Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 06:44

tsarkar you are missing the point. IFF is used with radar. If radar is used, then IFF is a secondary concern. Currently no system (bar high end fancy systems in uber ELINT platforms, if at all) exist to break IFF systems in real time and force them to squawk constantly. IFF on AEW&C and others IAF has used are designed specifically to be aware of, and not respond to such spoofing. If the wrong input message comes in, IFF will not respond. It will respond to a correct squawk. So, what use is the IFF to an opponent when there other more prominent emitters, namely the radar.

In short, everything you emit is a concern, not just IFF. It works with the radar with which it interfaces and is used to provide an accurate ID of an opponent.

In other words, IFF is not an issue. Radar is. Since its used far more frequently to scan airspace. Hence the move to make LPI radars and make them hard to detect. Even there, wide bandwidth RWRs are appearing with significant processing to detect the presence of LPI radars (eg see India's own Varuna ESM system).

The challenge though for the other side is always to range accurately & determine the precise, bearing/azimuth/elevation for accurate firing solutions. Hence, even if the other guy is giving away his location, until & unless you track him with a radar yourself, the average fighter can move so fast that the so called location data you obtained via your ESM a few seconds back, will rapidly decline in terms of accuracy.

The Raptor hence uses its high speed ESM processing to get a rough estimate of where its opponent is by analyzing emitted info. But to generate its own firing solution, it has to go active and shoot out its own pencil beam. This is a quick one time "look, analyze" process as versus a full airspace scan, and is hence considered LPI.

What advanced ground based systems do (IFF/TACAN etc trackers) is use the emitters to build a map of enemy OpFor movement patterns and basing. That is useful but takes time and comprises the entire range of RF bands not just IFF. India has the Divya Drishti program in service for that very thing. The average airborne platform is space/volume constrained and unless specifically designed for the task, does not track such a wide range of surv, fire control, navigational emissions. It focuses on the key things like radar, RF seekers, datalinks, voicecomms, IFF etc with the biggest focus on the first type.

Some older links. Reason I am posting this is so that we see how many actual tracking stations are required for such a task - tracking a wide range of emitters with a decent degree of accuracy. The usual stuff on 1-2 aircraft is simply unable to the job equivalent to what the below do.

DIVYA DRISHTI

Divya Drishti is a joint SI Dte – DRDO programme, with the aim of interception, monitoring, direction finding and analysis (IMDFAS) of communication signals. The system will be installed at various locations on static and mobile stations. All stations will be connected through a satellite communication network. The system caters to the mission of building aircraft flight profile (Mission Analysis).

The DRDO is also developing an all new ESM project in cooperation with the Indian Air Force's Signals Intelligence Directorate, under the name of "Divya Drishti" (Divine Sight). Divya Drishti will field a range of static as well as mobile ESM stations that can "fingerprint" and track multiple airborne targets for mission analysis purposes. The system will be able to intercept a range of radio frequency emissions, whether radar, navigational, communication or electronic countermeasure signals. The various components of the project will be networked via SATCOM links.

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Mar 2015 07:16

tsarkar wrote: The #1 on the drawing describes the location of the ESM fit. It is possible to get a broad bearing of the direction simply based on the direction from where the sensor picks up the signal.

As I said if the radiation pattern is directional then it might be of some use , usually Radar signals are highly directional however communication signals are omnidirectional and well spread across the spectrum . Besides for a moment even if one registers a ping on a sensor what are you gonna do about it ? Scramble jets in the general direction say SE or ask their airbase to paint the airspace (they do that anyways in that direction , no ? )? Remember if IFF module on our AC is broken (in Shiv's scenario) they would have to resort to similar guess work like us however the key difference will be that AC will be receding from their airspace. All in all until they track our AC on Radar there is not much they can do.

Tactically also why would our pilot break radio silence during retreat until he has crossed the LOC or is too close to it and by that time it will be too late for the enemy to do anything about it.

"Fingerprinting" is a well established SIGINT practice. The Pakistani Atlantique that was shot down was "fingerprinting" our border installations.

Atlantique was picked up on our land based Radars , I am not sure why you are bringing it here in this context . Once a bogey is tracked on Radar it's a matter of pulling the trigger. There again if it was a F-16 or say any other jet by the time our jets would have come close enough to identify it as a foe and fire at it it would have gone back deep enough into Pakistani airspace and would have forced us to let it go.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 08:46

negi wrote: Tactically also why would our pilot break radio silence during retreat until he has crossed the LOC or is too close to it and by that time it will be too late for the enemy to do anything about it.

He could do that if he was lost. Apart from battle damage to aircraft there have been pilots weak from blood loss from injuries.

If you refer back to my scenario I am talking about the possibility of enemy aircraft chasing the straggler. In my scenario 3 aircraft were unaccounted for but a total of 6 aircraft were being tracked approaching the border. If IFF gives no response how to know how many of these aircraft are friendly and how many hostile - and this question was in reference to the use of BVRAAMs. All six could be hostile, and they might be perfectly willing to enter Indian airspace in wartime. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, 3 could be friendly and 3 hostile or any combination in between.

Breaking radio silence would be one way of positively getting info that one or more of the aircraft are friendly. That is what was done in the case of Sq Ldr Sikand who was asking for a bearing to Adampur. He was given a bearing but then the radio frequency was changed - so Sikand was then out of the loop and landed at Pasrur in Pakistan which was at the same heading as Adampur from where he was flying.
http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k56 ... 5tqbcr.jpg

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 09:03

Shiv, thats the entire reason why every AF is getting AWACs and implementing datalinking - both act as information conduits for mission planners (both airborne and off) about what's going on. As regards changing RF, things breaking down - all are possible in fog of war. All that stuff can't be 100% eliminated. But none of that reduces the effectiveness or value of BVR since even without IFF BVR can be used if ROE permit. For instance, IFF doesn't squawk back positive, its designated hostile. However, that has to be checked against mission logs for that sector, which is where the airborne battle management part becomes so useful. India has currently 3 Phalcons, plans to acquire 2 more and will probably pick up a few more Embraers beyond the first two. Decent capability for situational awareness. The aim is to datalink the AWACs to the fighters and the GBAD nodes such as the IACCS nodes being set up (first phase is already operational - WAC IIRC).

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 26 Mar 2015 09:05

Don't they have GPS today to make sure they don't get lost? You have moving map on MFD with way point navigation to negate this very thing.

LCA has "take me home" feature to guide aircraft back in case of critical electronics/navigation failure. Its a small display on top left of LCA control panel.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 09:06

GPS and INS both.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Mar 2015 09:15

even cars have mapmyindia gps with offline maps these days. no reason why all our ac cannot have this feature.

but flying over the sea is another matter, with no landmarks...more comprehensive nav aids needed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 09:47

Karan M wrote: But none of that reduces the effectiveness or value of BVR since even without IFF BVR can be used if ROE permit.

It's the bit in red that is the problem.

BVR has never been used in hot war between two relatively equally matched air forces in wars between neighbouring countries.

BVRAAMs victories are first world air forces hitting fourth world aircraft thousands of km away from first world airspace.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 10:04

Shiv, that's like saying LGBs are useless because they were never used in hot wars between xyz and only US used them against Vietnam, Iraq etc. But we used them in Kargil and are busy buying 100s of them.

Are UAVs are useless because only US/Advanced AF used them against Vn, Iraq..NATO vs Serbia...

Datalinks, AEW, ...

Fact is ALL new war technologies in the past few decades have been employed by AFs that could afford them or get them.. which mean first world AFs.. against those who may/may not have had access to them.

You see the logical fallacy in bringing in this sort of stuff, right?

Because by those standards, IAF will have to:
1. Drop new gen WVR AAMs with HOBS sights
2. Drop IFR/AWACS
3. Drop PGMs
4. Drop modern EW pods

All these were employed mostly by powerful nations against weaker ones!

Fact is technology has marched ahead & we will be at a severe disadvantage if we don't have it & develop it further too.

BVR means beyond VR - that could be from 30km-60 km. Anything beyond, and its doubtful that AMRAAMs, R77s, PL-10s in AF inventory on either side will be able to deliver (ideal high alt, ranges apart).

With aircraft approaching each other at speeds of sound, you need to fire at as great an acquisition range as possible.. follow it up with WVR if necessary.

BVR is now the name of the game..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Mar 2015 10:21

Rus is working on a successor to the massive AA9 amos and R77 as well. that tells you something. we need not refer to US's numerous bush wars as a example.

bvr weapons are also useful for other uses
- shooting down cruise missiles (its cheaper to send a bvr missile than have more a/c with wvr's on picket line duty)
- taking shots at tankers, transports, awacs from long range if a chance comes
- dealing with special cases like very fast or very high flying a/c (HALE drones, SR71 types)

http://theaviationist.com/2013/12/11/sr-71-vs-mig-31/

sure Pk will always be lower than a well directed wvr missile, but its improving all the time as fighter radars, midcourse update datalink and onboard seekers/ecm get better and ramjet plant like in meteor permits powered flight all the way than steep climb , coast and mach4 dive of the typical amraam types.

it can be arugued its a rich mans plaything and not suitable for a turd world nation, but now that Astra mk1 is going well and we can license the agat seeker we will be in the game for volume production of local kit.

one needs to shape the fight by taking shots from 25km out.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 26 Mar 2015 12:29

Why is there no indigenous program on low level air defence like schillka or tungunska ? Atleast they would be a decent defense against saturation cruise missile attacks and drones .

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 26 Mar 2015 13:59

prabhug wrote:Why is there no indigenous program on low level air defence like schillka or tungunska ? Atleast they would be a decent defense against saturation cruise missile attacks and drones .

Akash is able to take drones and cruise missiles.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 26 Mar 2015 14:03

There are two things to it .
1.On a saturation attack multiple missiles being fired @ akash to saturate it.
2.The Akash battery should even be saved from HARM's
3.Low level ones can be used for ones that akash miss when saturated.
4.It can be used to save batteries from HARMs and other mortar attack

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Mar 2015 14:15

prabhug wrote:Why is there no indigenous program on low level air defence like schillka or tungunska ? Atleast they would be a decent defense against saturation cruise missile attacks and drones .

DRDO has it's hands full and does not have enough resources to make everything. We are neither like US with tens of different vendors where each one is specialist in their own field nor like Russia where the government gives war machinery priority #1 and sees to it that stuff is delivered on time , incompetence is rewarded with a 1 BHK in siberia .

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 26 Mar 2015 14:25

this seems to me an area a private player can invest and bring a upgraded hardware.but still nobody is talking about it.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 26 Mar 2015 15:51

@Karan

The point I'm making is in certain situations, even IFF emissions can be detrimental. I'm not at all touching upon the vulnerability of AWACS. I'm pointing out the vulnerability of a fighter using IFF in hostile territory.

I'm still on Shiv's example, that is similar to IAF were returning from attacking Sargodha on 7th September 1965, and M M Alam & gang were vectored to intercept returning Indian fighters.

Ideally radar & GCA can vector defenders to the attackers. However, in the event the attackers are returning and have receded beyond radar coverage, then even a brief burst of IFF emissions from attackers can be used by ELINT/SIGINT sensors on AWACS or ground based systems like Divya Drishti to cue in defenders to attackers.

@Negi
ELINT/SIGINT/COMINT can analyse bearing & range from omni-directional emissions.

Atlantique was just an example of an aircraft with good ELINT/SIGINT/COMINT suite that was fingerprinting Indian signals.

Back to topic

Here is a good example of operational navigational challenges http://kaiser-aeronaut.blogspot.in/2008 ... -quit.html

If it was own force, then imagine using BVR in a situation like this. And equipment failure like this is very common in ships and aircraft.

I conclude here with the point that any weapon requires proper situational awareness. Corollary is lack of situational awareness can hinder deployment of uber TFTA weapons.

Like MH17. Like the Indian merchantman hit by US Navy Harpoon. TFTA missiles like Buk or Harpoon cannot discriminate between military & non military targets. In real world, that might impede their use.

No one is saying we give up BVR weapons. However, usage requires a lot of check and balances, that often hinders widespread deployment.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/13/world ... ewman.html

HONOLULU, Dec. 13— A crewman on an Indian merchant ship was killed today when the ship was struck by a practice missile launched from a Navy jet during an exercise northwest of the island of Kauai, the Navy said. The non-explosive missile was fired at a target ship, but instead its guidance system locked onto the merchant vessel Jagvivek, which was not supposed to be in the Navy's Pacific Missile Range, the Navy said. The accident took place northwest of the island of Kauai in an ocean area that had been closed to merchant vessels by a notice the Navy issued last Thursday, the statement said. There was no report of any other injuries. The identity of the crewman was not immediately disclosed. The F-18A jet that fired the Harpoon anti-ship missile was from the aircraft carrier Constellation, part of a battle group conducting exercises en route to a Western Pacific deployment, the Navy said.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 26 Mar 2015 16:22

By that same logic SAMs usage will be limited to none in such situation?!?!

https://books.google.com/books?id=Mj9b- ... &q&f=false

Gents, read chapter 4 "Avoiding Fratricide Of Air and Sea Targets" from page 49. This complete chapter contains most of the techniques used so far.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 16:49

Karan M wrote: Fact is technology has marched ahead & we will be at a severe disadvantage if we don't have it & develop it further too.

BVR means beyond VR - that could be from 30km-60 km. Anything beyond, and its doubtful that AMRAAMs, R77s, PL-10s in AF inventory on either side will be able to deliver (ideal high alt, ranges apart).

With aircraft approaching each other at speeds of sound, you need to fire at as great an acquisition range as possible.. follow it up with WVR if necessary.

BVR is now the name of the game..

Karan no one is arguing against technology so it is a waste of time pretending that such an argument was made by me or anyone else. New technology brings new constraints. You have not answered how the constraint that I placed using an example can be bypassed.

At BVR ranges, unless you have great IFF you could shoot down your buddy unless you change the rules of engagement to make sure there are no buddies at all. That was what was done by superduperpowers against Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Libya. They declared "no fly zones", did not send any of their aircraft into those no fly zones, and shot down every aircraft inside the no fly zone. This was easy because Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq do not share borders with the people who were doing the shooting down, so that even if Kosovo. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan had BVRAAMs they would not be able to do a counter no fly zone over those superduperpowers.

If we declare a "no fly zone" over parts of Pakistan or China we will not be able to send in our fighters in without getting into some serious IFF issues. So we will end up with scenarios such as I have described. 6 aircraft spotted at 100 km with no clue whether they are friendly or hostile.

What could BVRAAMs do then? I request you not to claim that I am arguing against BVRAAMs. I am not. I am suggesting to you that in the particular scenario that I am describing where enemy and friendly fighters are sharing the same airspace - BVRAAMs could be rendered unusable unless IFF is perfect, or one is willing to shoot down buddies. This argument is not that BVRAAMs are useless or that technology is useless or that LGBs are useless. Please do not get into that again.

The point I want to make is that BVRAAMs are nowadays appearing to be touted as the new form of warfare with everyone talking about how they can be used. I am creating situations where they should not or cannot be used. That is not an argument against BVRAAMs. It is an argument that seeks to test the limitations of BVRAAMs. It is a specious argument to pretend that talking about the limitations of technology means one is anti-technology.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 16:56

Sid wrote:By that same logic SAMs usage will be limited to none in such situation?!?!

Yes. And Indian fighters have been shot at by Indian anti aircraft defences dozens of times even at WVR distances. So the problem of IFF with BVRAAMs is an important one that needs to be addressed. There may be situations in which the BVRAAM is not the panacea to "hit them from a distance" as popular myth making seems to suggest to me. The risk of fratricide is high when the air is thick with fighters. And in the early stages of hot war the air will be thick with fighters and not just Indian ones.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 16:57

Sid wrote:
Gents, read chapter 4 "Avoiding Fraciside Of Air and Sea Targets" from page 49. This complete chapter contains most of the techniques used so far.

Sid. It's fratri-cide (brother-killing), not fraciside

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 17:10

Imagine hot war - second day. The plan is to use the IAF to hit hundreds of targets that day. We have lost some aircraft on day one. Others are damaged. Among the remaining aircraft in one forward wartime air base - there are 10 aircraft. Two critical attack missions are planned using 4 aircraft each starting 4 AM. 2 Aircraft need repairs and cannot fly. 7 are perfectly OK. Aircraft 8 has a malfunctioning IFF but everything else is fine. No hope of replacing the unit till later. Should that aircraft be sent on a mission or not?

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 26 Mar 2015 17:14

Shiv's example of not one but many comm. damaged aircraft returning across and not being able to squak, or reply even after coming under a protective umbrella is unrealistic. If they are being pursued, then the enemy has situational awareness and possibly sensors on you. What purpose does silence serve here?

The scenario also calls for severe damage to disable all communication but not control of the aircraft. Doing this selectively is not possible. communication is a localised affair. Control needs every movable surface.

Surface weapons will be closer to your aircraft in this situation unless you are flying at 1000,000 feet. Why would the SAMs suddenly go quiet? And why would the attackers not peel off in a SAM net rather than sacrifice multiple healthy craft to go after alreasy mission-disabled craft.

Lastly, how fast are these aircraft flying? Unless you are returning from deep baluchistan, there isnt much time at high subsonic speed or superspnic if you really are trying to flee someone chasing you.
There are choices to be made, by pilots and defense operators. Drilled into you during training.

When prior events happened there was zero situational awareness.

For example, it is now likely that every airforce has forward strips in place where such distressed craft could divert. if the strip gets bombed, no harm no foul there are dozen others. if someone tries to come near but not in a particular landing profile they get shot down. nothing takes off from there.

At SAM ranges, X km on either side of the border, in any case, you dont spend your limited underslung load so you have to go down and get more. Anyone using their limited supplies would have good awareness of whats going on and a clear picture of whos shooting what. Aerostats included, there is likely a complete picture of every bird (yes the bird variety and not aircraft variety) given how small UAVs have become. Your jets arent going to present a prpblem to this set.

Want to do even better, a couple dozen squads of HALE UCAVs with SAMs on sentry duty. Eliminate the BVR role of shooting at everything crossing the border.

Large scale BVR combat takes place likely only at the start of a conflict against first few flights that take off against you. Or taking pot shots at what you see taking off, recognize and need to stop later on. After this, it becomes a mixed picture and tactics are as important as weapons.

At the rate proliferation is going, BVR has a role over Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and certainly Tibet and Bakistan. Yes, mistakes will still happen. But thats no different than shooting up your wingman accidently. The solution is more assets in the air with bigger sticks and better eyes. Thats what china is doing, and russia and US have done before them.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 26 Mar 2015 17:18

shiv wrote:Imagine hot war - second day. The plan is to use the IAF to hit hundreds of targets that day. We have lost some aircraft on day one. Others are damaged. Among the remaining aircraft in one forward wartime air base - there are 10 aircraft. Two critical attack missions are planned using 4 aircraft each starting 4 AM. 2 Aircraft need repairs and cannot fly. 7 are perfectly OK. Aircraft 8 has a malfunctioning IFF but everything else is fine. No hope of replacing the unit till later. Should that aircraft be sent on a mission or not?

Not.

A pilot is far more important than the platform. I dont think the density of 100,000 SAMs is quite easily grasped. Everybody and his uncle has an Anza Mk-X. Its bad enough for perfectly functioning craft. You hand over to your long range rockets, sea or space based assets or whatever else can take the job.

Harakiri is unlikely to be in IAF sylabi especially after what they did to the crashed MiG pilots in kargil.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 26 Mar 2015 17:30

Shiv,

6 aircraft spotted at 100km is just not realistic. You look into that space more than that. You already see 300km in that space. And to get into this group of 6, they would have to assemble. Somehow. Those craft could be blind/mute, but the sensors on this side cant have gone away altogether. A lot of big rockets will fly and prevent anything taking off long before you cant see 100km across the border.

The problem with your scenario is that you start with the 6 craft assembled. This can not happen out of nowhere. And if it does, then BVR isnt the shortcoming that needs to be addressed.

It is unrealistic to state that the mixed group of 6 has by chance assembled out of thin air and has no discriminating features at all. That is, its a Mig21 vs J7 group. We know thats not how missions will be executed. One set will be a mix of mirages, f16s, jf17s and if needed to defend j7s will go up. the other set will be mirages of a different kind, 29s, 30s 30ks, jaguars whatever. they are nothing alike.

This is a very weak scenario for todays situation. Missiles probably crater every runway within 100km on day 1 to make sure it doesnt become an issue.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 17:39

Shreeman wrote:
Not.

A pilot is far more important than the platform .

For exactly the same reason one should not willy nilly shoot down 6 BVR targets in the absence of positive IFF.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 17:40

Shreeman wrote:Shiv,

6 aircraft spotted at 100km is just not realistic. .

Did you read my original post? You are responding after many posts have been made. " I do not like your scenario" is also a weak argument

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 26 Mar 2015 18:24

shiv wrote:
Sid wrote: https://books.google.com/books?id=Mj9b- ... &q&f=false

Gents, read chapter 4 "Avoiding Fratricide Of Air and Sea Targets" from page 49. This complete chapter contains most of the techniques used so far.
Sid. It's fratri-cide (brother-killing), not fraciside

Thanks for reading the most important point in my post.

shiv wrote:
Sid wrote:By that same logic SAMs usage will be limited to none in such situation?!?!
Yes. And Indian fighters have been shot at by Indian anti aircraft defences dozens of times even at WVR distances. So the problem of IFF with BVRAAMs is an important one that needs to be addressed. There may be situations in which the BVRAAM is not the panacea to "hit them from a distance" as popular myth making seems to suggest to me. The risk of fratricide is high when the air is thick with fighters. And in the early stages of hot war the air will be thick with fighters and not just Indian ones.

That's why there are Missile Engagement Zones (MEZ) where no aircraft can fly. Special corridors are assigned where pilots can fly through. These MEZ are regularly change as enemy can find the patterns. For longer range SAMs these MEZ are artificially reduced to provide safe corridor for planes to fly through, because their range can technically envelope while battle space. Army and IAF Akash batteries might not be interlinked, hence it will pose even greater challenge for them in maintaining such MEZ.

"Noncooperative IFF" techniques can be used to identify friends as well as foes. But there are exceptions to every scenario. Every weapon system has its limitations. Even WVR weapon targets cannot be confirmed by eye-ball contact due to their higher range (R-73 has 30KM range). During Gulf war an Apache pilot killed his own troops even when he had Bradley vehicle on his FLIR.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 18:44

Sid wrote: That's why there are Missile Engagement Zones (MEZ) where no aircraft can fly. Special corridors are assigned where pilots can fly through.

That is the theory. What happens in war is a different issue

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 19:05

Karan no one is arguing against technology so it is a waste of time pretending that such an argument was made by me or anyone else. New technology brings new constraints. You have not answered how the constraint that I placed using an example can be bypassed.

But you have been making that argument. You clearly said BVR is useful only for first world vs third world etc. If it was a rhetorical statement, it merely muddied the point you were trying to make.

At BVR ranges, unless you have great IFF you could shoot down your buddy unless you change the rules of engagement to make sure there are no buddies at all. That was what was done by superduperpowers against Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Libya. They declared "no fly zones", did not send any of their aircraft into those no fly zones, and shot down every aircraft inside the no fly zone. This was easy because Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq do not share borders with the people who were doing the shooting down, so that even if Kosovo. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan had BVRAAMs they would not be able to do a counter no fly zone over those superduperpowers.

Actually at Red Flag, when the IAF's IFF did not work out, they too adopted much the same method! Determine if there were any IAF fighters in the area, otherwise fire away. Fratricide yes of the non IAF fighters, but better than getting own platforms shot down.

PS: RDYs on our Mirages and the N011M on the Su-30 MKI have NTCR - they don't necessarily need IFF. Only limitation is full mode is required (not training) to catalog and document the opponent RCS.

If we declare a "no fly zone" over parts of Pakistan or China we will not be able to send in our fighters in without getting into some serious IFF issues. So we will end up with scenarios such as I have described. 6 aircraft spotted at 100 km with no clue whether they are friendly or hostile.

But there is data that points out that AFs are attempting to address this issue by putting up datalinks, and specialized battle management aircraft festooned with ESM, comms intercept eqpt, fighters with NTCR, and datalinking.

The entire aim nowadays (and what IAF trains for) is to launch strike packages with a mix of strikers, defenders and have several such packages run through restricted airspace, with something called the ODL - Operational Datalink, so they can share data with each other.

In short, your scenario does not take several factors into account.

What could BVRAAMs do then? I request you not to claim that I am arguing against BVRAAMs. I am not. I am suggesting to you that in the particular scenario that I am describing where enemy and friendly fighters are sharing the same airspace - BVRAAMs could be rendered unusable unless IFF is perfect, or one is willing to shoot down buddies. This argument is not that BVRAAMs are useless or that technology is useless or that LGBs are useless. Please do not get into that again.

Its hard to understand your exact point when rhetoric is introduced and then you back away from it, and say that was not what you were saying. I can only attempt to understand what you are saying but can't be 100% sure that's what you meant.

Be as it may, in the scenario you have described, there is no guarantee that BVRAAMs can't be used or are useless. There are several ways to ID the targets in question.

- Ground based/ Air Based sensors which can detect these aircraft at range and classify them based on RCS (NTCR)
- Intercepts of their voice/data/other comms
- ODLs of aircraft which will automatically datalink even with voice silence, if no data is shared amongst ALL aircraft, very unlikely if all fighters are damaged
- Mission planning data of whether Aircraft in the vicinity "could be" friendly

At the end of the day, BVR AAMs are tools. They can be used if the mission commander chooses to employ them.
In the above scenario, if your 6 fighters attack with BVRs at that range, we should have something to retaliate, f.e.

The point I want to make is that BVRAAMs are nowadays appearing to be touted as the new form of warfare with everyone talking about how they can be used. I am creating situations where they should not or cannot be used. That is not an argument against BVRAAMs. It is an argument that seeks to test the limitations of BVRAAMs. It is a specious argument to pretend that talking about the limitations of technology means one is anti-technology.

Actually, there have been sufficient debates about how BVR AAMs are used and their limitations and pros & cons thereof. AFs worldwide have evaluated those and found them useful & critical to their capabilities.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 19:12

tsarkar wrote:@Karan

The point I'm making is in certain situations, even IFF emissions can be detrimental. I'm not at all touching upon the vulnerability of AWACS. I'm pointing out the vulnerability of a fighter using IFF in hostile territory.

So will radars not be used in hostile territory? If radars will be used, why not IFF? Point is IFF is far less an issue than constant use of radar.

I'm still on Shiv's example, that is similar to IAF were returning from attacking Sargodha on 7th September 1965, and M M Alam & gang were vectored to intercept returning Indian fighters.

Even if IAF fighters were radio silent, then fighters can still be vectored to intercept them, unless they are stealth and leave no traces

I

deally radar & GCA can vector defenders to the attackers. However, in the event the attackers are returning and have receded beyond radar coverage, then even a brief burst of IFF emissions from attackers can be used by ELINT/SIGINT sensors on AWACS or ground based systems like Divya Drishti to cue in defenders to attackers.

Again, that brief burst of IFF emissions <<< constant emission from radars (more often than not) and if the entire package is radio silent, then its the AEW&C which is far behind which can do the Radar/IFF work, wherein this becomes moot.

Next, that brief burst of IFF is next to useless to cue in defenders, because even if the opponent has ESM for this purpose, the fighters will be long gone by the time you vector opponents in. Its good for mission planning (eg Divya Drishti can't be used practically to do real time intercepts of fast moving fighters but to figure out their methods of op)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 19:19

Shreeman wrote:Shiv's example of not one but many comm. damaged aircraft returning across and not being able to squak, or reply even after coming under a protective umbrella is unrealistic. If they are being pursued, then the enemy has situational awareness and possibly sensors on you. What purpose does silence serve here? .

Exactly. Its a very unrealistic situation ... six aircraft all comm damaged and all with IFF not working, and will not even announce their arrival on secure voice comms or datalinks?? IAF is using much the same datalink mentioned here (ADLS) http://beforeitsnews.com/israel/2013/07 ... 42902.html

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 26 Mar 2015 19:45

All examples discussed till now have been from 1960s/1970s IAF era where we were technologically handicapped or technology was not mature enough.

Do we have similar situation (multiple fighters with dead comms/electrical failure returning to base with bogey on tail) happening with modern air-forces, like US/Europe? Like in Kosovo?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 20:04

Sid wrote:
Do we have similar situation (multiple fighters with dead comms/electrical failure returning to base with bogey on tail) happening with modern air-forces, like US/Europe? Like in Kosovo?

These air forces had virtually no opposition. They set up "no fly zones" and "safe corridors" and shot the meager opposition (Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan/ROTFL air force) out of the sky. These conflicts have very little bearing on the experiences of the IAF. One can have a "safe corridor" but if a fighter has to manoeuvre violently and use afterburner to escape interceptors or missiles while on an attack mission he may not have enough fuel to reach a "safe corridor" as planned. That does not mean that he should be shot down by friendly fire.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 20:10

Karan M wrote:
Shreeman wrote:Shiv's example of not one but many comm. damaged aircraft returning across and not being able to squak, or reply even after coming under a protective umbrella is unrealistic. If they are being pursued, then the enemy has situational awareness and possibly sensors on you. What purpose does silence serve here? .
Exactly. Its a very unrealistic situation ... six aircraft all comm damaged and all with IFF not working, and will not even announce their arrival on secure voice comms or datalinks?? IAF is using much the same datalink mentioned here (ADLS) http://beforeitsnews.com/israel/2013/07 ... 42902.html

Sorry. Misunderstanding is no excuse.

The possibilities are:

6 enemy aircraft - all don't respond to IFF interrogation
5 enemy - one friendly - that one does not respond
4 enemy - two friendly - maybe both don't respond. Maybe one responds, one does not - so what are the other 5?
3 enemy, 3 friendly - maybe one does not respond.

Summary: If 3 Indian aircraft are unaccounted for you must get at least 3 responses to IFF. If you don't get at last 3 you cannot assume that all are hostile. In all cases there is a possibility pf fratricide with BVRAAMs. You should not shoot down even one friendly.

Saying that you think the scenario is unrealistic is, in my view wrong. It is perfectly feasible.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 20:11

Just because you say a situation is realistic doesn't make it realistic. Especially when you ignore all other data or can't understand it, misunderstanding etc is no excuse. Eg no mention of datalinks, radar scans etc in above. When you address points other folks bring up, as versus ignoring them, then there is an actual debate as versus a one sided declaration.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 20:13

Karan M wrote:Just because you say a situation is realistic doesn't make it realistic. Especially when you ignore all other data or can't understand it, misunderstanding is no excuse. Eg no mention of datalinks, radar scans etc in above.

Just because you say it is unrealistic does not make it so. The permutations and combinations are limitless and if signals are ambiguous you cannot simply shoot down a friendly when there is doubt. We can agree to disagree - and I will let you off the hook because I think you are wrong.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 20:15

Shiv, it is unrealistic because you are cherrypicking data & ignore anything that does not match your preconceived notions. Eg I see you cant address anything about radars, datalinks, ESM etc. You are sticking to IFF because its the only safe option.

In other words, you are on the hook, but your declarations of letting me off.. well...no dice

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 20:19

Karan M wrote:Shiv, it is unrealistic because you are cherrypicking data & ignore anything that does not match your preconceived notions. Eg I see you cant address anything about radars, datalinks, ESM etc. You are sticking to IFF because its the only safe option.

In other words, you are on the hook, but your declarations of letting me off.. well...no dice

Karan you are entitled to your views but you need to recall that your own answers have been to say that I am opposed to technology and when that did not work you latched on the Shreeman's post and said the scenario was unrealistic. If you want to win this round I bow to your superior knowledge of air combat, but I would have been happier not to see switching between false premises and lame excuses.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Mar 2015 21:00

Shiv, wow talk about putting words in other people's mouth because you can't answer the issues raised with your scenario.

When I agree with Shreeman, that your scenario is unrealistic based on points I make about all six fighters somehow not having ANY SA devices being unrealistic - IFF (gone), voice radios (gone), datalinks (gone), radar detection by friendly side (gone), ESM tracking (gone) - you say " when that did not work you latched on the Shreeman's post "

That's the issue. You can't take anyone pointing out flaws with your scenario and respond with more and more aggressive personal challenges!

Instead of getting upset each time somebody contests anyone of your points,why don't you answer the issues above?

Please explain how exactly (and how many systemic issues would it take) for ALL of the above to be not available & the incoming flight to not even announce their presence/s?

" but I would have been happier not to see switching between false premises and lame excuses."

Actually, if you had stuck to facts, you would not have had to deny your own rhetoric and then claim that everyone else was unable to understand the points you were making. Here is an example of your rhetoric.

It's the bit in red that is the problem.

BVR has never been used in hot war between two relatively equally matched air forces in wars between neighbouring countries.

BVRAAMs victories are first world air forces hitting fourth world aircraft thousands of km away from first world airspace.

So, here is what you said - BVR has only been used by first world AF versus 4th world ones. Its never been used in hot war between equally matched opponents.

When I pointed out almost all other technologies entered service likewise, you responded with even more aggressive ad hominems and continued on that path.

Instead of doing that, why don't you answer this?

Be as it may, in the scenario you have described, there is no guarantee that BVRAAMs can't be used or are useless. There are several ways to ID the targets in question.

- Ground based/ Air Based sensors which can detect these aircraft at range and classify them based on RCS (NTCR)
- Intercepts of their voice/data/other comms
- ODLs of aircraft which will automatically datalink even with voice silence, if no data is shared amongst ALL aircraft, very unlikely if all fighters are damaged
- Mission planning data of whether Aircraft in the vicinity "could be" friendly

So basically, forget IFF everything ELSE also has to stop working for your scenario to be 100% accurate.

Do you think that's realistic?

I don't.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Mar 2015 21:02

Buttressing my own argument:
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdf

Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-To-Air Combat
by
Lt Col Patrick Higby, USAF
Air War College Seminar 7

A Research Paper Submitted to the Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements Air War College (AWC) Electives Program Air Power Theory, Doctrine, and Strategy: 1945-Present Maxwell AFB, AL
30 March 2005

Conclusions & Recommendations

This paper has shown that the pursuit of costly BVR capabilities during the Cold War was not justified by actual BVR performance. Air-to-air combat has not transformed into a long-range slugfest of technology wherein radar-guided missiles score near-guaranteed kills. Human factors, such as pilot skill—or the opponent’s ineptness—still trump technology. Furthermore, BVR appears to work best in situations it is needed least. In Desert Storm—unlike Vietnam,
Yom Kippur, and Bekáa Valley—the enemy had no chance of establishing localized or temporary air superiority. This allowed a persistent AWACS presence—coupled with overwhelming numbers of Coalition aircraft—permitting up to 16 BVR kills in the least stressing BVR scenario.