quite accurate to say that the IAF/PAF have never used "packages" in previous wars. They may not have used the term "package", but there were plenty of cases on both sides of, eg, four aircraft configured and tasked for strike, accompanied by two other aircraft configured and tasked for escort. Sometimes they would be immediately followed by an aircraft tasked to carry out BDA. And don't forget the use of MiG-21s for radio relay in '71. This doesn't add up to what the USAF would call a package, but it's not appropriate for the IAF to reproduce that in all respects anyway.

Currently (and during Kargil), my understanding is that the IAF has practised the use of strike packages (or something approaching packages) of up to sixteen aircraft for strikes, with several others in escort, recce, ECM and other support roles. (Sorry, no url to confirm this; but there's plenty of inferences to be drawn from what's in published sources.) And that's without AWACS or AAR.

I agree that the IAF tended in '65 and '71 to use formations that would be considered small by the standards of NATO planning for all-out conflict in Central Europe, and indeed those of Desert Storm (DS represented circumstances that are probably nearly unique, anyway). But given the distances, the dispersion of aircraft and airbases in the India-Pakistan theatre, the tasks that had to be shouldered by stations with just one or two squadrons on strength, the state of radar coverage on the Pakistani side at the time, and the lack of ECM capability on ours, the use of small formations was probably both inevitable and tactically correct. The formation strengths were not out of line with those in many other conflicts, other than NATO Central Europe and DS.

And finally, even in '65 and '71, I don't think the IAF actually planned for the use of single aircraft for missions into hostile airspace. The occasions when single IAF aircraft did penetrate into enemy territory on their own were usually cases when one aircraft of a planned pair had to drop out, for serviceability or similar reasons. In most such cases, it took a heckuva lot for the single pilot left to continue with the mission on his own -- please let's not make even implicit comparisons with Desert Storm; I think that kind of comparison under-values what our people really did. Our people, both on the ground and in the air, were up against completely different circumstances; and did what they had to do with what they had in hand at the time.

Regards,

Sree

From JDW.

38 ? Another 8 retired ? airframe life reached limit for these 8 ?

Here we go again - some report throws a number and we get our ourselves into a knot.

Well I am sure you are fed up, can't help you there. The reason for the concern is if there are two crews per plane, which is possible in our scenario and each one gets 220 hours per year, you are almost at the end of life for several airframes that were delivered during june 1985.

220 * 18 = 3960.

400 * 18 = 7200.

The total extended life of mirage airframe if I am not mistaken is at 7500 hours up from 5000 before. And hence my concern. This may also be the reason that the extra 10 airframes were ordered. To keep the number constant.

And if I am wrong enlighten me..

Sree, thanks for your detailed response. Dont get yourself tied up in knots on the "packaging" concept. I did not accuse the IAF/PAF of being bad bcos they werent packagers In fact aircraft like the B-2 were intended to make packages obsolete......

The idea behind the question was to see if the IAF has graduated to thinking of air power in a more strategic manner than just tactical.

Cy

First, The report mentions 38 2000H's not Hs and THs. He probably did not include the Trainer versions.

Second Point is all this 220 hours per plane per year per crew is our [b]Pet BR theories</B>.

Reality is different. No Mirage Squadron has 36 pilots on its rolls (To give the ratio of two crew per plane). Nor do they have even 24 or 25. Mirage pilots in reality log about 180 hours per year - some of them on a two seater. So the single seaters probably logs around 150 hours per year.

The first mirage to complete 1000 Hours did so in 1990. Nearly five-six years after induction. At that rate They still have more than half their airframe life left.

Hope this helps.

Thank you jagan for clarifying the issue. I guess the first mirages than have more then half thier life remaining..

Sukumar, no worries. I have occasionally had to explain and re-explain and re-re-explain, at other forums, No, there were good, sound reasons why it wouldn't have been appropriate for the IAF to use exactly the same tactics as the Americans / the Israelis / NATO / whoever-your-pet-example-is; so let's just put it down to a Pavlovian response on my part!

In '65 and '71, no question, the IAF was still a tactically-oriented force. The change to thinking in more strategic terms, as well as the capacity to operate more strategically, are both relatively recent (in '71 we were still using Hunters, fer Gawd's sake, to attack strategic targets!!) -- but you know that!

Regards,

Sree

Sanjay,

May have something for you. would prefer to take it off line if you do not mind.

indicgroup@netscape.net

I am curious about the nature of BVR tactics employed by the IAF and how they were amended during the excercise.

A few observations:
1. It seems on the first day, IAF M2Ks were getting plastered by French M2K via BVR kills.
2. The Indians mentioned that the French had better radars which gave them a longer detection range.
3. Towards the end, the IAF M2Ks were launching their misiles too, about the same time as the French.

Some conclusions:
1. Since the IAF primarily trains to operate against the PAF with little or no BVR capability, they are less aggressive in the use of the missiles. That is: they will come closer to the oponent before launcing the missile in order to increase the kill probability.

2. The French have a better understanding of the kill zone of their missiles and are more aggressive in their use. They fire sooner than the IAF pilots originally did.

3. I am not sure how significant the radar range issue is since at the end the IAF was also succeeding in launching. Regardless of the range of the radar, the range of the missile is also a factor. Any detailed information about the range of the missile (kinetic, kill zone) and how the radars on the Indian M2Ks mate with the range of these missiles will be useful.

4. The IAF needs more work when it comes to BVR armed opponents. AWACS and other means for increasing the situational awareness for critical for success in BVR battles. More precise information about the effectiveness of the missiles at different ranges and firing situations is vital in these BVR-BVR engagements. IMHO this means a greater focus towards indegenious development (Astra).

I am puzzled by this exercise. If IAF and French have practiced firing their missiles, do they actually launched their missiles or is just stimulation of firing missiles or a simulation game?

If it is all simulation, how do they account for the possibility that pilots may use evasion tactics to evade missiles. How can they claim kills when they just fire missiles? A kill is a kill is a kill. A missed kill is a missed kill is a missed kill and the targeted plane goes away intact. Do they use live missiles which explodes harmlessly a distance from the targeted plane as a way of saying ok you were killed and BAM?

Please enlighten a confused desi. :confused:

An ACMI-like system records a time-line of aircraft and missile parameters (as extrapolated from the initial firing solution). This data is analyzed after the exercise to determine if a kill should be awarded or not. No live missiles were used.

Suffice to say that they have developed some rules, both sides agree and follow. They seem to have some computers that act as final refs.

Some first hand accounts indicate that this figure for the Mirage-2000 sqns is actually quite low.However,here's where overhaul,structural modification,refurbishment and mid-life updates and life extension are important key words.HAL Bangalore's Overhaul division takes this responsibility,conforms to Dassault and ISO-9000 standards and is authorised to service other Mirage customers.

The Mirage 2000 deep maintenance interval is ~900-1100 flight hours.Dassault quotes an MTBF of 6.8 hours and airframe life is estimated to be around 7,500 hours and is guaranteed to 5,000 hours *without* updates.(recommended figs)

Forget the Mirages for a while and notice how the elderly Migs which *appear* to be way beyond their TTLs,are putting just as much time in the air.Also take note of the Mirages and other aircraft flying world over.

surely this is the strongest case yet for increasing the number of full mission simulators in the IAF and IN?

The results of the exercise has shown that a BVR advantage can be effectively neutralized. This has implications with regard to the BVR advantage the IAF enjoys over the PAF. In combat scenario the PAF will be able to neutralize the BVR advantage of at least some IAF aircrafts/packages.

At least in the Indian scenario, WVR combat is here to stay for a while longer as the IAF does not enjoy the overwhelming qualitative and quantitative advantage that would perclude WVR engagements. I.e. no AEW/C, low numbers of smart munitions, air bases that are geographically vulnerable, etc.

The IAF will not just learn how to neutralize BVR advantage but also learn the techniques and tactics the PAF will use to try to neutralize the IAF's BVR advantage. Therefore, giving the IAF a better opportunity to develop counter-counter BVR tactics.

hitesh said

have you ever played child(ish) games at LaSer Zone. If not join a kids birthday party and play Laser tag games it is fun to kill (like That) and die laughing too!!

Not quite.In the IAF's case,we're talking about an airforce which has an extensive BVRAAM,long range radar,ECM/EW and a related training aids inventory for decades,has placed high emphasis on BVR tactics throughout and trains to counter the PLAAF which is in possesion of very similar weaponary.You can also add the french experience and refinement of tactics from DACT.If the PAF's GCI net is fully active and their SA is good,BVR attacks may be less effective but in the long run,they'll find themselves suffering losses which would be very difficult to avoid.

Is there a M2k simulator in Gwalior?

does it provide only basic flight training or full mission training? does it include DACT?

how well can BVR techniques be practiced on a simulator?

Weren't South Africans going to take part too? Why no news about them?