Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 25 Jul 2014 02:26

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 853 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 16:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03
Posts: 1154
I am listening to the podcast right now.
This has almost made mainstream media. This is definitely a career ending move by the officer concerned or at least a Very Serious Rap.
Apparantly some info on the F-22 is also let out, tail fall during thrust vectoring, turn rates etc. Bad Bad move..


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 16:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2007 19:02
Posts: 118
p_saggu wrote:
Is it possible to down load the podcast?


yes just click on download button bottom of the podcast if you having problems tell me i can up-load to megashare in mp3 format if you prefer.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 16:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Oct 2007 19:02
Posts: 118
http://www.MegaShare.com/520505
Podcast.mp3
6.03 MB


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 16:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28
Posts: 11266
Location: In between wars in our time
having seen the video, there is not much there that is really confidential or secret that could not be figured out by looking at the engineering of the systems. i am pretty sure it was all public domain and the rest of it was dressed up for consumption by the 'good ol' boys'. there have been enough air shows with fancy manoeuvers showing abrubt loss of speed and height to know all this. if the audience were retired USAF pilots, then its as good as public domain and not a secure briefing. clearly it was video'ed properly and not from a mobile phone, so there was enough awareness of it possibly getting out.

once again, this was a pep talk for the USAF to restore some H&D after Cope India


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 16:35 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03
Posts: 1154
Thanks gogna,
:oops: There is a button on the site itself which says "Download". My being more at ease with Pingrezi did me in I guess. :oops:


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 16:44 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Posts: 280
Location: India
It all started from BR right? :wink: Seems BR is being monitored on a daily basis. :twisted:


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 16:53 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Posts: 798
joey wrote:
It all started from BR right? :wink: Seems BR is being monitored on a daily basis. :twisted:


No. The video was posted on 5 Oct, 2008. Some gentleman who happened to be a member of defencetalk picked up the youtube link from there and posted on Orkut. I picked up the link from Orkut and posted it on Br. Small world isn't it? :wink:

Cheers...


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 16:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03
Posts: 1154
Joey you'll be surprised if you look out for such signs. I can't be sure myself but I have seen sentence strings and references made here being used by high and almighty all over the place.
So be very careful with what you post here. :twisted:


Last edited by p_saggu on 06 Nov 2008 16:55, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 16:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09
Posts: 123
This "briefing" and its contents may have been vetted by a senior officer. A f-15 pilot is not going to be dumb enough to blow his career over this. This suggests that bitterness in the usaf establishment over cope runs rather deep.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 17:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Posts: 280
Location: India
neerajbhandari wrote:
joey wrote:
It all started from BR right? :wink: Seems BR is being monitored on a daily basis. :twisted:


No. The video was posted on 5 Oct, 2008. Some gentleman who happened to be a member of defencetalk picked up the youtube link from there and posted on Orkut. I picked up the link from Orkut and posted it on Br. Small world isn't it? :wink:

Cheers...



I mean the sudden publicity..


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 18:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4527
Err why should it a career problem for the officer??? We do not know if he posted it. I doubt it.

The clip could have been posted by someone else who taped it.

Or for that matter it could all be delibrate :)


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 18:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03
Posts: 1154
The clip is evidence that he spoke words to an audience which might not be security cleared for the type of info he was letting out.
All depends on if he was authorised to speak such words by his superiors.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 18:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Posts: 178
Location: new delhi
Guys, there has been talks about negative performance of Indian SU-30MKI at Red Flag against USAF on various forums since yesterday. What is this all about.I am posting the link

Very interesting. Seems like the USAF and French AF are both working hard to uncover and exploit the SU-30MKI's weaknesses.


USAF Pilot Critiques Red Flag Action

Nov 5, 2008
David A. Fulghum and Graham Warwick

Indian pilots flying Su-30MKIs are extremely professional, but they're still learning how to best fight with their new aircraft.

That opinion comes from an unidentified, senior F-15 pilot taped while briefing senior retired U.S. Air Force officers about the most recent Red Flag exercise. The video was made available online at YouTube.com.

The French pilots flying the new Dassault Rafale appeared to be there to collect electronic intelligence on the Indian aircraft, contends the USAF pilot, who wears an Air Force Weapons School graduate patch.

The French were originally going to bring the older Mirage 2000-5 until they discovered the Indians were bringing their new Su-30MKIs, the pilot says. They then switched and brought their Rafales with more sophisticated electronic surveillance equipment.

Once at Red Flag, "90 percent of the time they followed the Indians so when they took a shot or got shot" they would take a quick shot of their own and then leave," he said. "They never came to any merges," which starts the dogfighting portion of any air-to-air combat. He asserts that French pilots followed the same procedure during Desert Storm and Peace Keeping exercises. When U.S. aircrews were flying operations, the French would fly local sorties while "sucking up all the trons" to see how U.S. electronics, like radars, worked, according to the pilot.

He praised the Indians as extremely professional and said they had no training rule violations. However, they "killed a lot of friendlies" because they were tied to a Russian-made data link system that didn't allow them to see the picture of the battlefield available to everyone else. The lack of combat identification of the other aircraft caused confusion.

But the U.S. apparently isn't ignorant of the Su-30MKI's radar either.

The Su-30 electronically scanned radar is not as accurate as the U.S.-built active electronically scanned radar carried by the F-22 and some F-15s. Also, "it paints less, sees less" and is not as discriminating.

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.

Against the much larger RCS Su-30MKI, the F-16s and F-15s won consistently during the first three days of air-to-air combat, he continues. However, that was the result of trying to immediately go into a post-stall, thrust-vectored turn when attacked. The turn then creates massive drag and the aircraft starts sinking and losing altitude. "It starts dropping so fast you don't have to go vertical [first]. The low-speed tail slide allowed the U.S. aircraft to dive from above and "get one chance to come down to shoot," the pilot says. "You go to guns and drill his brains out." The Su-30 is jamming your missiles so...you go to guns and drill his brains out."

U.S. pilots conclude that the Su-30MKI is "not [an F-22] Raptor," he further says. "That was good for us to find out." But when the Indian pilots really learn to fight their new aircraft - "they were too anxious to go to the post-stall maneuver," he says-- the USAF pilot predicts that they would regularly defeat the F-16C Block 50 and the F-15C with conventional radar.

A final weakness in the Su-30MKI was its engine's vulnerability to foreign object damage which required them to space takeoffs a minute apart and slowed mission launches.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=defense


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 18:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Feb 2008 11:21
Posts: 178
Location: new delhi
Video link on youtube

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRIr2ak2IM0

part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBEfUUoUC4k


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 19:23 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 07 Jul 2008 16:00
Posts: 65
Why are we repeating ourselves with this link?

I hv sent links like I said to people who probably should have a comment about the lecture but haven't heard anything.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 19:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 358
I dont know why Flight and Aviation week have been peddling BS about hte video being uploaded "yesterday" when it was uploaded on Oct 5 - as neeraj has rightly pointed out.

While it has been around, it is a fact that it was pulled as soon as we started discussing it. Why? The uploader may have seen a jump in views and that many links were coming in from this thread , panicked and pulled the video out. I remember it had about just 400 views before it went bust. Still if it showed there were a 100 clicks from teh forum, thats enough to send anyone in panic mode. Ofcourse the clicks may have come from defence talk too.

Then tanay bought the video back and it was uploaded by a forumite "indian". it would be interesting to see if the other yank who uploaded it did it before "indian" did.

Soutik, welcome late latif.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 19:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16
Posts: 971
joey wrote:
It all started from BR right? :wink: Seems BR is being monitored on a daily basis. :twisted:


If it interests you to know.. the WHOLE of BR website is downloaded by quite a few web servers around the world on a daily basis.I could particularly commend on one or two, but i guess those who need to know knows about it.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 19:41 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 07 Jul 2008 16:00
Posts: 65
My question to this video is:

Can they get away making such comments about how we need to be in Alaska and not Nellis? Is this guy going to pay for it?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 19:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03
Posts: 1154
On the subject of the Datalinks again:
The datalinks are supposed to provide a two way link between the fighter and the AWACS (Or between any two platforms, in the air or on the ground) right?

Suppose we have links compatible with a USAF AWACS,
I am concerned about how much of the MKI the USAF AWACS can see through the link. Is it therefore possible for someone to hack through the system so as to provide incorrect info via a hacked link at wartime?

Then again perhaps a US Compatible Dumbed down MKI configuration specifically for exercises is not a bad idea. Complete with a different radar, datalinks, avionics and software, and derated engines / imperfect TVC.

They learn some, we learn some.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 19:58 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16
Posts: 971
Anyone with data link access can go right in .. not easy but quite possible


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 20:18 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 07 Jul 2008 16:00
Posts: 65
kit wrote:
Anyone with data link access can go right in .. not easy but quite possible



Internet based datalink paints the additional picture on the HUD, what does our datalink do, does it update the HUD, if so, what is the time lag/Info lag. I mean 3 seconds in such warfare could mean everything. So what is the nature of the MKI datalink rather than the technological specs.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 06 Nov 2008 23:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 312
All data links only send out very little data. It just says I see something which is a bandit/bogie/friendly, type of a/c (not always), heading x, altitude y and speed z. The radar display unit on the a/c that's receiving this data then puts up the appropriate symbol with appropriate numbers on the whatever display (HUD or MFD) that the pilots wants to see it on. Its really that simple....but there is a lot of IT-Vity happening behind the scenes to generate that little bit of data.

On the MKI upto 16 a/c can be networked with ONLY ONE a/c operating its radar. Now this is not your Red Flag type of training mode operation, this is the "nut burning" mode of operation and the N011M does see and discriminate a lot of info in its operational range (about 200 kms). When it detects something it does a lot of IT-Vity with IFF interrogation, classification etc to decide what to send out. Finally it send out just whats needed.

The enemy a/c sees only ONE radar scanning the airspace, it does not see the other 15 a/c (well thats affected by other factors for this story lets assume they are invisible) and the 15 a/c reach the "max permissible range" of its missiles and a firing solution is computed for EACH a/c and its up to them to do what they want. So what is this "merge" that they are talking about, this is happening a lot before the merge. There merge only happens when you castrate the Bars and use it in training mode. :twisted:

There are other variables here, namely the AWACS. The AWACS is a airborne data acquisition and dissemination center. It collects data from a wider area (although compared to the Bars in "Nut burning mode" its not really that much more) and it has the ability to collect data on its own and from "other assets" and disseminate it to whoever needs it. This does not mean that everyone needs to see everything, folks only get to see what they are required to see (again a lot of IT-Vity is involved here). So basically each flight has its own VPN going on. They talk to the AWACS who sees all-knows all but each flight gets only relevant data.

Finally its news to be that the MKI is using the TKS 2-27, before more jingos join the wild goose chase on the TKS 2-27 I would very much like to see some references about this. If this new improved version of BRF is anything like the old one then we still require folks to reference their utterances. But since I am "kinder and gentler" I have pointed out that TKS 2-27 is a communication suite which includes the data link and if you guys still do your due diligence you will know that that's not the communication suite on the MKI (its open source duh). So find out what the communication suite is and you will have the answer.

I have a strange feeling that on the new and improved BRF people don't read posts anymore they are too wrapped up in seeing how pretty their post looks.


Last edited by George J on 07 Nov 2008 02:26, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 00:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 270
Now that is vintage GeorgeJ!! :mrgreen:

Anyway, I's mulling on the question what is the utility of having a *bidirectional* datalink in AWACS enabled mode - and, that is so, since the parameters that GJ has pointed out above doesn't require "reverse" data feed from the participating aircrafts. But IMO, apart from those, if the requirement is to get additional information like remaining-fuel-details, weapon-status etc of the friendly aircrafts, the "reverse" bit of the datalink would be required.

Also nowadays, the AWACS platforms does sport a significant datagathering ESM/ELINT capability and some of those information needs to be passed around also. The problem is, being an armchair Air Marshall, I don't have a clue what bandwidth would be reasonably enough to dessiment all such information to, say, a 16 aircraft configuration. :oops:

FWIW of course ....


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 00:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Aug 2008 19:32
Posts: 103
Surya wrote:
Err why should it a career problem for the officer??? We do not know if he posted it. I doubt it.

The clip could have been posted by someone else who taped it.

Or for that matter it could all be delibrate :)


Yes it might be deliberate ..
1. This was not an USAF official briefing.
2. This was recorded with a video camera with a tripod/stand
3. Speaker was well aware about the recordings
4. Edited ..you do not see any introduction or audiences except one guy.

So what’s the objective of getting this official info/learnings of USAF coming out in public domain ….( selected info mistakenly recorded and posted in web again by mistake ???) No.. No..No..!!!

I can’t believe ..but we have heard about few words like PsyOps / PsyPropaganda !!!

1.Says…if you are able to break your opponent psychologically and make you team believe that they are INVINCIBLE ….You have won the WAR.

We have seen the all these during cold war period thru media …including movies.

It also gives an opportunity to make believe their airmen/people believe that SU-30 MKI is just another fighter and also IAF pilots lost everyday with their prime Su-30 MKIs. This message is Good for their airmen/people …but not good for IAF PILOTS…. as they want.

2. This passes the message to IAF and Indians ..that IAF is loosing heavily, if IAF is not connected with US/NATO standard data links and information sharing systems/compatible networks et’ all Fighters…and hence IAF will never become an ally of USAF\NATO in the future ..even in case IAF needs any help from USAF\NATO to tackle some one else.

I assume IAF might have come to know about the weakness of SU-30 MKI’s TVC in WVR combat situation and I believe Chinese too were aware of this issue so you do not see the TVC in their SK/ MKKs yet.

The question is how this WVR issue/problem can be resolved…my understanding is IAF has planned to bring in AL-41 (higher thrust engine than current AL-31) as a part of MKI’s MLU just like they have invested in IRBIS development.

Next comes the data linking issue …not sure how MKIs are going to get the cues/target info/AEW info from Phalcons.

Lastly where MKI has huge gap against F-22 is Raptor’s AN/ALR-94 RWR/ passive receiver system capable of detecting the radar signals in the environment with even greater range (250+ nmi) than it’s own AESA radar, also can cue the RADAR with target data…I don’t think MKI has anything like this.

Any way. …correct me guys ..where ever I am wrong :-)

Regards,


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 00:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 312
Sontu wrote:
I assume IAF might have come to know about the weakness of SU-30 MKI’s TVC in WVR combat situation and I believe Chinese too were aware of this issue so you do not see the TVC in their SK/ MKKs yet.

The question is how this WVR issue/problem can be resolved…my understanding is IAF has planned to bring in AL-41 (higher thrust engine than current AL-31) as a part of MKI’s MLU just like they have invested in IRBIS development.

Next comes the data linking issue …not sure how MKIs are going to get the cues/target info/AEW info from Phalcons.
Any way. …correct me guys ..where ever I am wrong :-)


Wow did you figure all this out on your own or did you have help. You should be posting on AFM with such brilliance. This guys is TOTALLY wrong on the stuff we actually know about that its hard to believe him about the stuff we dont know about.

And the rest of your brilliant post is too stunning to reply to. Chinese know the weakness of TVC? They were NEVER given an option. Since you are so inclined to blieve him why dont YOU show us where it says that the MKI run Tumansky engines or that the Bison run Israeli radars, after all the also said that along with his "drills his brains out" comment which you are so inclined to believe.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 00:27 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 17 Oct 2007 18:28
Posts: 47
A more pressing 'issue" apart from the other stuff is the inherent susceptibility to FOD. The fulcrums had it in 1994, the flankers had it a while back (engine blade nicks anyone?). What is so hard with fixing these issues up? Whats the fancy mesh near the landing gear and the mesh near the intakes doing if its not stopping stuff from getting in?

Desi jugaad is required. If we can drive a cart with an electricity generator we damn well can stop stuff from being sucked into an intake.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 00:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Aug 2008 19:32
Posts: 103
George J wrote:
This guys is TOTALLY wrong on the stuff we actually know about that its hard to believe him about the stuff we dont know about.
Since you are so inclined to blieve him why dont YOU show us where it says that the MKI run Tumansky engines or that the Bison run Israeli radars, after all the also said that along with his "drills his brains out" comment which you are so inclined to believe.


Yes GJ...Hence I said..
First This was NOT AN USAF briefing ...may be a briefing look like was made to Video Record on purpose.

Secondly I said the words ..PsyOps / PsyPropaganda !!!

Regards,


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 01:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 312
Sontu:
Beta, we know where it was recorded: an Order of Daedalian meet (what AWST euphemistically calls Retired USAF officers) it was a part of the original YouTube Keywords and its still cached as such. Its not a USAF briefing but private comments that went public and now have been picked up by mainstream publications.

Try and read what we have been saying since Sunday PM.

Ranvijay:
The FOD mesh is not near the doors its in the intake. See pic that was posted on previous pages. Which is why his whole FOD theory is BS. The fulcrum story has been documented on BR and it has little to do with FOD and more to do with premature engine failure due to very poor manufacturing standards due to break up of the Soviet Union.

Maitya:
We are talking bout what the MKI can do and what it uses (its not the TKS 2-27). And I have no clue what the "new datalink" is capable of since we have never talked about it specifically before and will have to wait till AI09 for more info.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 03:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 13142
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... su30m.html

Originial video is here

http://iagblog.podomatic.com/player/web ... 1_04-08_00


Last edited by svinayak on 07 Nov 2008 05:17, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 03:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 312
The Video is Original the the poster who posted it is not.

Briefing on the SU-30 MKI, Part 1.
Owner: FighterFlight62
Added: October 05, 2008, 04:58 PM
Time: 09:52
Views: 413
Rating: 5.0
Comments: 8

This is what Neeraj Posted. This is the guy who not only removed the video but also the account. These are the original Tags
Quote:
Tags:
Daedalian Daedalians SU-30 MKI F-22 Raptor Nellis AFB Red Flag Mountain Home


I think it was Tanay's video that was picked up by EVERYONE after it was posted on BRF.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 03:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31
Posts: 955
George J,

Are you our sukhoi man ? u back buddy.. thats awesome. welcome.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 03:27 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Posts: 1525
Location: Gora Paki
Gents, Just got me hands on the lates AFM and Combat Aircraft mags there are a couple of articles on the MKIs in Nevada will try to scan and upload it in the next day or two.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 04:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 312
Quote:
1. To say the USAF had the better of the IAF in 1vs1 needs to be substantiated. Since all exercises were with ACMI maybe the USAF would like to substantiate this claim of 'drilling brains out' and 'we dominated' with ACMI recordings.

2. The USAF had similar number of fratricide during the exercise as the IAF. Considering they are fully networked with datalink, IFF Mode 4 etc. which is a greater cause of concern? IAF fratricides or USAF fratricides?

3. The behaviour of the MKI in thrust vectoring is incorrectly described. Maybe someone who has actually flown against the MKI can do better justice, provided it’s an honest and unbiased assessment.

4. The IAF sustained operations 20000km away from home and had the least dropout rate. Prudence demands that safety procedures be adopted to enhance operations; could the engine operations be viewed against this backdrop?

5. Now consider this; the inexperienced IAF aircrew adapted so beautifully to the environment (that was totally alien), training rules (that were significantly different from IAF's), airspace regulations etc in a short span of two weeks, and yet somehow they were unable to exploit the jet in its envelope (something that they have been practicing to do for four to five years ) – does it sound convincing? If youngsters can adapt to new rules and environment in a short span of time, its only because they are extremely comfortable and confident of the machine and not otherwise. Also let’s not forget that this was the not the first outing of the IAF against the F-15 and F-16s. They have flown against these ac in the past and are aware of their capabilities. So doesn't sound convincing at all.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 05:27 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Posts: 2183
Location: JPEG-jingostan
GJman, welcome back, thanks for the transcript. Perhaps, it should've been "You-tube-ized". :mrgreen:


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 05:28 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31
Posts: 270
GJ, regarding the MKI datalink saga - excerpts of Pit's response to you back in '06 (in Keypubs):
Quote:
Off course, as anounced (if the anounced info is true!), M-400 should have a "different" datalink to the standard TKS-2-27/K-DlA/K-DlAE/KDlUE used on Su-27S/SK/MKK/30K/30 since 1985...not to talk about 11G6 Spektr ground-to-air datalink system...

... implying KDIUE atleast for the 30Ks.

More details here: Polyot K-DlAE/K-DlUE
Plus, anybody has full subscription of Janes needs to go here Su-30 Polyot datalinks and post the relevant excerpts.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 05:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22448
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Here is an email I got

Quote:
On Ex Red Flag-the You Tube video- The other side of the Coin!!
    Posted by: *** ***
    Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 11:51 pm ((PST))

These are comments by a friend of mine-one of our top grade professional youngsters, and a participant in the recently concluded Red Flag Ex in Nellis AFB.

1. No 1vs1s were flown during the Flag,nor did they engage in Thrust Vectoring(TV) then.IvIs were flown during the sorties in Mountain Home AFB and that too on the first day only! In none of these ex were the Su ever shot down or become vulnerable(This can of course be checked on the ACMI Pod films/casettes).

2.The data rates of turn and TV with regard to the Su is grossly out- the ones on the F-22 may be closer to the truth!! The figures for the Su are very much more than that referred to in the video!!

3.The Radar of the F-22 is superior to the Su presently!

4.Fratricide by our side did take place, more due to not being networked-it occurred when the AWACS was not available(u/s) and a very poor standard of controlling by USAF controllers( terminology and accent).This was mentioned in the debrief.Surprisingly, Fratricide was present for the F-15C as well as other allied A/C. Considering that they were better networked( Link-16,IFF-Mode 4 etc), while we had nothing,it should be  a matter of concern for them and not us!!

5.FOD-Take-Off separation-was 30" at Mountain Home but extended to 1min and known to all participants before the start of the Ex!!

6.Incidentally,Mission achievement ratio was higher than 90%, whereas the mission success rates were significantly lower for the USAF, inspite of us op some 20000 kms away!!

7.Our level of experience was a standard Sqn cross-section and our youngsters performed very well in the new environment and not one rule  was violated.Our professional approach was very favourably commented upon.

8. In the ultimate analyses, we had a significant edge all throughout and retained it.

It appears that this video was to pep up the US industry, showing that the F-22 is the answer to the Su-30MKI and one never knows-this will be the pitch for larger orders!!


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 06:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Posts: 784
:D

Yanks afraid of mig-21's :)

If they can't see those bisons with AWACS and F-15 radars then PAF has no prayer in hell :).

Time to put stealthy Bison's to work ?? :)


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 06:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 312
maitya wrote:
More details here: Polyot K-DlAE/K-DlUE
Plus, anybody has full subscription of Janes needs to go here Su-30 Polyot datalinks and post the relevant excerpts.


The MKI carries HAL INCOM1210A.
Quote:
INCOM-1210A-Integrated Radio Communication System-ECCM Facility-Communication in AM/FM/Data/ECCM Mode


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 07:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Posts: 798
Rest everything is cleared but my only concern now is FOD. As per the email in Mountain Home the gap was 30 seconds which was later extended to 1 minute at Nellis. I would like to ask whether:

1) 30 seconds is the standard followed by others or is it higher/lesser for other airforces say USAF?

2) Earlier there were reports of MKI engine damage prematurely and when IAF raised the issue with russia they were told to clean their runways. We know that MKI has inlet mesh to prevent FOD. So despite having the mesh, is MKI more succeptible to FOD? Since I am assuming that airbase maintainace was same for MKI and other aircrafts and other aircrafts didn't face the problem.

Cheers....


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 07 Nov 2008 08:17 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 21 May 2007 18:42
Posts: 27
Location: Houston, Tx
it would be awesome if Vishnu Som could do a followup piece in which he gets an experienced IAF officer to debrief the indian public about Red Flag along the lines of shiv's email.

i'm sure the IAF is above that type of stuff, but it would be nice still...


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 853 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group