rohitvats wrote:^^^IAF website article on TACDE clearly mentions MiG-21bis...
On more point - we seem to have an image of TACDE in line with what everyone saw in TOP GUN and the Navy Fighter Weapon School. What we saw was a bunch of aircrews being put through the regime of learning advanced skills of their main fighter type - Tomcat in the picture. Hence, IMO, we're asking questions about why no Mig-29 or SU-30MKI(earlier).
Absolutely True -- but then we can form opinions on only what we have seen around the world. So keeping that in mind -- yeah Top Gun'esque would be the ideal institute for the top air force pilots to hone in their skills. Even CCS (Combat Commanders School) -Pakistan is formed on the same lines.
IMO, a course like FCL or FSL is more than the platform - it is about the "philosophy" of doing a particular job - be that of A2A or A2G. Yes, the tactics en all will be governed by the fighter type in question and the capabilites it has (or has not)...but the at broad level, the attributes of conducting a type of operation will be same.
Rohit - If its all about philosphy of doing a particular job -- Then it doesnt explain why only top 1% of the pilots are selected for TACDE. If its all about explaining how a particular job should be done then IMO this should be imparted to all the pilots not just a few.
IMO its not just about the philosphy -- it should be about actually Flying tactics -- actualy combat -- refining your dog fighting skills -- and hence the need for top of the line IAF fighters.
IMO, TACDE would already have the nuances of each aircraft type sorted out to letter T and syllabus created.... And these are imparted to the pilots as they come up flying ladder.
Another important point - IAF of today is a mix bag of capabilities with varying a/c type. Earlier, with exception of Mirage-2000, did any of the a/c represent quantum change in capability? While each a/c had some strengths (MiG-29 with BVR - which MiG-23 already had before it came), MiG-21bis and MiG-27 represented the capability in each role - A2A or A2G. So, if TACDE used these a/c to teach the FCL or FSL course, it did not matter if you came from MiG-21/23 or MiG-27/Jaguar Squadron.
Mig 29 was probably the best a/c in IAF arsenal. To refine your fighting skills it would be very important for IAF to practice against the top of the line fighters. For example - If the pilot is Mig 21 pilot -- then it would be very important for him to know how to counter a Mig 29 like aircraft -- reason being Mig 29 is a natural contender to F16. how Mig 21 pilot should force Mig 29 pilot to fight based on Mig 21's strength -- this in IMO should be the basis of TACDE.It becomes all the more important considering that BVR till today has been over hyped -- most of the fights still go into WVR range.
rohitvats wrote:Now with the transition in IAF capabilities (even the MiG-21 is BVR), TACDE will need new a/c to serve as an example of new capabilites. AFAIK, a fully evolved Su-30MKI will have all the capabilities present in IAF and inherent in various a/c types (present and future) - BVR/LGB/ALCM/Agile Dog-fighters....So, can be used to train crews from various a/c types.
But the question still remains with regards to Su 30MKI. My gripe is - Why so late in the game ? If TACDE is a important institute then this should have been much earlier. Ofcourse my humble mind suggests that IAF may have been sparing Su 30's and Mig 29's as and when the course requires it --and now they formally anounced induction of Su 30 to TACDE.