Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

[Philip]

Tx Austin,those are fab pics of SU-36s in production.Amazing details.

[Austin]

Kidney, liver for transplant rushed in a fighter plane

[eklavya]

RAF website: Flanker and Typhoon Dogfight

[eklavya]

Aviation Week: Exercise Indradhanush: Flankers And Typhoons Battle In British Skies

Exercise Indradhanush: Flankers And Typhoons Battle In British Skies

The British Royal Air Force (RAF) and Indian Air Force (IAF) have hailed the success of a major exercise which saw the deployment of four Sukhoi Su-30MKI ‘Flankers’ to the U.K. to fly with and fight against the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon.

Exercise Indradhanush IV (Hindi: Rainbow) concluded on July 30 following intensive flying operations with RAF Typhoon squadrons from RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire. Ten IAF crews including 15 pilots and five weapon systems operators flew twice daily missions, often flying all four Su-30s on air-to-air training missions flying beyond visual range (BVR) and within visual range (WVR) engagements with the Typhoon.

This is the fourth iteration of the exercise, with the British and Indians taking it in turns to visit each other's shores.

The last time the Indians deployed to the U.K. was in 2007.

The Su-30s came from 2 Sqn – the Winged Arrows – based at Tezpur near India’s frontier with China.

The Flanker pilots were also able to use their thrust-vectoring control (TVC) “super-maneuverability” capability activated by flipping a switch in the cockpit. One pilot told Aviation Week that they had used the yaw capability of the TVC to remain inside the tight turn radius of the Typhoon in order to keep the Typhoon in missile launch parameters.

It was not possible to assess which aircraft, if any, had the upper hand in air combat, pilots and commanders remained tight lipped on the results of any dogfighting.

RAF Wg. Cmdr. Chris Moon, commanding officer of 3 (Fighter) Sqn which led the exercise said that participants had adopted a “crawl, walk, run approach” with Indian crews familiarizing themselves with U.K. airspace regulations before taking on the Typhoons in 1vs1, 2vs1 and increasingly complex engagements. The last exercise mission saw all four Flankers working with six Typhoons to escort and support two C-130J Hercules on a paradropping mission. They were opposed by 8-10 red-air Typhoons.

The exercise also saw the use of an Indian C-17 and an Il-78 tanker aircraft. The Il-78 operated alongside an RAF A330 Voyager tanker over the North Sea. While the Su-30s could have refueled from the Voyager, they were not cleared to, as a result fighters refueled from their national assets.

At least two RAF pilots got to fly in the back seat of the Su-30 during exchange sorties on July 30.

All Indian aircraft left the U.K. on July 31.

[Austin]

Indian Flankers Test British Typhoons on Exercise

Indian air force pilots (IAF) flying their Su-30MKI Flankers provided stiff opposition for a UK Royal Air Force (RAF) Eurofighter Typhoon squadron during air combat maneuvering exercises just ended in the UK. Senior officers from both the IAF and the RAF were unwilling to discuss details, but AIN understands from informed sources with knowledge of the exercise that, in close combat, the thrust vector control (TVC) on the heavier Flankers more than compensated for the greater thrust-to-weight ratio of the Typhoon. The IAF is likely to buy another 30or 40 Su-30MKIs from the licensed Indian production line, boosting its fleet to close to300, especially after last week’s formal withdrawal by Delhi of the RFP for a Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

For Exercise Indradhanush IV, the IAF deployed four Su-30MKIs from No 2 Squadron based at Tezpur to RAF Coningsby, assisted by mid-air refueling from an IAF Ilyushin Il-78 tanker. Logistics support was provided by an IAF C-17 and a C-130J, and these transports also carried a special forces unit that exercised with its RAF counterpart, including paradrops. Three previous exercises in the series included two visits by RAF Typhoons to India and an Su-30MKI deployment to the UK in 2007. However, that exercise was constrained by Indian security rules that precluded the use of the Flanker’s N011M passive electronically-scanned array (PESA) radar. There were no such restrictions this time, although the rules that were agreed by both air forces for the exercise included a common maximum range for beyond-visual range (BVR) engagements. The Flanker and the Typhoon both carry a long-range infrared search and track (IRST) sensor that can supplement or replace BVR detection of opposing aircraft by their respective radars.

Scenarios for the two-week exercise gradually increased in complexity, ending with an 18-aircraft mission in which the four Flankers joined six Typhoons in a ‘Blue’ Force that was tasked to escort two C-130Js (one Indian, on British) into a drop zone, opposed by six jets of a ‘Red’ Force comprising RAF Hawks and more Typhoons. Although air-to-air engagement was the main focus of the exercise, the Flanker and Typhoon pilots also honed their air-to-ground skills. Typhoons performed simulated drops of Paveway II and IV laser-guided bombs. Although the Flankers can carry a much greater range of ordnance, they simulated only ‘generic’ weapons-dropping while in the UK.

The status and timetable is not entirely clear for India's plans to upgrade the Su-30MKI fleet with an AESA radar; new displays including the Thales Topsight HMDS; and new weapons including the Indian Astra BVRAAM and the Indo-Russian Brahmos cruise missile. The ending of the MMRCA requirement could theoretically free up funds for the upgrade, and the additional licensed production, although some observers believe that more resources could be applied to the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with Russia, instead. Meanwhile, Dassault Aviation seems confident of a firm contract from India for 36 French-built Rafale fighters within a couple of months, in lieu of the MMRCA deal. Eric Trappier, CEO, told journalists at the company’s half-yearly-results press conference last week that the company was now committing to an increased Rafale production rate starting in 2018.

[Philip]

Simple Q for our serial anti-Russian baiters.Even if all things were equal,which is not what the report hints at,what is the comparative cost of a Typhoon vs an MKI or Rafale for that matter?
Once our MKIs are equipped with Astra,BMos,etc.they will be far more than a match for any aircraft in the sky with the poss exception of only the F-22,at $200M+ for that bird,which we will almost never face in combat !

[brar_w]

For a comparative cost you would have to come down to a definitive cost of producing an MKI, with all the upgrades you mentioned in Inda. I have seen $50 Million being quoted and $75 Million has also been quoted. Then you would have to calculate the fleet CPFH all things considered. Essentially NO one armed with the information publicly available can do a full LCC comparison between these two aircraft.

[Philip]

We have sale prices of Rafales,Typhoons,etc. with us.Indian MKI production is supposedly higher than those built in Russia.The higher $70M fig could be accurate. Why a couple of dedicated SU-34 sqds. for tactical strike/N-strike would be a good idea.PRC targets in Tibet and the Himalayas are spread out.

[brar_w]

Sale prices do not convey the entire cost of a weapons system, just as when you buy a car you still have to pay to operate it over its life. An F-16 for example costs between 50% to 65% to operate for a normal operator compared to an F-15E (heavy strike fighter). Similarly @ $17,000 - $20,000 CPFH the Rafale or the Typhoon should cost between $10,000 - $12,000 dollars less to operate than the Eagle or Strike Eagle ( A heavy strike fighter). We have no all out data on the operational cost to maintain high readiness (80+%) on the MKI fleet that is an apples to apples cost vs the Typhoon, or Rafale. We pay for MKI O&S In rupees and while the Indian MMRCA would have done the same (Through local production and support) the current G2G deal would most likely not. The current media (or not) report suggests local production so Indian prices would apply. But we have no way of accurately measuring what an Indian-Based-Supply and Support Euro-Canard would cost. Hence no real data out there for an Apples to Apples Comparison. The $17-20 K figure from Janes includes data based on Euro-zone salaries, and euro-nation operator expenditures. When a Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen has its parts made in India, repaired by Indian mechanics, and at Indian depots that cost would fall with the only fixed cost being that of fuel.

From an economic stand-point a 7000 hour fighter (euro birds) with a SLEP that takes it to 10,000 (An F-16C Blk. 50 for example has been cleared to 12,000 hours) that costs around $18,000 an hour to operate would cost upwards of $200 million post acquisition cost (easily)...A medium sized fighter will always cost lower to operate and maintain and a light weight fighter cheaper still. This obviously assumes an apples to apples comparison. That $200 Million+ figure is in "Today's" dollars, so the out year impact on the economics is going to be more due to inflation. There is a reason why Life-Cycle-Cost has become the standard measurement in most defense acquisitions around the world and why it appears to have become a standard model even with the Indian MOD. An Acquisition cost model simply ignores the overwhelming majority of cost that you will pay for a particular weapons system, and if you are ignoring the bulk of the cost why do a comparison at all?

[srin]

Let us assume that the per-hour MKI flying & maintenance cost is $10000 more than any MMRCA. Our own official source says flying cost is $12000 per hour. Don't know about maintenance cost.

So, per plane, increase operating cost is $10000. So for 100 planes, it is $1M per hour.

And we also know (via Ajai Shukla blog) that MKIs have flown 1000 hours in 10 years. So, for 2000 hours of flying, the excessive operating cost is $2 billion.

Now - let us assume that the MKI is $100M per plane (including missiles etc). And MMRCA is $200M per plane. So difference in capex for 100 planes $10billion.

So, makes more sense to get more MKIs.

[Yagnasri]

Further there is also the advantage of having a single type of AC on training cost, infrastructure, logistics etc.

[brar_w]

The MKI has an extensive local supply base, parts base and basically runs in an Indian setting. The $17-$18 K hour costing data on the Euro birds is for the EU zone prices, and what those operators paid for their parts. If India can manage to support a heavy fighter @ $12,000 per hour + support and spares than they can do a well designed modern medium sized multi-role fighter at a much much cheaper rate than what the Europeans can.

But we have no data on what India will pay for supporting its MMRCA fleets if production and supply is Indian made (Like the MKI). Historically there is yet to be a heavy strike and air superiority fighter that has been cheaper to maintain and operate than a light or medium sized fighter, even though you can get production prices closer than each other.

It would make some sense to just cancel the MMRCA II altogether and buy a few more MKI's and a lot more LCA's. But if they do move ahead with a 90-100 aircraft MMRCA order (a big if I know) it would be wiser to go in for a medium sized aircraft or be prepared to pay the cost of maintain a higher number of heavy class strike aircraft in the future.

[Singha]

the MKIs have the advantage of carrying as much fuel internally as the rafale with external tanks.
more useful payload can go on these heavy pylons.

I suspect the MKIs will be able to strike and stage from deeper in the interior without tanker support which we do not have. our meager tankers will be 100% tied up supporting awacs and gmti platforms on their 12-16 hr missions.

if we can somehow raise their uptime to 75% in peacetime and use extra trained crews and parts in wartime to 90% (like the IDF did for their planes)...

[srai]

the MKIs have the advantage of carrying as much fuel internally as the rafale with external tanks.
more useful payload can go on these heavy pylons.

I suspect the MKIs will be able to strike and stage from deeper in the interior without tanker support which we do not have. our meager tankers will be 100% tied up supporting awacs and gmti platforms on their 12-16 hr missions.

if we can somehow raise their uptime to 75% in peacetime and use extra trained crews and parts in wartime to 90% (like the IDF did for their planes)...

Together with MKIs from deep and LCAs deployed on the frontlines and you don't need a "medium-heavy" category.

India has taken around 10-years to increase Su-30MKI serviceability rates. Even established nations have that issue and these things take time. So we can expect the same for new type entering service.

£20bn RAF Typhoon jets grounded due to lack of spare parts

[shiv]

£20bn RAF Typhoon jets grounded due to lack of spare parts

Dependence on a single aircraft type has one disadvantage as revealed by this news item. As the saying goes - "for want of a nail.."

[Singha]

compared to the efforts usaf put in to change the basic F-15a to F-15c to F-15e to F-15se/sk/sg incl new generations of avionics and radars, the efforts put into improving the su30 pale in comparison.

F-15a entered service around 1972 I think and still rules the roost as the most powerful fighter-bomber in the world...going on 45 yrs old chassis design now. the CFTs vastly improved fuel ratio and their use of multi-pylons and having pylons right down to the tailpipe is unique in carrying so many weapons so far ...

some kind of tradition called elephant walk..where they line up and move in the ground like a herd
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17kghst ... iginal.jpg

[Vivek K]

US can do this because their programs are domestic and they have invested in local institutions/agencies. With no domestic infrastructure and no will to develop it, how long can the Sukhois be cutting edge?

[Singha]

^^ quite true. without comprehensive domestic industry it is impossible to get the kind of rolling gold plated upgs the usaf routinely accomplishes.

they have fallen far behind the F-15 now for sure - the al31 was always inferior to the GE/PW and it shows in the number of engine fails (saved only due to 2 engines), the f-15 is into its 2nd gen of aesa radar now, has a more comprehensive EW kit, a wider choice of munitions and better air to air missiles...apart from some inherent differences like its wing being more optimized for higher mach speed.

we just talk of irbis one day, n050 next day and uttam some other day. even the fleet wide FDL seems to be talk only and there no evidence all IAF fighters are networked together using a domestic datalink.
NGARM, brahmos-M, nirbhay-ALCM and NGLGB has not even entered testing phase. astra is far from production qualified. there is no domestic IR aam in the works.......

each vendor is ripping us for upgrades whether its M2k or Mig29.

[shiv]

The MiG 21 has had upgrades and improvements for longer than the F-15. It started as a dart with 2 AAMs but is now a multirole aircraft. Different beasts - same chassis

[Singha]

but saar diff is the Bison is totally outclassed as a platform by late model F-15 and F-16 which are only some 10 yrs older by initial induction date.

F-16 and 15 are still sold around the world while we are perhaps the only major user of mig21 left.

and the bison upg had all comps like kopyo radar, aa12 missile, cockpit refresh, HMS sourced from foreign only.

we have never successfully demoed the chinese skill of taking a license made foreign airframe and piece by piece replacing its foreign kit with initially inferior domestic kit which tends to catch up over time.

one can cite the AN12 (Y8), Tu16(H6), Lavi(J10), Mig21(J7).....today despite warts they have in the H6 a locally made long range bomber to launch ALCMs far out over the ocean....the Y8 has spawed their karakoram awacs. they have even cloned the C17 in part and going with the Y20 heavy transporter. C717 medium plane is being built in 3 phases, while RTA/Saras remains grounded.

our system sat smug in the knowledge we had superior imported kit

[shiv]

but saar diff is the Bison is totally outclassed as a platform by late model F-15 and F-16 which are only some 10 yrs older by initial induction date

F-16 and 15 are still sold around the world while we are perhaps the only major user of mig21 left.

The word "outclassed" is rhetoric. America outclasses everyone else in everything and there is nothing to discuss. I am speaking of F-15. F-16 is different. It was designed to defeat the MiG 21 and a generation newer. The induction date of the MiG 21 was 1959 if I am not mistaken. F-15 did not appear much later - 1976 acc to Google.

The Su-30 is not an appropriate comparison to the evolution of the F-15. Russians built on the Su 27 air superiority platform and created the Su-35 mulirole fighter. For us the Su-30 MKI was to be air superiority and strike from the word go. The MKI is a branch evolution of the Su-27. The Russians took to the Su-30MKI as a useful platform after the IAF adopted it.

The MiG 21 is more appropriate as an evolution of an airframe that is found useful and can be developed. The F-15 was an air superiority platform that gradually acquired a strike role. The MiG 21 was an interceptor that acquired a strike role. Both had upgrades that were possible within that airframe.

[andy B]

compared to the efforts usaf put in to change the basic F-15a to F-15c to F-15e to F-15se/sk/sg incl new generations of avionics and radars, the efforts put into improving the su30 pale in comparison.

F-15a entered service around 1972 I think and still rules the roost as the most powerful fighter-bomber in the world...going on 45 yrs old chassis design now. the CFTs vastly improved fuel ratio and their use of multi-pylons and having pylons right down to the tailpipe is unique in carrying so many weapons so far ...

some kind of tradition called elephant walk..where they line up and move in the ground like a herd
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17kghst ... iginal.jpg

h

GD I am a big fan of the F15 friggin awesome airframe design and an absolute multi role gem when it comes to the multii role Strike Eagle form! Trouble is it aint cheap upfront though Khan's weapon package costs relatively mucho less than what the Euros sell!

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-i ... ce=taboola

Check out the above GD for what the Saudis are getting for over 150 airframes. This thing is an absolute monster! I expect the Rambha will mature into something like this after the mid life comprehensive upgrade even though it may carry lower payload relative to the saudi eagle.

As an example this is what a sample fullish payload would look like for the advanced Eagle

“extreme multi-role loadout” it packs: 2x AIM-120AMRAAMs, 2x AIM-9X Sidewinders, 2x AGM-84 SLAM-ERs, 2x AGM-88 HARMs, 6x GBU-54/B Laser JDAMs, and 8x GBU-39/B

[Singha]

since the talk is only of buying 36 rafale with no tot or local manufacture, in that sense getting 36 F-15SA sounds like a better bet to me. the cost will likely be very similar for the plane, but the F-15 will have better range on internal fuel due to cft and cart much wider and cheaper set of weapons. it also has a higher top speed.

[brar_w]

Why have an MMRCA then with M being 'medium' class? Heavies come at a price/cost. While the cost to acquire the Silent Eagle or an SA will not be significantly different to that of the rafale, the CPFH of the SA will likely be at least $10,000 more than the Rafale.

[Cosmo_R]

US can do this because their programs are domestic and they have invested in local institutions/agencies. With no domestic infrastructure and no will to develop it, how long can the Sukhois be cutting edge?

I thought HAL had a "deep license for ToT" for the MKI

[srai]

US can do this because their programs are domestic and they have invested in local institutions/agencies. With no domestic infrastructure and no will to develop it, how long can the Sukhois be cutting edge?

I thought HAL had a "deep license for ToT" for the MKI

Shows that ToT are not the way to build a MIC. Most of these types of ToT are related to assembly production and spare parts support. One will still need to go to the OEM (or involve them) for major upgrades as design data are not available.

[nachiket]

we have never successfully demoed the chinese skill of taking a license made foreign airframe and piece by piece replacing its foreign kit with initially inferior domestic kit which tends to catch up over time.

"Initially inferior" domestic kit is never acceptable in India. If you look at the LCA saga, even "initially just good enough" is not acceptable.

[Singha]

Why have an MMRCA then with M being 'medium' class? Heavies come at a price/cost. While the cost to acquire the Silent Eagle or an SA will not be significantly different to that of the rafale, the CPFH of the SA will likely be at least $10,000 more than the Rafale.

M==massive, mauler class, marauder.

CPFH diff might be less for normal peacetime flights where they mostly fly with no weapons or just few.

and dont forget the aperture of the apgXX will be much bigger than the constrained nose of the rafales

[srin]

US can do this because their programs are domestic and they have invested in local institutions/agencies. With no domestic infrastructure and no will to develop it, how long can the Sukhois be cutting edge?

I thought HAL had a "deep license for ToT" for the MKI

I guess we do, of sorts. For instance, the MKI is the testbed for Astra integration. And given that it will reduce our dependency on R-77, there is no reason for Russians to help us out.

Though I don't know if we can modify/replace the radar or flight control.

And my guess is that changes to airframe might void warranty.

[brar_w]

Why have an MMRCA then with M being 'medium' class? Heavies come at a price/cost. While the cost to acquire the Silent Eagle or an SA will not be significantly different to that of the rafale, the CPFH of the SA will likely be at least $10,000 more than the Rafale.

M==massive, mauler class, marauder.

CPFH diff might be less for normal peacetime flights where they mostly fly with no weapons or just few.

and dont forget the aperture of the apgXX will be much bigger than the constrained nose of the rafales

True on most fronts, but the CPFH difference will be substantial. I already accounted for the peacetime flying in the $10,000 data. The F-15SE is still an older technology, heavier frame, with bigger engines, more thrust, and has an avionics architecture that is quite old (even though the avionics themselves are newer in some cases such as the AESA, IRST, DEWS etc). You are likely to get a half a generational advance in maintenance and support of the avionics system alone especially in the PHM side of the field. The Fuel burn alone due to higher thrust, more weight will cause a substantial difference in economies.

The Rhino, Rafale and Typhoon will always be cheaper to run then a heavy strike fighter, especially if they are making use of a half a generation of advancement in systems design and overall aerospace capability. The F-15SE puts in a lot of avionics, and even a FBW but there is only so much you can do without a serious design overhaul...While performance will be excellent for both the systems and the aircraft (its beefed up for a 16,000 hour service life) the cost to keep it flying will definitely be high compared to smaller, lighter and frankly newer aircraft like those mentioned above..

By all accounts the Apg-82 AESA radar (For the F-15E fleet) is the largest AESA the US has ever put on a fighter..

Edit - I checked the US Government Comptroller rates for the F-18E/F and the F-15E. Comptroller issued user rates are for bare bone aircraft flying i.e. what it costs to fly an aircraft on a routine non-combat mission during peacetime. They are used for reimbursement purposes for example contractors or OEM's that may want to test out a pod etc. They include FUEL and a basic support contribution from the end-user. The Numbers for the F-18F (two seater) is $11,000 per flight hour, while that of the F-15E is $20,000 per hour. Thats a fairly substantial difference and its due to many reasons, some is due to a lighter aircraft, that has smaller less powerful engines while a lot of it is due to the fact that the MTBF and man hour requirements for support are much lighter on the newer aircraft which is designed with all the modern systems post Eagle / Strike Eagle development.

Interestingly the F-18E/F adds around $6-9,000 to its overall operational cost when the USN uses it (CPFH of actual operational aircraft) and the F-15E adds around $10,000-$12,000. So the total difference of around $10,000 per hour to the operator is pretty good ball park figure and goes to show essentially the difference between a heavy strike fighter designed in the 70's and a modern medium weight fighter designed in the 80's and 90's. A similar relationship would exist when you compare the cost of the MKI and say the Rafale or Typhoon..Only problem with that is that the MKI cost IS in INR while the comparison data for the euro-canards is in $ in Euro-zone economies where labor, manufacturing of parts etc are all much more expensive. Then comes the very important point of availability rates that are dependent on aircraft reliability..Older designs, and aircraft are harder to keep reliable and therefore consume more resources when it comes to maintaining higher mission availability rates. A modern Gripen would always hit its high MA rate at a much lower DOLLAR amount compared to a similarly sized F-16..simply because its more modern..So when you say it costs $12000 plus support to maintain a fighter X at a 50-60% MA rate, you have to see what additional resources are consumed to improve MA rates closer to 80% which most operators target for their medium to heavy fighters. Of course aircraft like the F-16A, Gripen can get MA rates at beyond 90% at a very economical price-point ( hence their popularity) but a complex medium-heavy aircraft is going to struggle since CPFH is going to consume a lot more resources..

[member_27581]

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-a ... eststories

NEW DELHI: In some of the most intense international air combat exercises ever featuring the Indian Air Force, IAF pilots flying Sukhoi 30 MKI fighters had a resounding 12-0 scoreline in their favour against Royal Air Force Typhoon jets in Within Visual Range (WVR) dogfighting operations.

In subsequent Large Force Exercises (LFE) which featured combined Typhoon and Su-30 formations, the IAF jets were somewhat less successful but consistently held an edge over the Typhoon.

In an exclusive interview, Group Captain Ashu Srivastav, the Contingent Commander in the exercises, told NDTV that the performance of his pilots was "exceptional." According to Group Captain Srivastav, who happens to be the IAF's most experienced Su-30 pilot, his pilots showed "flexibility and adaptability to a new environment and operating conditions and on this benchmark, I would rate them exceptional."

A Sukhoi 30 MKI fighter jet of the Indian Air Force

The 10 day exercises which commenced on July 21 was the fourth edition of the Indo-UK Bilateral exercise called Indradhanush. IAF aircraft and personnel were based out of three Royal Air Force bases: four IAF Su-30 fighters operated out of RAF Coningsby, C-17 and C-130J Hercules transports were positioned at Brize Norton and Garud Commandos of the IAF operated alongside British forces at RAF Honington. The IAF also deployed an Ilyushin IL-78 air to air refuelling tanker at Brize Norton.

The IAF fleet departed India on July 15, with the fighters refuelling twice mid-air ahead of their first pit-stop at Taif in Saudi Arabia (near Jeddah). The formation then proceeded to Athens on July 16 refuelling once before their arrival. After another halt for one night, IAF aircraft flew onto the UK again refuelling once midair.

For the Royal Air Force, the chance to train against the Russian designed Su-30 MKI, arguably the finest fourth generation fighter aircraft in the world, is rare. India is the largest international operator of the super-maneuverable fighter and was equally keen to pit the skills of its Top Guns against the RAF's new Eurofighter Typhoon, the mainstay of the RAF's fighter fleet.

The first week of the exercises pitted the Su-30, which NATO calls the Flanker, in a series of aerial dogfight scenarios. First, there were 1 v 1 encounters where a single jet of each type engaged each other in Within Visual Range (WVR) combat, firing simulated missiles to a range of two miles. The exercises progressed to 2 v 2 engagements with two Eurofighters taking on two Su-30s and 2 v 1 exercises where two Sukhois took on a single Typhoon and vice versa. Notably, in the exercise where a lone Su-30 was engaged by two Typhoons, the IAF jet emerged the victor 'shooting' down both 'enemy' jets.

In all dog fighting exercises, IAF Sukhois were able to turn sharply into the extremely agile Typhoons using their thrust-vectored engines to keep the RAF jets locked in their sights. The Su-30's advanced Infrared Search and Track System (IRST), a passive sensor, which cannot be tracked, proved to be a distinct advantage for the IAF's pilots in close-combat maneuvering. Both the IAF and RAF used the full capabilities of their onboard radars albeit in training mode, which meant that actual radar frequencies used in combat conditions were never exposed for confidentiality reasons. However, the detection ranges of the radars of both aircraft were not curtailed per se. This was air combat as close to the real thing as possible.

The pilots themselves ranged from young Flight Lieutenants to senior Group Captains from either side drawn directly from Typhoon squadrons and the IAF's 2 Squadron, "The Winged Warriors" based in Kalaikunda. The idea was for both sides to expose their operational pilots to a modern frontline platform of the same class. Accordingly, the IAF did not deploy any senior pilots serving with its Tactics and Air Combat Development Establishment (TACDE).

By the time the exercises shifted to Large Force Engagements (LFE) in the second week, IAF pilots were comfortable operating in British conditions. The Large Force Engagements saw mixed formation scenarios where the IAF operated its jets alongside RAF Typhoons in air battles against fellow Su-30s flying together with other Typhoons.

An IAF Sukhoi (Left) flies alongside RAF's Typhoon.

The Large Force Engagements saw 4 v 4 engagements at beyond visual range and graduated to a massive 8 v 8 engagement featuring 16 aircraft in the skies near Coningsby. IAF pilots shared tactical information with RAF pilots in their formations using radio communications since the IAF's data-link system (which shares critical sensor data with friendly aircraft) was not compatible with the Link 16 system in use with NATO aircraft like the Typhoon.

Asked about the performance of IAF pilots in these Large Force Engagements, Group Captain Srivastav told NDTV, his pilots performed "fairly well" though "quantifying [the results] is difficult. It was not unexpected for the IAF to "lose" one or two jets (over all the Large Force Engagements put together) given that the movement of each formation was directed by fighter controllers coordinating an overall air battle. Both sides agreed to simulate their Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Missiles at 25 miles for offensive missions and 22 miles for defensive scenarios.

IAF C-130 and Il-78 jets also participated in the Large Force engagements where they were "defended" by the fighter formations they were flying with against 'enemy' attacks.

The IAF also encountered no serviceability issues with any of its participating jets. All Su-30s were available for the daily exercises which took place over two blocks, one in the morning, the other in the afternoon for a total of eight sorties daily.

Praising the support the IAF received from the RAF, Group Captain Srivastav told NDTV, "The hosts were very good. They were ready to extend exceptional support."



The sense of camaraderie extended to C-17 transport pilots of both sides. According to Group Captain Srivastav, "There was good interaction between young pilots. The C-17 Squadron of the RAF wanted some help in Kathmandu [following the Nepal earthquake]. We helped them then, this was more than reciprocated." RAF pilots showcased their assault landing and combat off-loading experiences with IAF pilots observing from the cockpit of the big jet. IAF pilots shared their experiences of operating the C-17 at high altitudes.

Over the last decade, the Indian Air Force has been very keen to develop its Garud Commando Force meant to protect its assets such as air bases and also be deployed behind enemy lines if required. Operating alongside British forces in the UK, the IAF Garud commandos participated in a 96-hour camp in a training area close to Honington. This involved reconnaissance and surveillance missions and a combat free fall para-jump with British forces.

The IAF team which participated in the air combat exercise

Back in India now, the IAF, like the Royal Air Force, is keen to point out that the exercises were a learning and training opportunity, and should not be seen as a battle between the IAF and the RAF who are close allies and partners. According to Group Captain Srivastav, "It was all about learning from each others experiences and to fine tune our own procedures."

At the end of the day, though, for the IAF, these exercises were about gauging the skill levels of its own pilots and the aircraft they operate. For the IAF, these exercises came as positive news on where they stand against some of the best of the West.

[srai]

Listing out all the aircrafts faced by IAF's Su-30MKIs:

• F-16 - USAF, RSAF
• F-15 - USAF
• F/A-18 - ?
• Rafale - Armée de l'air
• EF Typhoon - RAF
• Tornado - RAF
• Mirage 2000 - Armée de l'air, IAF
• MiG-29 - IAF, IN
• MiG-27 - IAF
• MiG-21 - IAF
• Jaguar - IAF
• Harrier - IN

The IAF pilots now have real world experience of each aircraft's strength and weaknesses. Very useful in combat.

Missing:

• Gripen
• F-22
• F/A-18?
• Chinese fighters
• Russian - Su-27 variants like Su-35

[andy B]

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-a ... eststories


In all dog fighting exercises, IAF Sukhois were able to turn sharply into the extremely agile Typhoons using their thrust-vectored engines to keep the RAF jets locked in their sights. The Su-30's advanced Infrared Search and Track System (IRST), a passive sensor, which cannot be tracked, proved to be a distinct advantage for the IAF's pilots in close-combat maneuvering. Both the IAF and RAF used the full capabilities of their onboard radars albeit in training mode, which meant that actual radar frequencies used in combat conditions were never exposed for confidentiality reasons. However, the detection ranges of the radars of both aircraft were not curtailed per se. This was air combat as close to the real thing as possible.

Typical DDMitis even the friggin excercise pictures show Typhoons that participated are of later tranche ii/iii that have the very capable PIRATE passive IR sensor so the Typhoons have at the very least equal passive intercept capability to the OLS of the MKI!!! and this capability has now been operational on the Typhoons for a few years! In the air to air domain the Typhoon would be a very fierce opponent whether the MKI would best it to a ratio of 12-0 is highly doubtful IMHO.

[nachiket]

Typical DDMitis even the friggin excercise pictures show Typhoons that participated are of later tranche ii/iii that have the very capable PIRATE passive IR sensor so the Typhoons have at the very least equal passive intercept capability to the OLS of the MKI!!! and this capability has now been operational on the Typhoons for a few years! In the air to air domain the Typhoon would be a very fierce opponent whether the MKI would best it to a ratio of 12-0 is highly doubtful IMHO.

You'll notice that there is no actual quote claiming the 12-0 ratio etc. Group Capt. Srivastav, who is quoted in the article says no such thing. He only states that the IAF pilots performed very well. So the other stuff is probably something the DDM reporter cooked up using partial information that he couldn't understand, just for its sensational quotient.

[andy B]

 IAF pilots flying Sukhoi 30 MKI fighters had a resounding 12-0 scoreline in their favour against Royal Air Force Typhoon jets in Within Visual Range (WVR) dogfighting operations.

FYI I have never questioned what the IAF has said. Whatever the result standard opsec provisions for IAF and RAF would mean we would never hear the real results or observations anyways. My dig was specific to DDM and the wild stuff that gets published time and time again. Enuff said no more from me on this lest i cop a hellphyr.

[nachiket]

FYI I have never questioned what the IAF has said. Whatever the result standard opsec provisions for IAF and RAF would mean we would never hear the real results or observations anyways. My dig was specific to DDM and the wild stuff that gets published time and time again. Enuff said no more from me on this lest i cop a hellphyr.

andy saar, I wasn't accusing you or anything like that. I was just pointing out typical DDM behavior of pulling things out of their musharraf and inserting them into an article where an official source is quoted to make it sound true.

[fanne]

BTw one food for thought, Maintenance cost of M2000 has been 3x of Mig29 (for a fleet that is 60%, although at very availability rate). The upgrade was also more than 2x for M2000 compared to Mig29. Does this say anything about the lifetime cost of SU30MKI and Raf? The only thing where MKI come costly is that probably it gulps $10,000 PER HOUR more gas. That's about it.

[andy B]

FYI I have never questioned what the IAF has said. Whatever the result standard opsec provisions for IAF and RAF would mean we would never hear the real results or observations anyways. My dig was specific to DDM and the wild stuff that gets published time and time again. Enuff said no more from me on this lest i cop a hellphyr.

andy saar, I wasn't accusing you or anything like that. I was just pointing out typical DDM behavior of pulling things out of their musharraf and inserting them into an article where an official source is quoted to make it sound true.

Noted and apologies for the misunderstanding nachiket and no saar please! Looking at the typhoon and rambha flying together brings back my original wish of it being selected for MRCA would have been a very higher power combo. However the unfortunate fact remains for high cost of platform acquisition and weapons as well as CPFH. Oh well old wishes die hard! That reminds me GD you still need to finish that bloo$$ scenario where the EFs were practising against the Pak Fa.

[Austin]

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-a ... eststories

NEW DELHI: In some of the most intense international air combat exercises ever featuring the Indian Air Force, IAF pilots flying Sukhoi 30 MKI fighters had a resounding 12-0 scoreline in their favour against Royal Air Force Typhoon jets in Within Visual Range (WVR) dogfighting operations.

In subsequent Large Force Exercises (LFE) which featured combined Typhoon and Su-30 formations, the IAF jets were somewhat less successful but consistently held an edge over the Typhoon.
.

Since its written by Vishnu who is on BRF too we can ask him about 12-0 BVR claim , IF TRUE this is quite impressive feat

[Singha]

even 6-6 would be quite impressive considering the famed a2a capability of the typhoon.