Indian Military Aviation

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by tsarkar »

shiv wrote:Can anyone confirm that Indian Mig 27s had that awesome cannon? I read it on here recently somewhere or heard someone say it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/torqueavia ... 5465029780

This is the same as naval AK630 CIWS, gas operated rather than electrically, so extremely reliable. Among the best gatlings in the world. The MiG27 has just a laser rangefinder, however with proper avionics, the gun could give a whole new meaning to the phrase "nail them down"

MiG-23 were excellent for interception using slash attacks, and in Angola, a South African Mirage was shot down in this manner. A good interceptor, but air dominance requires dogfighting capabilities, where Mirage and MiG29 came in. From what I've heard from MiG23 pilots who later transitioned to MiG29 is that the latter was better in a dogfight than the former, and had BVR capabilities. A MiG23 flying straight inbound or outbound was no match for an R27 launched at it.
chackojoseph wrote:1 M2K + 1 MiG-29 for taking care of 1 F-16 was the equation.
Not quite, both Mirage and MiG29 were new aircraft, with no combat experience anywhere, and IAF purchased two squadrons of each initially to validate their capabilities and refine operational doctrine. 1xA + 1xB against 1xC kind of equations are not practically possible, because one never knows where C will be, and at that point in time, where A & B would be.
Last edited by tsarkar on 29 Dec 2011 11:30, edited 2 times in total.
Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Bala Vignesh »

Surya wrote: Because of their speed they were also called up to give practice to Air Defence Units. The details of those are a story for BR meets :)
Well then Suryaji, drop down to bangalore and we'll organize a meet just to hear those stories.. :D :P
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by chackojoseph »

tsarkar wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:1 M2K + 1 MiG-29 for taking care of 1 F-16 was the equation.
Not quite, both Mirage and MiG29 were new aircraft, with no combat experience anywhere, and IAF purchased two squadrons of each initially to validate their capabilities and refine operational doctrine. 1xA + 1xB against 1xC kind of equations are not practically possible, because one never knows where C will be, and at that point in time, where A & B would be.
What I referred to was the the buzz in 1980's. IIRC, (since I am son of ex IAF personnel), One of the Sqn Ldrs was giving a speech and he said "now we have 1 Mig-29 + 1 M2K for a PAF F-16." So it was generally referred as 2:1 superiority of IAF over PAF.
neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 853
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by neerajb »

Intresting article about MiG-27's GSh-6-30 cannon.
However, another serious problem appeared with the aircraft gun mounting: despite the reduced ballistics [Ed: from the use of shorter barrels] the recoil force of the GSh-6-30A was about 5,500 kg. The impact loads caused by firing were very high for the aircraft to absorb, particularly as its structure was a development of a light fighter. For ground firing tests the gun was initially mounted on a wooden testbed, but at the first trial firing of the "Shestistvolka" the testbed simply fell apart.

Further problems occurred during the first air firing tests. It was discovered that the impact and frequency characteristics generating by firing the GSh-6-30A on the ground did not correspond to those which took place in the air. The first 25-round burst made in flight was ended by the failure of all of the avionics in the cockpit. In further test flights there were cases of deformation and even tearing away of the nose undercarriage door, and because of the strong vibrations the ammunition feed fell apart. Electronic equipment in an aft-of-cockpit compartment also failed.

To reduce the influence of gun firing on the fuselage, the axis of a gun was inclined downwards 1°13 '.
In combination with its sighting system the GSh-6-30А was very accurate. In Soviet Air Force regiments gun firing was often exercised during training flights. Usually the ammunition belts alternated two OFZ rounds with one BZ, but on examination flights each fourth or fifth round was a tracer. Firing was possible in a manual mode, with "approximate" targeting using the fixed grid of a sight. In automatic aiming mode the PrNK-23 navigation system was used. It gave the necessary corrections and lead on an S-17VG sight together with information about the target and effective firing range. When detonating on impact with the ground, the shell fragments scattered up to 200 metres in the air and represented a serious danger to the aircraft. In short 40-round bursts, lasting a fraction of a second, the gun sent to the target about 16 kg of "effective load". In training flights, the gun was loaded with only 30-40 cartridges, sufficient for improving shooting skills.
As one of the measures to tackle the problems, the firing rate was limited to 4,000 rpm. Despite various adaptations and structural reinforcements, the risks involved in firing the gun had to be taken into account during operations. The general view of the aviation regiments was that bursts of 30-40 rounds had no serious consequences, but a long burst of 2.5-3 seconds was accompanied by "crunches and crashes". Apart from other advantages, restricting shooting to short bursts extended the effective life of the gun.
In August 1980 a Major Shvyrev, of one of squadrons of the 722nd bomber regiment, was returning from a gun-firing flight when he discovered that the doors of the forward landing gear were deformed and it was not possible to lower the gear. The pilot had to land his aircraft on the two main wheels, for the first time during the service of the MiG-27 in the VVS. Despite this, the aircraft suffered no serious damage and soon flew again. Another case occurred on August 8th 1988, when a MiG-27D of Lieutenant M.V.Poluektov, of the 19th bombing regiment based in East Germany, returned from firing practice with the GSh-6-30. He also found that the forward gear was not down because of jammed doors. As was observed later in the report, "the pilot had high moral-political preparation" and was able to land the aircraft on the main wheels with minimal damage. A similar case with more serious consequences occurred in the 599th bombing regiment on May, 15, 1990. During firing a muzzle attachment broke, and this became jammed against the nose-gear doors, so the nose wheel could not release. The MiG-27K ploughed the runway with its nose, and had to be written off [Ed: the pilot obviously lacked something in "moral-political preparation"]

The avionics systems often became turned off because the electrical commutating switches became disconnected. On April 18th 1988 a MiG-27 from the 24th Air Division arrived at an air base without its communications or navigation systems working: during firing, the navigation, radio and gyroscopes had switched off. In East Germany on 2nd September 1989 a MiG-27 suffered full radio communication failure; contacts in the radio had broken and printed circuit boards had cracked. In aircraft of the 23rd Air Army in January 1989, gun shooting resulted in two incidents. In the 58th bomber regiment a broken electrical safety fuse caused almost complete failure of the stabilizer, flaps, landing gear and navigation system control. One week earlier in the 266th bomber regiment, a MiG-27K returned from a flight without the cockpit canopy: emergency locks had released the canopy while shooting.

Even given this background, the case which occurred in the 24th Division on 29th March 1989 appears to have been unique. On recovery from a dive after gun shooting, the instrument panel fell onto the pilot's legs: the panel fastenings had been sheared by the recoil force. The pilot reached an airbase holding the panel, which was hanging via electric cables, by one hand.

It frequently happened that the recoil force of firing broke the reflector sight. Landing headlights broke so frequently, that before flights involving gun firing, they were removed and replaced with caps. The introduction of protective deflectors did not completely rescue a situation which demanded changes to the "MiG-27 Pilots Instruction": after night shooting, landing took place only on runways illuminated by floodlights.

A continuous burst of fire was dangerous because of the risk of barrel overheating. That could lead to the explosion of primers and cartridges, and even of shells. Each such case was considered as extraordinary and was examined by the OKB and Tula TcseKB. In the 16th Air Army such an incident on 22nd January 1990 resulted in the loss of a MiG-27K. The detonation of a shell in the barrel of the GSh-6-30A broke the gun apart. Fragments of the gun damaged a fuel tank, electric cables and a hydraulic system. The explosion of an oxygen tank "instantly inflated" a fire. The pilot lost control and ejected from the burning airplane. A similar case took place three months later on a firing range in Lunitcsa with a MiG-27K from the 39th Division. Some shells exploded near the nose, but the aircraft managed to return to base despite the shell-holes, broken hatches and glass housing of the sighting system, and dents on the compressor blades.

This type of "self-inflicted wound" happened even on the ground, usually the result of an oversight by the ground crew. As a protective measure a "ground/air" electric circuit, activated by weight on the landing gear, prevented the gun from firing while the plane was on the ground. Sometimes during flight preparations this interlock was disconnected or overlooked, so that the gun was armed as soon as the nosewheel left the ground. When parallel tests of different systems to check weapon control took place, this could result in the gun firing. In 1983 at the 236th bomber regiment in Chertok, such an accident demolished the forward landing gear, and a similar case took place in the 88th bomber regiment in Suurukul. In Lipetsk, on September 2nd 1986, only one cartridge remained in a MiG-27D's gun as it was returning from a flight. After landing, the gun fired and hit the nose gear, igniting the flammable AMG-10 hydraulic fluid which was contained in nose gear under high pressure.

With the retirement of the MiG-27 from Russian Air Force service, the GSh-6-30 guns were also withdrawn.
Cheers....
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by tsarkar »

chackojoseph wrote:One of the Sqn Ldrs was giving a speech and he said "now we have 1 Mig-29 + 1 M2K for a PAF F-16."
Ah, nothing sounds and works better than invigourating pep talk :)

Good find, NeerajB
On recovery from a dive after gun shooting, the instrument panel fell onto the pilot's legs: the panel fastenings had been sheared by the recoil force. The pilot reached an airbase holding the panel, which was hanging via electric cables, by one hand.
This is when the concept of tablet and touchscreen dawned to man.
Last edited by tsarkar on 29 Dec 2011 11:39, edited 2 times in total.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17169
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Rahul M »

>> As was observed later in the report, "the pilot had high moral-political preparation" and was able to land the aircraft on the main wheels with minimal damage.

:lol:
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59810
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by ramana »

Rahul M wrote:read this along with it.
http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2010/03/0 ... rin-story/
Superb description of the task of incorporating new technology and project management!
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Singha »

looks like the GSH-6-30 was clearly more gun than the Mig27 airframe could handle. a case of sticking to a bad choice without sustained testing.

perhaps a GSH-3-30 and lower rate of fire would have done the job and kept airframe life up.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

Singha wrote:looks like the GSH-6-30 was clearly more gun than the Mig27 airframe could handle. a case of sticking to a bad choice without sustained testing.

perhaps a GSH-3-30 and lower rate of fire would have done the job and kept airframe life up.
I think this description was of the testing phase. Once the problems were discovered they were sorted out or bypassed and the plane put into service with the gun.
VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by VinayG »

Rahul M wrote:read this along with it.
http://tkstales.wordpress.com/2010/03/0 ... rin-story/
awesome article rahul Ji the pains and gains for a better product and the complexity of a good project management well described
neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 853
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by neerajb »

Shiv Saar, Last para has incidents mostly from 1989-90 era, after 15 years of induction in Soviet airforce and almost 5 years of induction in IAF.

Cheers....
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by koti »

tsarkar wrote:This is when the concept of tablet and touchscreen dawned to man.
:rotfl:
Thank god that the idea of joystick in a plane did not dawn in this case.... :mrgreen:
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Yogi_G »

Mig-23 was a gen before the F-16 and other teens. The mig-23 matched F-16 on turn rates and could out-accelerate it as well. So some credit due for it. In a sense its the su-27 series of today, setting performance parameters that even aircraft of the next generation struggled to match. Wasn't it the first Soviet fighter to have a look down shoot down radar or was it something else? :-?

ps: Swing wing tech was the "3d viewing tv" technology of the 70's and 80's, everyone thought it was the future and would be the norm going forward but it never was it? :P
aharam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 27 Apr 2011 05:38

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by aharam »

Swing wing was a great idea if it came at zero weight penalty and near instantaneous sweep geometry changes. Reality though was that it was too heavy for the benefit it provided, leading to reduced flight envelopes. Happened with the Mig 23, which technologically wanted to match the F-111, the US super-plane design of the 60s. Simply put, the F-111 was a bad idea. By the time all the bells and whistles had been added, its performance was retrograde to any competitive Soviet plane, including those 15 years older. The worst part of it was that the retrograde performance of the F-111 was across the entire flight envelope. Unfortunately, the Soviets based the 23 on the design goals on the F-111 thereby following a bad idea. The biggest success of the F-111 was that it got the Soviets to follow it, thereby losing the edge they had. Thankfully, successive designs such as the Mig 29 dropped the idea.

Cheers
aharam
Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Jagan »

shiv wrote:
Yes. Someone did mention to me that this was a deadly cannon. Here is a video although the explosion is fake (for Rajiv Gandhi). But this is a MiG 23 BN with 23 mm cannon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHV_I47uSHQ
Shiv , this video seems to be a later 'patchup' but I can confirm that the two Sukhoi airframes and their blowing up are actually credit to MiG-27s during the FPD in 1989.. That footage seems to have been taken and stiched to form this MiG-23 publicity video
aharam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 27 Apr 2011 05:38

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by aharam »

shiv wrote:
VinayG wrote:
yogi i never said at any altitude but i said in close combat and not all the migs its mig 21 and m2k in close combat only in few scenarios that's why i quoted instances

Vinay I don't think Jag will even beat the MiG 21 in close combat. However it might be able to outrun the MiG while flying 50 feet above the ground leaving the MiG gasping to get to that speed 1000 meters higher
Hi Shiv,
Unfortunately, I have to contradict you here :-). The performance of the Mig 21 in low altitude sub sonic regime is pretty bad - the wing loading is far too high and there is insufficient lift. In a turning dogfight if handled properly, the Jaguar will get inside the Mig 21 every time. The only way a Mig would fight this would be make it a climbing dogfight, which is what I would do - dump energy in a dive, climb, rinse and repeat. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens with the M2K as well, since the 2K also has moderately high wing loading compared to a ground attack aircraft like a Jag. You should try this against the LCA though. From the specs, even at low altitude, the LCA should be able to out-turn the Jag without any trouble.

Cheers
aharam
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

Jagan wrote: Shiv , this video seems to be a later 'patchup' but I can confirm that the two Sukhoi airframes and their blowing up are actually credit to MiG-27s during the FPD in 1989.. That footage seems to have been taken and stiched to form this MiG-23 publicity video
:rotfl:

In any case the Sukhoi blow up looks fake - although they are hit the subsequent explosion seems to have been triggered for Shri Rajiv Gandhi.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

aharam wrote:
shiv wrote:
Vinay I don't think Jag will even beat the MiG 21 in close combat. However it might be able to outrun the MiG while flying 50 feet above the ground leaving the MiG gasping to get to that speed 1000 meters higher
Hi Shiv,
Unfortunately, I have to contradict you here :-). The performance of the Mig 21 in low altitude sub sonic regime is pretty bad - the wing loading is far too high and there is insufficient lift. In a turning dogfight if handled properly, the Jaguar will get inside the Mig 21 every time. The only way a Mig would fight this would be make it a climbing dogfight, which is what I would do - dump energy in a dive, climb, rinse and repeat. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens with the M2K as well, since the 2K also has moderately high wing loading compared to a ground attack aircraft like a Jag. You should try this against the LCA though. From the specs, even at low altitude, the LCA should be able to out-turn the Jag without any trouble.

Cheers
aharam
hmm fancy that. I wouldn't have guessed it. :shock:
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Surya »

aharam

a jag pilot told us that if the wingman did not panic and kept his position, together they could even keep the 29s and M2ks at bay.

not sure i understood it but maybe you can explain it.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by vic »

aharam wrote:Swing wing was a great idea if it came at zero weight penalty and near instantaneous sweep geometry changes. Reality though was that it was too heavy for the benefit it provided, leading to reduced flight envelopes. Happened with the Mig 23, which technologically wanted to match the F-111, the US super-plane design of the 60s. Simply put, the F-111 was a bad idea. By the time all the bells and whistles had been added, its performance was retrograde to any competitive Soviet plane, including those 15 years older. The worst part of it was that the retrograde performance of the F-111 was across the entire flight envelope. Unfortunately, the Soviets based the 23 on the design goals on the F-111 thereby following a bad idea. The biggest success of the F-111 was that it got the Soviets to follow it, thereby losing the edge they had. Thankfully, successive designs such as the Mig 29 dropped the idea.

Cheers
aharam

I think that F-14 also followed the same idea. Even now Russian Tu-160 and US B-1 is based on the same swing wing principles
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by tsarkar »

shiv wrote:
Jagan wrote:Shiv, this video seems to be a later 'patchup' but I can confirm that the two Sukhoi airframes and their blowing up are actually credit to MiG-27s during the FPD in 1989.. That footage seems to have been taken and stiched to form this MiG-23 publicity video
:rotfl:In any case the Sukhoi blow up looks fake - although they are hit the subsequent explosion seems to have been triggered for Shri Rajiv Gandhi.
Secondary Explosion

In the year 20XX, there were exercises against de-commissioned Udaygiri. The ship was towed out to open sea. First Klub was fired against it. Massive hit, explosion, significant structural damage but ship was on surface. Then an Uran was fired. Massive hit, explosion, significant structural damage but ship was on surface. IN was puzzled as to why this scrapheap was still floating. A team was sent to investigate. Apparently, after de-commissioning, the fuel tanks were drained. Watertight hatches were closed during target towing. So there was tremendous buoyancy in the air filled empty fuel tanks, engine room and rest of the hull. It was a steel balloon, and the air trapped in the remaining steel didn’t allow it to sink.

In a real ship, the fuel and ammunition would start burning, and the secondary explosion would sink the ship. That is why PN very wisely de-fuelled and removed ammunition from their ships in 1971. Because some chap wisely understood secondary explosion sink ships. That is why their tanker PNS Dacca survived the missile hit. The missile warhead exploded, caused structural damage, set ship on fire, but the significant buoyancy of the large empty fuel tanks kept it afloat. I speculate it was secondary explosions that sank British tanker/freighter at Karachi. If it was empty like PNS Dacca, it would have still been afloat.

The remains of Udaygiri were a navigation hazard if left drifting at sea. A submarine fired a torpedo, and the underwater pressure wave broke the hull – whatever was left of it. The remaining debris were sunk by OTO gun fire.

Coming to our Su-7s in that video, they were decommissioned and towed/lifted to Tilpat, then they would have been bare metal bodies. The MiG would have just drilled holes in the sheet metal. The explosion suggests either 1. Fuel in tanks after towing – but chances of bullet hitting exactly where fuel is and igniting are lesser 2. Controlled explosion as suggested by Shiv. In this case, it seems to be the second case.
Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1130
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Hiten »

IAF SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISHED LONG RANGE SPECIAL OPERATIONS MISSION
On Monday, 12 December 2011, IAF simulated a piracy contingency at Campbell Bay in Nicobar Islands (the furthermost Island territory of India) based on an intelligence input that an Indian merchant ship had been hijacked with hostages. The mission simulated launching of a Para Special Forces team into the objective area using C-130J as airborne platform.

Planning revealed that the objective was about 3500 Nautical Miles away. The route was via Kolkata and Port Blair to the simulated Drop Zone over Campbell Bay in Great Nicobar Islands. The round trip would require a staggering 12 hours of flying time.

The ground crew prepared the aircraft in the early hours of the Monday morning while the air crew finished pre flight briefing procedures. After the walk around at 0430 hours, the four mighty engines roared to life. The aircraft took off at 0500 hrs and the crew commenced the 3500 Nautical Miles trip. Despite encountering inclement weather over the Bay of Bengal, the crew flew C-130J to Campbell Bay in Great Nicobar Islands and achieved the planned objective. The aircraft returned to Air Force Station Hindon after a non-stop mission of 12 hours 03 minutes without refueling enroute. The simulated launch of long range special operation mission was successfully accomplished.
aharam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 27 Apr 2011 05:38

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by aharam »

Surya wrote:aharam

a jag pilot told us that if the wingman did not panic and kept his position, together they could even keep the 29s and M2ks at bay.

not sure i understood it but maybe you can explain it.
Ok Surya, I'll bite :-). As the Jag pilot, I would keep really low around 250 ft and relatively fast - between 280 - 350 knots. In this regime, the Jag still has great turn performance, and it is flying low enough to prevent a climbing dogfight. As the Mig 29 or M2K driver, I would have to dive into a low flying plane, shoot from above and pull out of the turn before I crash. Both the Mig 29 and M2K have much better climb performance, which is what they would use in such a dogfight. However, if the Jag declines a climbing dogfight and sticks close to the ground, the Mig 29 and M2K are forced into attacking in a dive. The scary part here is being the target of a fighter that is attacking in a dive - usually you get shot down by the attacker. However, if the Jag pilot keeps his wits about, he can weave during the dive attack and the Mig can't get too close to it because it can't pull out in time from the dive. If the Mig chooses to chase the Jaguar at this altitude in a turning dogfight, it will likely get shot down. Never get involved in a turning dogfight with a fundamentally slower plane at low altitude. The Jag has lower wing loading than either the 29 or the M2K. That said, I'd still prefer to be the Mig or M2K pilot, since I still hold the advantage - dive attack, if you miss, climb, rinse and repeat. As long as I have patience, I may win if the Jag makes a mistake. At least, I won't lose since the Jag can't chase me.

Incidentally, this was exactly what the F-4 phantom did in Vietnam, playing the role of the Jaguar against the attacking plane, which was the Mig-21. Once the F-4 dived to treetop level, the Mig 21 couldn't chase it because it was simply too dangerous. For a Jag, 250 ft is nominal altitude for a lot of their missions. For an F-4, it was not, so ground fire including small arms fire were a much bigger threat.

Cheers
aharam
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

aharam wrote:
Surya wrote:aharam

a jag pilot told us that if the wingman did not panic and kept his position, together they could even keep the 29s and M2ks at bay.

not sure i understood it but maybe you can explain it.
Ok Surya, I'll bite :-). As the Jag pilot, I would keep really low around 250 ft and relatively fast - between 280 - 350 knots. In this regime, the Jag still has great turn performance, and it is flying low enough to prevent a climbing dogfight. As the Mig 29 or M2K driver, I would have to dive into a low flying plane, shoot from above and pull out of the turn before I crash. Both the Mig 29 and M2K have much better climb performance, which is what they would use in such a dogfight. However, if the Jag declines a climbing dogfight and sticks close to the ground, the Mig 29 and M2K are forced into attacking in a dive. The scary part here is being the target of a fighter that is attacking in a dive - usually you get shot down by the attacker. However, if the Jag pilot keeps his wits about, he can weave during the dive attack and the Mig can't get too close to it because it can't pull out in time from the dive. If the Mig chooses to chase the Jaguar at this altitude in a turning dogfight, it will likely get shot down. Never get involved in a turning dogfight with a fundamentally slower plane at low altitude. The Jag has lower wing loading than either the 29 or the M2K. That said, I'd still prefer to be the Mig or M2K pilot, since I still hold the advantage - dive attack, if you miss, climb, rinse and repeat. As long as I have patience, I may win if the Jag makes a mistake. At least, I won't lose since the Jag can't chase me.

Incidentally, this was exactly what the F-4 phantom did in Vietnam, playing the role of the Jaguar against the attacking plane, which was the Mig-21. Once the F-4 dived to treetop level, the Mig 21 couldn't chase it because it was simply too dangerous. For a Jag, 250 ft is nominal altitude for a lot of their missions. For an F-4, it was not, so ground fire including small arms fire were a much bigger threat.

Cheers
aharam
Thanks for the funda Aharam. Very illuminating. The amazing thing about flying at 250 feet at say 350 kts (650 kmph/180 mps/600 feet per second) is that the ground is so close. My high school maths tells me that a MiG diving at a 5 degree angle closing in on a Jaguar flying 180 mps needs a forward vector of say 200 mps to "catch up" That would make his downward vector 60 fps (17.5 mps) That means a MiG diving catch up with a Jag with a forward velocity of over 700 kmph will be just 4 seconds or less from hitting the ground unless he remembers to pull up in time. The steeper the angle of dive, the better the profile to aim at but the faster the ground closes in. Scary stuff.
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by manjgu »

@aharam... in the scenario described by you ( migs diving into low flying jags) would the Migs get a gun/cannon solution or a radar/missile solution? are todays radars able to effectively negate the radar clutter from a target flying close to the ground?

I have seen some really low flying jags almost at the same ht as top of a water tank ..it was a scary sight .. almost looking into the cockpit :-)
manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2615
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by manjgu »

and what is the typical range of a cannon/gun on Mig29/F 16?
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17169
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Rahul M »

nitpick,
>> The Jag has lower wing loading than either the 29 or the M2K.

you mean higher, not lower. jag has lower wing surface compared to weight, hence higher wing loading, as befits a low level striker.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5353
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Cain Marko »

aharam wrote:
Surya wrote:aharam

a jag pilot told us that if the wingman did not panic and kept his position, together they could even keep the 29s and M2ks at bay.

not sure i understood it but maybe you can explain it.
Ok Surya, I'll bite :-). As the Jag pilot, I would keep really low around 250 ft and relatively fast - between 280 - 350 knots. In this regime, the Jag still has great turn performance, and it is flying low enough to prevent a climbing dogfight. As the Mig 29 or M2K driver, I would have to dive into a low flying plane, shoot from above and pull out of the turn before I crash. Both the Mig 29 and M2K have much better climb performance, which is what they would use in such a dogfight. However, if the Jag declines a climbing dogfight and sticks close to the ground, the Mig 29 and M2K are forced into attacking in a dive. The scary part here is being the target of a fighter that is attacking in a dive - usually you get shot down by the attacker. However, if the Jag pilot keeps his wits about, he can weave during the dive attack and the Mig can't get too close to it because it can't pull out in time from the dive. If the Mig chooses to chase the Jaguar at this altitude in a turning dogfight, it will likely get shot down. Never get involved in a turning dogfight with a fundamentally slower plane at low altitude. The Jag has lower wing loading than either the 29 or the M2K. That said, I'd still prefer to be the Mig or M2K pilot, since I still hold the advantage - dive attack, if you miss, climb, rinse and repeat. As long as I have patience, I may win if the Jag makes a mistake. At least, I won't lose since the Jag can't chase me.

Incidentally, this was exactly what the F-4 phantom did in Vietnam, playing the role of the Jaguar against the attacking plane, which was the Mig-21. Once the F-4 dived to treetop level, the Mig 21 couldn't chase it because it was simply too dangerous. For a Jag, 250 ft is nominal altitude for a lot of their missions. For an F-4, it was not, so ground fire including small arms fire were a much bigger threat.

Cheers
aharam
What happens when the fulcrum/Mirage pilot has BVR capability? I can imagine radar/missile seeker acquisition range will diminish to some extent when trying to track against ground clutter. I wonder if a SARH shot might hold greater advantage here? Possible an IR or IIR missile such as Mica would stand the best chance?

CM
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4042
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by suryag »

CMji wouldnt firing a missile(IR/Radar guided) when the target is so close to the ground and the hunting vehicle is taking aim while in a dive be ineffective because of ground clutter ?
chandanus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 56
Joined: 12 Apr 2010 18:12

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by chandanus »

I have a feeling that modern day SAM's will completely change the air warfare ...and the way it is looked..only when a competent and well equipped AD force meets its adversary ..not US vs IRAQ stuff !! ..put as S-300 battery in the above picture ..and i will put my all my money on it !!
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5309
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by srai »

shiv wrote:
aharam wrote:
Ok Surya, I'll bite :-). As the Jag pilot, I would keep really low around 250 ft and relatively fast - between 280 - 350 knots. In this regime, the Jag still has great turn performance, and it is flying low enough to prevent a climbing dogfight. As the Mig 29 or M2K driver, I would have to dive into a low flying plane, shoot from above and pull out of the turn before I crash. Both the Mig 29 and M2K have much better climb performance, which is what they would use in such a dogfight. However, if the Jag declines a climbing dogfight and sticks close to the ground, the Mig 29 and M2K are forced into attacking in a dive. The scary part here is being the target of a fighter that is attacking in a dive - usually you get shot down by the attacker. However, if the Jag pilot keeps his wits about, he can weave during the dive attack and the Mig can't get too close to it because it can't pull out in time from the dive. If the Mig chooses to chase the Jaguar at this altitude in a turning dogfight, it will likely get shot down. Never get involved in a turning dogfight with a fundamentally slower plane at low altitude. The Jag has lower wing loading than either the 29 or the M2K. That said, I'd still prefer to be the Mig or M2K pilot, since I still hold the advantage - dive attack, if you miss, climb, rinse and repeat. As long as I have patience, I may win if the Jag makes a mistake. At least, I won't lose since the Jag can't chase me.

Incidentally, this was exactly what the F-4 phantom did in Vietnam, playing the role of the Jaguar against the attacking plane, which was the Mig-21. Once the F-4 dived to treetop level, the Mig 21 couldn't chase it because it was simply too dangerous. For a Jag, 250 ft is nominal altitude for a lot of their missions. For an F-4, it was not, so ground fire including small arms fire were a much bigger threat.

Cheers
aharam
Thanks for the funda Aharam. Very illuminating. The amazing thing about flying at 250 feet at say 350 kts (650 kmph/180 mps/600 feet per second) is that the ground is so close. My high school maths tells me that a MiG diving at a 5 degree angle closing in on a Jaguar flying 180 mps needs a forward vector of say 200 mps to "catch up" That would make his downward vector 60 fps (17.5 mps) That means a MiG diving catch up with a Jag with a forward velocity of over 700 kmph will be just 4 seconds or less from hitting the ground unless he remembers to pull up in time. The steeper the angle of dive, the better the profile to aim at but the faster the ground closes in. Scary stuff.
At that speed and that close to ground, Jag pilot won't have time to eject if hit.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Singha »

>So, this whole manned fifth-gen-ware that is pushed around would fall into similar category? extremely expensive and complex aircrafts.

I have been saying the same thing in JSF tamasha thread....may not have started out that way...but cost and complexity have made it a losing game now if anyone wants decent numbers....but its like nike shoes...everyone wants one regardless of cost.... lots of midfield noise to attract the oppn while Messi and Pele slip down the wings for the kill.

the real home runs are being scored in the global hawk, MQ4c, Sentinel, bird of prey, sdb type stuff....

FORTUNATELY (for us) - Russia does not seem to have taken the bait and tried to make PAKFA a very costly to make uber tfta vlo a/c. perhaps they have seen through the game and settled on a lower price point that will give the numbers they need to cover vast siberia and east asian airspace.

the Euros were never in this game for financial reasons.

the only gorillas potentially in this 5th gen monkey trap are China, India, Japan and Soko. :mrgreen:
aharam
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 27 Apr 2011 05:38

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by aharam »

Rahul M wrote:nitpick,
>> The Jag has lower wing loading than either the 29 or the M2K.

you mean higher, not lower. jag has lower wing surface compared to weight, hence higher wing loading, as befits a low level striker.
Hi Rahul,
No, I actually meant lower. The Mig 29 has a wing loading in the mid 400 kg/m2 and the M2K is even higher. The Jaguar should be in the mid to late 300s. The Mig 29 does benefit from the blended fuselage design, but I believe it it still has higher wing loading than a Jag. Due to multi-role requirements, fighters have not been focussing on dogfight performance for a while. I had a long post on this earlier :-)

Cheers
aharam.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17169
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Rahul M »

wing loading (at loaded weight)

jaguar : 10900/24 = 454 kg/m^2
m2k : 13800/41 = 337 kg/m^2
mig-29 : 15300/38 = 402 kg/m^2

the mig-29's relatively high wing loading is of course compensated by lift from its fuselage.

AFAIK this generation of fighters had a high stress on dogfighting prowess, starting with the US teens.
mig-29 was an out and out dogfighter.

it's the interceptor generation (US century fighters, EE lightning, mig-25 etc) that was somewhat lacking in dogfighting.

LCA has a wing loading of around 220 kg/m^2
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by shiv »

Rahul M wrote:wing loading (at loaded weight)

jaguar : 10900/24 = 454 kg/m^2
m2k : 13800/41 = 337 kg/m^2
mig-29 : 15300/38 = 402 kg/m^2
Rahul the Jag that is being chased by an interceptor will instantly dump all munitions, but the MiG can't do that or it will be left with no way of hitting the Jag (except cannon) That changes the picture.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17169
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Rahul M »

I think the hypothetical scenario above was about guns only anyway, otherwise all the mig needs to retain in a dogfight are its CCMs. cued to the HMS they are quite potent.

aharam ji's comment that it's folly to slog it out with a slower aircraft reminds me of an incident where a paki F-86 got the better of a mig-21 on account of its slower speed.
Raman
BRFite
Posts: 304
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Raman »

FWIW, chaiwallah confirms that R-77 was never integrated into pre-UPG MiG-29.
kuldipchager
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by kuldipchager »

I think Mig 29 might never needed bvr .It was good enough without it.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Military Aviation

Post by Singha »

now that Jags are getting asraam it will pack a nasty bite for self-defence purpose, vs the dated matra 550. even better would have been topsight/elbithms + aim9x/python5 but I guess for cost reasons asraam was chosen.

however it uses same hughes seeker as aim9x and is still a formidable weapon per wiki:
The main improvement, which was also made on the latest version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder, is a new focal plane array FPA (128x128 resolution imaging infrared) seeker developed by Hughes before they were acquired by Raytheon. This seeker has a long acquisition range, high countermeasures resistance, approximately 90 degrees off-boresight lock-on capability, and the possibility to designate specific parts of the targeted aircraft (like cockpit, engines, etc.). The ASRAAM also has a LOAL (Lock-On After Launch) ability which is a distinct advantage when the missile is carried in an internal bay such as in the upcoming F-35 Lightning II.
Post Reply