Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

VivekT
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: Bombay, INDIA
Contact:

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby VivekT » 27 Nov 2002 01:36

Nitin,
You're right about the Indian M2Ks having the RDM radar with a continuous wave illuminator instead of the RDI. This is significantly inferior to the RDI, but is still superior to any other Indian fighter radar of it's class.

Can you verify which is the exact version of the Super 530 carried by Indian M2Ks. Indian M2Ks are derived from the French Mirage 2000C-S3. If they are identical, then they can only carry the Super 530F, while the improved Super 530D would have been more desirable.

Harry,

You mentioned that the Amtilope-5 can be mounted alongwith a larger air-air radar because of it's small size. While I agree with you on that one, I'd like to point out that it's quite unlikely. The Antilope-5TC (which is the variant on early M2000N-K1s (which is likely to be the one installed on Indian M2Ks) has an air-air mode, with a maximum look-up range of 30 km. As for the TF capabilities of the type, it is actually a terrain-avoidance radar rather than a true terrain-following one, but is still very good at it's job. The published figures are 600 kts @ 90 meters.

A question of my own. It is a well accepted fact that the MiG-29's cockpit interfaces really stink, while IAF pilots seem to like those of the Mirage 2000. Would it be possible to modify MiG-29s with the RDM or even possibly the (drool) RDY-2 and install Mirageish interfaces? Just a thought.

For those interested, my website http://saffire8291.blowsearch.ws has somewhat more detailed info on MiG-21 and -29 radars.

Rangudu
BRFite
Posts: 1751
Joined: 03 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Rangudu » 27 Nov 2002 04:35

Jane's Electronic Mission Aircraft (November 2002) says that India is investigating the acquisition of the Russo-Israeli A-50EhI AEW aircraft in addition to the previously cited acquisition of two surveillance aerostats and the Ka-31 AEW helicopter

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Harry » 27 Nov 2002 18:44

Vivek,now I'm pretty sure about the RDI :) because the one that was fitted with the CW illuminator(C-S3) allowed for compatibility with the Super-530F only and the 38th machine(C-S4) was fitted with RDI and had true Super-530D capability and the IAF never ever had anything less than the Super-530D.The Super-530F is rubbish compared to the -D and was never a part of IAF inventory.

Now,terrain avoidance can be effectively acheived with the help of small dopplers such as the NI-50BM on the Mig-27 and it's not worth sacrificing your air-to-air capabilties or the RDM/I for.Info on the Antilope series is scarce and I guess that a picture of the same would be simply too much to ask.If only the dimensions of the radar was available!

Would it be possible to modify MiG-29s with the RDM or even possibly the (drool) RDY-2 and install Mirageish interfaces? Just a thought.
A glass cockpit,VEH-3020 HUD,HOTAS etc can be installed on any fighter aircraft.Though it's possible to fit the RDM/I/Y,the most likely candidate for the Mig-29 upgrade is the Zhuk-M.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3394
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Aditya G » 27 Nov 2002 19:53

Harry I have sent you email. Pls check and reply.

Thanx

VivekT
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: Bombay, INDIA
Contact:

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby VivekT » 28 Nov 2002 17:08

Harry,
I agree, about the only thing the Super 530F and Super 530D share is the basic aerodynamic configuration. The 530D uses an all-digital guidance system with and is much better at intercepting low-flying targets.

The reason I asked what was version carried was exactly that. All info I have says that IAF uses 530Ds, but IAF M2Ks are among the earliest M2Ks exported at a time when the RDI was brand new and the French were reluctant to export it. Could it be possible that we use a modified RDY?

I agree with the part about small terain-avoidance radars. There are plenty of examples of small TF radars, the best probably being the AAQ-14/AAQ-13 LANTIRN. However, nowadays users prefer to have the TF function integrated into the main radar. Coming back to the Antilope, to the best of my knowledge the Antilope 5 is the only radar used on the Mirage 2000N and 2000D.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 29 Nov 2002 00:36

Hi,

Vivek,

Can you verify which is the exact version of the Super 530 carried by Indian M2Ks. Indian M2Ks are derived from the French Mirage 2000C-S3. If they are identical, then they can only carry the Super 530F, while the improved Super 530D would have been more desirable.

530 D.

A question of my own. It is a well accepted fact that the MiG-29's cockpit interfaces really stink, while IAF pilots seem to like those of the Mirage 2000. Would it be possible to modify MiG-29s with the RDM or even possibly the (drool) RDY-2 and install Mirageish interfaces? Just a thought.

Why bother?The Mirage 2000's are due for a mid life upgrade package with new avionics too.The Mig29 will get new C/P MFD's,better EW gear and a new radar .Both packages will be distict form each other but may include some Indian avionics components.

Re the M2K radar/missile debate.

The RDM was developed while the RDI was still in final phase.We got the RDM modified to fire the Super 530D.The French subsequently took their M2K's with RDI.Per the OS data i have,and this was noted in some obscure publication long ago,the IAF radars were specifically made compatible with the 530D.
Anyway,all this is nothing to split hairs over. :)In a few years time,the M2K's should go through their upgrade as has been intended for some time now.

Shiv,

Yes, but if a fighter radar has its own onboard processing, it is far less reliant on other layers. And thereby the better bet when the network goes down.
True!But then funding determines the priorities than any force works for.The approach mentioned would have been good for the best of the best,or the 27 class heavies.But would they have extended to the bulk of the AD fleet..i have my doubts!
Again,this is *us* speaking,not the PVO/VVS.They had definite ideas as how to conduct their brand of warfare and while we may opt for another decentralized approach,their reasons may have differed.If they choose to go for a particular "style" then they would go for it all the way!The point is every system has its inherent strengths and weaknesses.But a redundant n/w is nowhere as weak as you infer.

Knocking off the Russian GCI layer would be no easy task - given the sheer size - but using ground-based processing does still constitute a vulnerability, especially when you consider equipment malfunctioning as well. Even road mobile equipment can be targeted using sophisticated emission detection technologies.

Equipment malfunctions can occur to *any* equipment.Whether it be airborne or ground based.And no all Soviet eqpt didnt necessarily have low MTBF.Maintenance wise,Soviet eqpt can be accepted to be more rugged and this isnt,as is now said,apocryphal.The IAF experience bears this out for some eqpt.(Though the early days OF the 29 were horrible).
The Soviet maintenance structure was extensive and Eqpt was well maintained.Stuff which needed replacing would be replaced and so on.

Anyway,did the NATO force have this gee whiz "emission detection technology" in numbers during the early 80's-late 70's?Was it present with every strike package?Would these packages have been able to function in ideal conditions with their logistics and bases under attack day in and night out from aplethora of Soviet assets?Ballstic missiles to even SForces?These arent trivial considerations because both sides would pull out all the stops in their engagement.The NATO forces would hold their own,but whether they could translate this into overall superiority is questionable.

The GCI network did the job of protecting Soviet airspace - but it did not have much flexibility to move Soviet operations elsewhere. That's why I call it "defensive" - because it is far more grounded within a particular theatre, whereas the USAF worked on being more mobile for worldwide operations.

Mistaken here!The GCI network and Soviet datalink systems are to be considered as complementary.These assets could be transferred anywhere and tied in with similar low level/medium level transportable emitters and EW/ECCM devices.The aim of the system was to be deployed.
In fact,as has been noted recently,much of the USAF vs ex Soviet stuff,engagement statistical stuff is pure apples to oranges.Because these eqpt are operating bereft of their support facilities which they were designed to operate as part of and not individual stand alone systems.

As far as radar capability, the Mathias Rust episode shows the high rate of false returns that plagued Soviet radar designs. A MiG-23 pilot did detect Rust’s aircraft, but was told by ground control that it was probably a flock of birds. So technologically upgrading Soviet radar would have been an apt thing to do. The Bell/Zacharsky espionage allowed the Soviets to do the same.

Isnt it possible that the Russians were working towards the same with their own considerable resources?Bell/Z episode may have aided them in a wee manner but may not be responsible for the work in totality.My consideration in these aspects is that we tend to look at the espionage angle as overshadowing the work done de novo by the Soviet designers.They may follow a path charted out by the americans,but distinct in their own right.

And regarding the Rust episode,yes,it was a shock at the time that he got so far.But then,other loonies have penetrated US Airspace to boot in a similar fashion.The Purulia Arms drop showed IAF radar coverage in a bad light.But the efficacy of the BADZE/ADGES cant be denied.Peacetime and wartime are two different yardsticks.Again Rust's a/c was hardly a typical RCS heavy,armament loaded,fast moving vector was it? :)

The MiG-29M featured air-ground radar capabilities, and many more modes than the N-019E/N-019EA designs. Now this aircraft was originally tested in the late 1980s - so it does indicate the direction of thinking even back then. Judging the specs, the radar looks more like a western multimode set vs. the early N-019 -- an early variant was said to have just 3 modes. Can you confirm that?
I'll look into it. :)

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Rudra » 29 Nov 2002 00:58

http://www.mirage-jet.com/Variants/2000D/2000d.htm

this page says ATLIS-II is a daytime only pod.

PAF has Atlis-II as their sole targeting pod since 1986 when it was integrated to F-16. I think their ROSE mirage5 upgrades also have this. not sure of the Mirage-IIIs. do these ROSE a/c have a integral navigation FLIR also ?

If what the page says is correct, then PAF doesnt have ability to deliver PGMs by night..but can undertake night attacks via navigation equipment, NVGs, any integral FLIR and then use CCIP.

Am I making sense ?

---
btw when did we receive our first laser targeting pods ? if its Litening was rushed into service in 1999. Thats a full 13 yrs behind PAF getting atlis-II. IAF did not buy atlis-II with M2Ks.

Whats the current status of night precision attack ?

- Mirages (atleast some) have Litening & PGMs.
- do Jags have litening ? never seen a photo. they do have night navigation, laser range finder and CCIP just as the rose mirages.
- Mig27 ? never heard of any pod for it.
- MKI/MK-I - too early to say. MK-I was certainly used for lugging iron bombs and air-2-air.

So it appears only 40 Mirages max can deliver LGBs by night and that too in clear weather because no GPS guided munitions or SAR radar mode on RDM (unlike strike eagle).

Not surprised Unkil treats us like dirt :whine:

Sukumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Sukumar » 29 Nov 2002 03:57

Rudra, I believe the Jags came with the TIALD (Thermal Imaging and Laser Designation) pod. Here is a link http://www.flyingzone.co.uk/tornadoinfocus/gr1photopage/tialdpoddetails.htm

bhart
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi
Contact:

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby bhart » 29 Nov 2002 09:47

For reference,
Radar PRF

1) Low PRF:-
1. Good for AA look up mode and ground mapping
2. Good sidelobe rejection(?)
3.Good range resolution
4. Poor AA look down, targets are rejected with ground clutter
5.Limited max. range

2) Medium PRF:-
1.Good all aspect target detection capability
2.Good ground clutter rejection
3. Limited max. range, but greater than that in LPRF mode

3) High PRF:-
1.Excellent nose aspect target detection at long ranges
2.Excellent ground clutter rejection
3.Reduced range resolution
4.Reduced detection capability for targets with low closing rates

Question for Nitinji, are the upgrades being made to our MiG 29s at HAL, the fatback ones?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 29 Nov 2002 12:47

Oye Bharat,
Why the Ji treatment?Am i some Chinese type Jianjiji etc ? :) Plain Nitin will do.

We dont know for sure about HAL doing the factback thing yet.the preliminary stuff they've shown so far only rotates about the avionics(radar,ew etc) and the c/p man machine interface(hud,mfd's hotas).

Rudra,
We didnt get TIALD.Thats a FLIR/LDP purpose built for the RAF with some iirc for the USAF.
We *did* get the Atlis 2 a plain LDP.

**Also ,with the KH29L,the MiG27's had PGM capability,the designator being in the optical window below the nose.

**Per current plans-remember the news link you noted-approx 40 Jags and 40 MiG27's are being made Litening capable.The Jag has a 1553 and i seasier to integrate,the 27 requires more work!
Funds permitting,the entire fleet 9in both cases will go through similar upgrades.

CAG has noted that even some Jags were made Litening capable but the Bulk of the L capable fleet was M2K.
They were also capable of using ATLIS.

At Vayu Shakti acouple of years back,it was a Jag which launched a LGB at a target from "out of sight" ranges.

**So from quite some time now we did have PGM capabilty spread out among MiG27's,Jags and MIrage 2000's.

Problem was we didnt have enough money to have as much as we wanted.Now we do.

**The Bisons are also getting TV guided Russian ordnance per the deal.One has already been shown in IAF colors in india,with the same.

***The Su 30MKI's are also Litening capable per old reports and are also to be equipped with Russian 100-120km stand off missiles.Read Kiccha sahab's recent interview in outlook confirmin same.(Links,news folder)

no need to worry.

Regards,
Nitin

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 29 Nov 2002 13:04

To kill the Super 530D/RDM debate. :)

http://www.3dpaper.gr/eng/weaponssystems/mirage2000_weaair080101.shtml

Mirage 2000E- Export version with M53-P2 engine and RDM radar(look down/shoot down) with Super 530D firing launch capability. Orders include Greece (40 Mirage 2000EG/BG), India(49 Mirage 2000EH/ETH), Peru (12 Mirage 2000EP/EDP) and United Arab Emirates (36 Mirage 2000EAD/DAD/RAD reccon).
[url=http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://perso.wanadoo.fr/tremel/etienne/technique.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMirage%2B2000%2BRDM%2Bradar%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den %26lr%">Link</a> 3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN

RADAR:

Four types of radar manufactured by Thomson-csf and ESD (ELECTRONIC SERGE DASSAULT; today ELECTRONIC DASSAULT), equip the various versions with the MIRAGE 2000.

- RDM (Doppler Radar Multifunction) maximum range: 60 Nm (Nautical Miles), are 110 kilometers. This distance is reduced to 20 Nm (37 km) seeks some downwards.

- RDI (Doppler Radar in Impulsions) this radar at high frequencies of recurrence has capacities of detection quite higher than those of the RDM. Portée higher than 70 Nm (130 km).

- RDY: Air-to-air range more than 80 Nm (150 km)

- ANTELOPE 5: 6 modes of functions: followed ground (7 Nm either 12 km), cartography, entrecelé, telemetric, Air-to-air (16 Nm or 30 km), Air-to-surface (16 Nm or 30 km).
<a href="http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir2k.html]http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir2k.html[/url]

4] MIRAGE 2000E EXPORT VARIANTS
* "Mirage 2000E" was a blanket designation for a series of export variants of the Mirage 2000, each of which actually had a suffix that depended on the country ordering it. These aircraft were fitted with the RDM radar, as the RDI was judged too advanced for export, and were also fitted with other less sophisticated avionics.

Egypt was the first buyer, ordering 16 single-seat "Mirage 2000Ms" and four "Mirage 2000BM" trainers in late 1981, with deliveries beginning in 1986. The Egyptians also purchased ATLIS II targeting pods and a wide range of appropriate munitions for their shiny new Mirages, including Magic and Super 530 AAMs, AS-30L ASMs, and Armat anti-radiation missiles.

India ordered 36 "Mirage 2000H" single-seaters and four "Mirage 2000TH" trainers in early 1982, with an additional order for three more single-seaters and three more trainers in 1986. First deliveries were in 1985. Initial aircraft in the order were powered by the older SNECMA M53-5 engine to speed delivery, but these aircraft were eventually upgraded to the better M53-P2 engine. The Indian Air Force named the Mirage the "Vajra", loosely translated as "Thunderbolt". India also purchased appropriate stores along with the fighters, though it the purchase did not include ATLIS II pods and laser-guided weapons.

Peru placed an order that, after some complications, amounted to eight single-seat "Mirage 2000Ps" and two "Mirage 2000DP" trainers. The Peruvians ordered a set of munitions similar to that ordered by Egypt, along with ATLIS II targeting pods.
Just to add we did get the Atlis later.Check for pics in BR gallery.

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Shankar » 29 Nov 2002 15:44

If we are buying the add on lot of Mirage 2000s lets us insist on the RDY radar.It has the capability to select one of the three PRF(pulse repetition frequency)modes namely medium and high when operating in the air intercept mode (auto waveform management low PRF is used for look up mode,high PRF is best used in long range down mode and medium PRF is used at all altitudes due
to relaibility in target detection.When employed in ground mode RDY uses dopplerbeam sharpening ,terrain mapping and air ranging.It is reported to be capable of detecting 24 air targetssimultaneously and auto priorotise them.

It is also claimed it gives the mirage 2000 a llok up-down,shoot up-down range of 70 km to 140 km for a fighter size target.

Under development RDY-2 has a 15% greater air-air range and a synthetic apperture radar that allows ground mapping with a resolution less than one mtr.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 30 Nov 2002 00:01

Hi,
The problem is cost.The RDY was offered by Thales one-two yrs back itself.But the IAF would first get the essential upgrades up and running,before it commences on the M2K and MiG29.Both can still hold their own pretty well in the Indo pak scenario and even the Sino one.

Regards,
Nitin

mohan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 15 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby mohan » 30 Nov 2002 00:29

Hi,

Nitin and Badar,I took the liberty of pasting the abbreviations posted by you in the 2nd page of this thread in the FAQ thread. Hope this is ok. I think we should archive this thread once it's concluded and provide a link from the FAQ to this thread for any discussion regarding 'Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft'.

Cheers
Mohan

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Shankar » 30 Nov 2002 11:38

Cost is always a problem-but with thousands of crore getting lapsed due to unutilised is not a serious issue.
Miraga 2000 upgrade should get a higher priority
simply because that is the best multirole aircraft
(barring ofcourse flankers)available for the ultimate defense and also limited close air support role like in Kargil.
Maybe we should not delay the added aquistion and upgrades quickly -just to keep pakistan and china on edge.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 30 Nov 2002 12:09

Shankar,
Ouch!The lapsed bit does strike a chord.
I hope they deal with that without the Fin Min gleefully butting in again.
I must add that it was Kargil which opened the IAF's eyes totally wrt the M2K.It had done well in exercises and DACM too,but Kargil was war.
Also,there is this "system" in the IAF wherein anything new immediately goes off for AS/AD and the strike assets are given the plain jane treatment.That is lifting as evidenced by the importance given to the MKI's multirole capabilities.

Regards,
Nitin

MN Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby MN Kumar » 30 Nov 2002 12:11

Originally posted by nitin:
Both can still hold their own pretty well in the Indo pak scenario and even the Sino one.
Nitin I understand here abt the Indo Pak scenario but how well are we prepared against the Chinese long range Su27s and Su30 MKK's.

The problem i see in these discussions is no matter how well we start the discussion we end up in the Indo Pak theatre.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Rudra » 30 Nov 2002 21:41

sa it stands today, only a few Mirages and Jags are Litening-capable and hence suitable for deep-strike PGM attacks at night in clear weather.
The Mig27s optical sensor cant be used at night.

There is a larger number of Mirages, Jags and Mig27s capable of TV guided munitions during daytime.

The SU30s I am keeping out of DPSA until sufficient numbers are available. Their biggest value-add is long duration interceptor role.

..and no ability for precision strike in bad weather. no GPS guided munitions for static targets , no radar guided bombs for cloudy skies.

infact given the IAF brass's comments on lack of hifi ATC systems for adverse conditions, even flying and landing could be stalled. The recent Mig21 crash in cloudy skies of bagdogra is a example.(I recall india is buying some ATC gear from Unkil ..thats on list)

the only saving grace is that PAF/PLAAF are in similar situation and PAF has a funds crunch while we are on the mend.

one rainy night if 400 T80/Al-Khalids head for Delhi, IAF will be out of picture.

without Litening, IAF at night will need to either go in low exposing to MANPADS/SAMS or rely on CCIP from medium-alt which isnt enough for mobile targets -tanks.

when we can build capability to locate and pound the enemy day-night in all weather mode, PA wont be so uppity.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 01 Dec 2002 03:25

Hi Rudra,

IAF is prepared for night time sorties for many years now.People living next to IAF airbases can vouch for the same.This extends for MiG27's,23's and Jags on a regular basis.Night is just another "challenge".The ATC bit -dont take it to be a generic comment on all situations .Kiccha sahab was takilng with a particular context in mind.
The problems one extends to attacks at night also apply to air defense!
Especially when the "aggressor" is a speedy low level one who zips in and out.No joke.

The litening need not just be used for just xyz aircraft,boss.You an observer of ODS are forgetting buddy lasing.
Enough for now. :)

Regards,
Nitin

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 01 Dec 2002 03:31

Originally posted by m n kumar:
Originally posted by nitin:
[b]Both can still hold their own pretty well in the Indo pak scenario and even the Sino one.
Nitin I understand here abt the Indo Pak scenario but how well are we prepared against the Chinese long range Su27s and Su30 MKK's.

The problem i see in these discussions is no matter how well we start the discussion we end up in the Indo Pak theatre.[/b]
We can hold our own today.This is a negative turn form being able to project deep superiority years back(before the 27/30's rolled in) but still enough.
The IAF due to superior training and other factors should still be able to conduct counter air ops which are effective.These would degrade regular in theater surveillance /C and C capabilities of the PLAAF but wouldnt affect the long ranged 27/30's that much.As i've noted before,the MKI is intended for that aspect!

Regards,
Nitin

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Shankar » 01 Dec 2002 11:23

That bitabout 400 T-80s rolling into Delhi
This is the staff paki dreams are made off.Lets get logical.Time for 400 T-80s to move from IB to Delhi at 40/km hr average speed from a distance of 400 kms will be 10 hrs minimum +refuelling stops and no traffic jam on the highway.
In 10 hrs IAF can launch 300 operational sorties from Gwalior with Mirage 2000s,and about double that number from forward bases like pathankot,jaipur,jodhpur and on.Add another 100
from gujrat with migs and jaguars if they are serious like few months back.
Net ressult 1200 close air support sorties with a mix of PGM and iron bombs and rockets .
None of the T-80s will survive .
All assuming IA T-90 S and T-72S taking a rest
or all down for maintainance or upgrade or sleeping
Sukhois will keep the F-16s from interfearing by shooting them out of Pak sky in about two hrs max.

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 597
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Y I Patel » 02 Dec 2002 07:03

Sorry to spoil the tech fun, but can I insert a dumb question here? So with all this N007JB stuff, how certain are we that IAF can go in with a small (say 4 to 6 ship) formation, knock out a bridge, and be home without casualties? The reason for this question is that I want to figure out if IAF can do a small raid and carry it out without any complications due to an aircraft being shot down.

I'm talkin' about a slam bang thank you m'am kind of affair here. Write your scenario please!

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Rudra » 02 Dec 2002 09:23

YIP, PAF doesnt have the AAR, long range interceptors (except F16s) to sanitize and create a bubble over all the country. SAM sites and MANPAD shooters are again around vital installations in border belt. interception is point defence and F16s for some area defence of heartland lahore-pindi-muz'bad (thich density of vital areas, armour).

when past border its free unless around major bases. same is true for india also but we have bases in UP, MP, Bihar, Karnataka to cover our rear.

So depends what you want to hit, its probably easier to hit something well into their rear at night and sneak away.

the toughest mission would be a daytime raid on a punjabi heartland vital base.

So 2 SUs configured for AAMs and 4 M2Ks loaded with 4x1000lb would be enough for a big & vital bridge. for small bridge, 2 M2Ks. throw in a M2K armed with jamming pods and armat for extra safety.

mission profile: lo - med alt - lo.

keyword is sneaky profile strike using darkness, ECM, ARMs, low alt ingress to cause minimum fuss.
SUs as insurance against roving F7s/F16s that GCI might cue in.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3394
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Aditya G » 02 Dec 2002 11:48

how well are we prepared against the Chinese long range Su27s and Su30 MKK's.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

(1) The Su-30MKI has more bells and whistles compared to any version of the flanker in service in the PLA. fullstop.

(2) Attacking deep within enemy terretory is difficult for both airforces, and especially for the PLAAF. However, this is being negated due to the PLAAF's new acquisitions like the Flankers and even FBC-1. They have refulelers but IMHO the will be no good considering the PLAAF's earlier ORBATs - J-8s et al.

(3) We have the Mirage-2000 and the MiG-29. They dont.

(4) The GreenPine is already in service in India.

(5) If we do get the phalcon then...

MN Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 393
Joined: 27 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby MN Kumar » 02 Dec 2002 13:28

Originally posted by aditya.g:
:mad: :mad: :mad:

(1) The Su-30MKI has more bells and whistles compared to any version of the flanker in service in the PLA. fullstop.

(2) Attacking deep within enemy terretory is difficult for both airforces, and especially for the PLAAF. However, this is being negated due to the PLAAF's new acquisitions like the Flankers and even FBC-1. They have refulelers but IMHO the will be no good considering the PLAAF's earlier ORBATs - J-8s et al.

(3) We have the Mirage-2000 and the MiG-29. They dont.

(4) The GreenPine is already in service in India.

(5) If we do get the phalcon then...
Hey Aditya Cool man. I was just putting my questions.

How many MKIs do we have? We wont be having them in numbers to guard our East and West untill another 5 yrs. My point is, we cannot match them in numbers. Lets make our AD more strong.

We have one confirmed deployment of Green Pine, or may be two. Need more for our Eastern borders. And coming to the Phalcon, Seems its still some time away. They are getting the A50s.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Raj Malhotra » 02 Dec 2002 22:50

Yogi, I think, 4-6 planes to knock out any important Pakistan asset is entirely feasible. In fact the IAF can radio their intentions in advance and Pakistan cannot do anything about it.

Scenario

Two Mirage2000 – One with LDP and another with LGBs. Preferably the LDP Mirage can be replaced with UAV. The aircrafts also armed with 2 WVR, 1 BVR, self protection jammer, chaff & flare dispensers and drop tanks. Flight profile lo-hi-hi.

Two Mirage 2000 or Su-30 MKI flying aircover. Armed with 2 WVR, 2 IR BVR, 2 AR BVR, powerful Jammers, chaff & flare dispensers and drop tanks. Flight profile lo-hi-hi.

Two SEAD aircrafts preferably with combination of Jammer, chaff & flare dispensers and ARM UAVs.

ELINT aircrafts.

Lagging Su-30 MKI inside India Low altitude with radar look up mode and another hi with radar look down mode to play AWAC/AEW role.

Various ground based radars, aerostats, decoy UAVs to give info and mislead the Pakistan GCI.

Best case:-

IAF hits and is away before the Chinese radars warms up (it is not a joke) Radar and missiles have warm up time.

Worst case.

ACM calls up and forewarns PAF for fun. Pakistan has negligible mid and high altitude missiles. Any radars that warms up is jammed or killed. The missiles if fired are decoyed.

PAF when try to engage high flying IAF with WVR give away the home ground surprise element as they have to close in. They are detected far off. Engaged with BVR, they jinx away and IAF screws Pakistan. If they keep closing in inspite of losses then shot down with WVR, poor missiles decoyed away with flares and PAF also engaged with S-300 (??) ground batteries.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Rudra » 02 Dec 2002 23:10

Raj's method is more escalatory given the wide and dispersed nature of assets used. So is the full squadron attack on karachi. my intent was to avoid interceptors, SAMs when possible not close and kill.

my methods are more sneaky as outlined and lower on the ladder.

But 60 Klubs are more than we have and quite costly. a plane strike is far cheaper and selective ..it can go after the binuri madrassa for example, something Klubs are unable.

VivekT
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 Jun 1999 11:31
Location: Bombay, INDIA
Contact:

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby VivekT » 02 Dec 2002 23:46

nitin,
As far as I know, all Jaguars have always had the capabilities to _launch/drop_ LGBs, what was lacking was the ability to independently designate the target. Another aircraft (in the case of the IAF - a M2K) will 'paint' the target with his laser, the Jaguar has a LRMTS that detects this laser spot and the LGB can then be dropped.

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 597
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Y I Patel » 03 Dec 2002 00:08

RS and RM thanks a lot for good suggestions! I think between the two of you, you have come up with a good first draft.

Let me try to develop this further:

Rudra's low ingress and egress profile, done at nighttime to minimise manpads risk. Raj's decoy/ diversion plans, to add to confusion. Raj's idea of having two Su30s playing a mini AWACS role inside Indian territory.

I do not want to do SEAD, since this is going to be my low cost slap-on-the-face option and I do not want IAF's tricks to be revealed. I am also very sensitive about mission risks. Capture of shot down pilots may diminish the sting of our slap significantly, so I want to keep the mission profile as conservative as possible.

So I want a high bang for the buck mission profile. I suggest these options for your consideration: a logistically important bridge/pass in POK or PONA; a stretch of the Lahore Sialkot expressway; and a power plant/ distribution node in POK or Punjab. The target should be close to IB/LOC if possible. Missions must be planned for night time, and maximum use should be made of favourable terrain (essentially Sialkot and north we should be able to use the hilly/mountainous terrain to our advantage). Also plan for a few feints at other places to keep the enemy confused.

Gentlemen, over to you.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Raj Malhotra » 03 Dec 2002 01:15

Yogi, with utmost respect donot make two classical mistakes of all wargamers – India forces donot require to follow 1971 or 1986-7 battleplan and strategy. Also the military attrition article in BRM continues to be relevant and in fact i am still trying to understand all the ramifications.

I have not built up this scenario in a couple of minutes. I have been finessing it for some time. Let me explain the reasons for the scenario I built up:-

For near border strike (around 50km inside Pok) which I think is most likely, almost all the except 3,( one with LGBs and another two for aircover ) aircraft will be inside Indian borders.

Now I will like to replace the Mirage with 2 Su-30 MKI & 1 Jag carrying LGBs as they are two engined and more likely to recover to India.

ELINT and ARM armed aircraft are passive and will not normally reveal any secrets.

Hi profile is very important as it removes practically all risk of Manpads-AAA and if plane is hit may allow the pilot to drift towards India & be recovered. It also eliminates any non-radar based missile. Pakistan long-range missiles are very few and IAF will definitely avoid the area or have then tagged and sorted out.

Also hi profile means that PAF will have to rise up and cannot use terrain cover or expose the limitations of look down mode in the radar.

Further hi profile means Indian ground based radars and GCI can assist the IAF raid and also control and guide the aircrafts/missiles.

Also night time and terrain masking is a bad idea. The strike aircraft should keep low inside India and then keep on rising rapidly inside Pakistan. Nighttime can lead to wrong targeting and advantage of surprise to PAF. Preferably early morning for good laser shine and properly positioned sun to confuse Pakistan IR missiles against any retreating aircrafts. Terrain masking means that fizzlu can jump/ambush IAF.

It has to be repeat of lunda (spelling?) strike. I have used a number of aircraft. They can be reduced to 2-4 depending on the target and policy.

Though ideally IR Popeye or IR guided KH-35 terminally corrected with assistance of UAV is better option.

Note any airraid more then couple of km deep beyong LoC will be assumed to be escalatory in any case.

I think UAV armed with Nag is most ideal. Can be used to mount ambush strikes on small Pakistan outposts, fuel or ammo depots. Call them terrorist camp (give the dog a bad name and hang it)

I think the most politically feasible target will be army camp, fuel or ammo depot. My preference for the last.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Rudra » 03 Dec 2002 01:26

if india targets the mangla & tarbela distribution stations...most of n.pak will be without power. the economic fallout will be big.

cutting the expressway is a slap, not a blow. being tolled..the madrassa crowd dont use it..the RAPEs do.

a big ammo dump is also a blow.

UAV with ATGM..excellent idea for india to work on.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Raj Malhotra » 03 Dec 2002 01:33

PS- I understand even a basic LGB can be made to glide (fall) cover a distance of around 20km+ on ground, which means that near LoC targets can be hit without exposing aircraft to risk.

Also IR guided Israeli and tv guided Russian bombs can toss bombed (or released form a high altitude) to cover around 10-20 (?) km

There are persistent reports of some LoC posts in Pakistan hands which should ideally have been vacant. (These can be the initial targets I suppose) or better the support base camps for these posts can be hit. The bakwasi Gulteri dream may yet come true.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Vick » 03 Dec 2002 02:12

The IAF has plans to take out key bridges on the KKH connecting TSP to China. It's not just one bridge or even two, rather a set of bridges that took years to build. IMO, India should not go for a slap on the face like a mother would slap a son rather (too expensive and risky with little material damage). India should go for a good ole fashion b!tch slap. The kind a pimp would lay on his girl(s) for not paying up. So that the sting is felt long after the hit, leaves a mark, and embarrases.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 03 Dec 2002 02:34

Vivek,
Were talking about full blow Litening capability.The upgrades confer night attack capability in full as Litening is FLIR too!

Nice discussion about taking out PAF's H and D.
No doubt about being able to take out target.

1.You need to decide on tactics.
PAF's high level coverage sucks.(Thats why,in part,US says aerostat :roll: ).So till then Ok.
If low level,then you *have* to blind certain radars.First SIGINT to decipher which assets,where.
Then Recce (TES!!!)to get and mark all "response units" of PAF and how many at which airbase.

2.Then decide which "time".If night,then best plane for the Job at "low level"-still-Mirage.It has substantial self defence capability to boot.
Two approaches-

A)The needle-with diversionary tactics elsewhere to distract PAF attention , package of (say)4 Mirages with PGM's and AAM's(self defence) streak in Nap of the Earth.Stand off Jammers on Indian side blind Paki AD radars detected by SIGINT earlier.Mirages will also have EW gear on.Zip in,zip out.
Disclaimer,target intell will have to be near 100%.(TES Zindabad),no ground for mistake or search/look see for target.

-The Sword.Proceed exactly,as before but send in a comprehensive escort of MKI's flying top cover above the MIrages(which should aid in EW too.)These would also act as fighter strike controllers.

Again,in both cases,the IAF could be well served by a High level attack too.
Take both above and apply to high alt fighters vectoring in.

If night time attack,LGB's.Daytime choice between LGB's and/or TV guided PGM's.

In short,yes.We can -give PAF a boot without casualties.

And i also encourage BR folk to look up into what *all* the Su 30MKI is slated to carry as stand off missile armamement against ground targets.That sir's would make the above much much easier!

Regards,
Nitin

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 03 Dec 2002 02:46

Initial High alt ingress,has one important thing ints favour.Avoids Mk1 eyeball watchers at yellow sea.This provide a highly important link to AD in both PAF and IAF.Night makes things better,in this case.Again whether low alt,or high alt thereafter depends on awhole bunch of factors!Ie if IAF is confident that it has detected and blinded all low alt emitters and target placement,only then would low alt be feasible.

If target is within narrow confines,ie valley,then you cant have LGB carriers streaking in and executing.No space for post launch "break".

Also low alt,no matter how perfect the training,is dangerous,esp at night.MANPADS can still pose a threat.

IMHO,i'd suggest high alt,night again with max EW.

Regards,
Nitin

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16391
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby NRao » 03 Dec 2002 03:01

So that the sting is felt long after the hit, leaves a mark, and embarrases.
Assets have value internally for TSPians and externally for Chicom. India should select assets based on both these value props.

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 597
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Y I Patel » 03 Dec 2002 04:00

Raj

I am here to learn, so please feel free to point out any mistakes I may be making! You mention that I am making two common mistakes - can you be more explicit please?

I think you are making a compelling case now. My question about EW (as opposed to ELINT) is that would IAF be exposing its tactics by applying them for a limited tactical objective? You mention use of ARMs - would that give Pak a chance to adapt for the next time IAF comes calling?

vick
Yes, I recollect what you are talking about regarding IAF drawing up plans to take out infrastructure targets in NA... that was what drove my inclusion of a bridge in the list of suggested targets.

Raj
One subsidiary aim of this op is to provoke Pak into doing something stupid, by delivering a blow that is either painful militarily, or causes extreme embarassment that leaves Pak no option but to retaliate. Ties in with what vick was saying about stinging slaps :) IMHO bombing ammo dumps is not that painful or embarrasing. Besides, we do that even now with arty. Why waste air assets when a few Krasnopol shells will do the trick? Same applies to mily installations.

Nitin
I resume you are talking about Kh31 or whatever those standoff thingies are called? Come now, you can't quiz someone from the stone age about all your high tech stuff. You have to explicitly spell it out, in words of two syllables or less!

So let's take Raj's scenario, since he makes a compelling case. Now suppose we want to block some passes by causing massive landslides, or just generally blow up strategic roads or RAPE infested motorways. Do we really need PGMs? I would think that dumb bombs would work just fine... also, would it help make the mission less risky if we have a four ship Su30 formation instead of 2 Su30s and a jag? The fourth one would do the jamming.

Y I Patel
BRFite
Posts: 597
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Y I Patel » 03 Dec 2002 07:18

Some other considerations:

the Chinese have made a lot of investments in the infrastructure of PONA lately.

targeting, I would assume, is simpler for "area" targets like roads and passes. Even bridges follow geographic features, and are therefore presumably easy to locate.

could IAF use cluster bombs on a motorway and screw it (RAPEs' preferred mode of transit) up royally?

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby Raj Malhotra » 03 Dec 2002 13:22

Yogi, I hope I am not being impudent but the two mistakes I am referring to, is that almost all the scenarios are re-enacting the

1. Aims of 1971 & 86. Using the military tactics of 1971 & 86 (improved equipment no doubt)
2. Ignoring the Islam, oil, Soviet Union, USA, Indian economic progress, political aims.

My thinking on this subject went a sea change after reading (your?) article on BRM on military attrition theory. As a self-anointed proponent of full-scale war who wanted to write a vituperative criticism of the said article, I put on my thinking cap and came to the following conclusions.

a. India is progressing and should not do anything even remotely to impede our progress. India per capita income for the first time is higher than Pakistan (Refer my BRF thread on “Action against Pakistan short of war.”)
b. US and Islam/Oil pressure is a reality. Soviet support has been absent since Gorby.
c. BJP is too close to USA. (Read between the lines) This is not necessarily a bad thing. Look at Chinese relations with Soviets and USA.
d. Aim is to stop terrorism and not conquer or dismantle Pakistan.
e. And so.

As regarding the military aims:-

1 We have a window of opportunity till 2004 which will close for a couple of years till the new GoI finds its feet.
2 Also Pakistan nuke nuisance value will turn into credible minimum deterrent around 2005-7. (Unless it is defanged by USA)

My reading of the situation.

a. As per Raman the covert operations were practically ended in 1997 and hence cannot be revived at short notice.
b. I am against full scale war or provoking one. If at all one takes place then we should copy AirKosvo campaign. At the expense of loosing some territory we should bomb Pakistan to Stone Age and then recover the territory at the fag end of war. This will prevent the red line into coming into play. All other red lines are non-sense.

Full-scale war:-

Will not take place and should not take place. India should do a 1962 on Pakistan with AirKosvo mode.

See, Indian navy can wipe out Pakistan surface Navy in less then 48 hours. But the subs will be a problem, which will disrupt Indian maritime trade for a month or so. Some losses will also have to be sustained.

IAF can bomb Pakistan to stone age but Fizzulu may retaliate with suicide attacks say on Hazira.

Indian army can give a bloody nose to Pakistan but there will be terrorist attacks all over India. Foreigners may leave and confidence will be damaged for years to come.

Off course if India takes courage in two hands and dismembers Pakistan then nothing like it. But it is not possible for the present GoI. Fighting a war that damages India’s economic prospects while simultaneously leaving Pakistan intact is stupid.

So what to do:-

For each terrorist attack in India, take out a Pakistan post on LoC.

Cost of LGB is around US$ 25,000 to US$ 100,000. if we kill 5 Pakistan regular terrorist army thugs for each bomb then it justifies the cost of each LGB.

Logic of my build up:-

Nighttime – Night sights have limitations. Flare outs and mis-identification of friends and foes can happen. If we use 3 Su-30 MKI then Pakistan’s *****ie aircrafts and F-16 will stand out in daytime. Also we have been brainwashed into believing Pakistan non-sense that they stand a chance on WVR, they donot. Last time they got good missiles was US, Sidewinders in 1996. guess from where India is importing flare and chaff dispensers. The only relevant radar is F-16 guess from where India is getting Jammers. F-16 did not fare well against Mig-29 in Kargil, Su-30 MKI will eat it. (answer – Israel)

IAF should fly out from sun and fly back into the sun to expose the limitations of Pakistan IR missiles. Sun should also be high enough to shine in the eyes of ground troops. So late morning looks suitable. When IAF fires missiles at Fizzulu then they will be framed against the sky or cold-distant ground.

EW and ARM may not require to be used at all. If the planes are hi, then GCI will warn them adequately of Fizzulu. Also India will avoid a few Pakistan long-range missiles. Further the better option to protect ARM secrets is to detect the radar using RWR-ELINT and then fire an IR or laser guided missile at it.

An out of the blue strike will be in and out even before the radar switches on, warms up, completes the sweep, tracks, locks, the missile warms up, fires and so on. (anything from 5-10 minutes) In case Pakistan gets info on Indian weapons then India will get the same on Pakistan. Pakistan has very limited industrial and military capacity to capture the info or to translate it into use. While the India EW programme is few hundred crores (600 crores atleast).


Not using PGMs mean one has to get close to target and ground, linger long and follow predictable flight plan. Not a good idea.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Sensor capabilities of IAF aircraft

Postby JCage » 04 Dec 2002 01:43

Sorry YIP for my ambiguous wording.Was referring to the H59ME missile .
Bad news. Terminal guidance is by TV seeker so only clear weather day ops.
Good news.Launch Range 115 km.High accuracy provided target coordinates are fixed.Initial mid course guidance aided by aircraft which would be equipped with a 260kg Tekon instrumentation pod.
Missile itself is 930 Kg's.In an air to ground mode ,over ground,its route heights can be either 50m or 100 m above ground.A maximum of two can be carried per MKI.

Now Kiccha sahab has said that we are getting "stand off missiles" wrt A2G besides which the H59ME has been one of the MKI's USP's from day1.

If we do landslides,road severance etc...no PGM's wouldnt be needed!
But with a H59ME ,heck you could be on the Indian side and pot a few Jehadi camps with ease.
The a/c chosen-again,where do we want to go?
If we really wish to plaster a target without any "sneakiness" ie embarass the PAF via technology and skill-then a standoff attack via PGM is the way to go.This would really make them feel impotent.
Mind you,from recent indications the "dissatisfaction level" in the PAF is already rising.Mir sahab of the PAF tells Janes(whines to Janes would be better) that Indian UAV'S aree flying around in our airspace already and we(PAF) cant do anythin'.

But if we wish to use low level delivery of conventional ordnance,then i'd go for nightime ops with fast moving strikers-again,whether high level or low level would depend on-

1)The threat scenario-emitters jammed(soft kill) and threat of manpads deemed low due to surprise factor.
Then low level.A/C for this role-Mirage 2000 followed by Jaguars.

2)If emitter/detector n/w still "on" and MANPAD's risk is around,with surprise not deemed enough.High level attack.Mixed formations of Mirage 2000's and MKI's,or MKI's with Jags,or Mirages with Jag's.

Here again we have two options-conventional attack with bombs (we'd have noted practise of high alt bombing techniques during parakram) or if the desire is to mark the target for greater visibilty so as to use conventional ordnance, -PGM's for the first shot.Since its night,we use LGB's (pray for good weather).

Regards,
Nitin

PS:Wrt limitations to night time-yes,it will have to be a quick and minutely planned op.The MKI's will utilise that beast of a radar to be in charge,while local PAF GCI is jammed by others.But IAF has done night time attacks in Kargil with spectacular success,using both PGM and conventional ammo,so yes the capabaility exists.If AWACS isnt there by then,ok ok,fine present situation.Then use that NO11M to its max as the same.This would be the only way to avoid Fog of War.And in a night time mission,that would be the prime threat from any Paki intercept mission messing things up.So real time awareness would be crucial.I believe the IAF *can* carry this off.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests