Exercise Indradhanush (Rainbow) '07 @ RAF Waddington, UK

parshu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 06 Oct 2006 20:19
Location: Indira Post

Re: Typhoon vs Rambha

Postby parshu » 31 Jul 2007 10:57

Sumeet wrote:
parshu wrote: basically its difficult to classify one fighter against the other in short excercises. The envelope is so big that for a realistic analysis, both aircraft would have to fly 300 or maybe more sorties together for any sort of real evaluation.


Well do you think when jets are being evaluated for purchase they have to fly 300 or more sorties for being selected as the winner ? Do you seriously think IAF will make MRCA bidders fly 300 sorties each to evaluate which one is the best ?



You are right, i realised that even as I made the post. I guess the fighter procurement process, no matter how throrough, is a satta. After all, we could choose the MiG-35, for instance and find the Pakistanis have picked the F-16/52 or Gripen which may ( for argument's sake only) be better. The only safe choice seems to be the rafael or EFT, (or JSF!)with nothing better than them but they're too costly.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Postby JaiS » 31 Jul 2007 11:35

bala,

I have to say that I have seen really impressive photos of the Typhoon from the Exercise and RIAT but just that the pictures have not been posted here.

Anyways, continuing with Indrashanush II, here is Touchdown Aviation's coverage.

Image

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

Re: Typhoon vs Rambha

Postby JCage » 31 Jul 2007 22:25

parshu wrote:The Sukhoi, according to him, is the benchmark for the West as they still need to catch up with that aircraft's flying capability. Avionics, is a different cup of tea. I guess it's a no-brainer that that's where the West has an edge.


The MKIs avionics compare equitably with whats available in the west, bar the uber Raptor, and as far as Indradhanush is concerned, this time- the MKIs avionics abilities were under wraps.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Postby tsarkar » 01 Aug 2007 11:57

Joint exercises usually aren’t like bike races – pitting my RX100 against your CD100, KB100 or TVS AX100

You learn how the other operates - for example, Indians usually operate in a GCI environment whereas NATO forces operate in a networked environment centered on an AWACS. There is always something to learn.

Diverging from the topic - whether dogfights or BVR, it isn’t technology that decides the fight, but how you use technology.

Every aircraft is designed with certain situations and environments in mind. However situations and environments change and that is where soft factors come into play.

An observation was made by Indian instructors in the Middle East. They discovered Arab leadership deliberately didn’t train their officers and soldiers well. The reason being they were scared of coups and the fact their armies might turn against them. Similarly Generals were not trained in staff work like planning and logistics, because the General might go against the leader. In contrast, the Israelis trained hard on – effectively using their machines – and coordinating with other arms. Israeli air gunnery in the six days war was superb by any standards – that was a result of long hours of training. I don’t think the MiG guns lacked range or caliber. The decisive factors were training and planning, rather than technology.

USAF was so enamored by missiles that F4 C & D models lacked an internal gun. This deficiency was rectified only in the E model. There were many missed opportunities and maybe losses in Vietnam because of this infatuation with technology.

When IAF procured the MiG21, the F model on which it trained lacked an internal gun. Based on its experience, it insisted on a gun and the initial F13 & FL models had a gun pod and rudimentary gunsight fitted just before the war. In the dogfight where the PAF Starfighter was shot down, the K13 missiles missed and the gun pod eventually lead to the kill.

Tipu Sultan invented modern battlefield rockets and the concept of saturation barrages much before the Russian Katyusha, however he didn’t coordinate those rocket barrages with cavalry and infantry assaults.

The British discovered Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s brass artillery being able to withstand higher pressures, resulting in longer ranges. It was also more corrosion resistant. But as discussed above, that technology wasn’t used effectively.

Moral of the story – rocket barrages or brass artillery or K13 missiles or super duper AESA don’t win you wars. Even with less effective weaponry but with better training and thinking, you can do wonders.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Postby Surya » 01 Aug 2007 16:25

tsarkar

Sorry that was not Indian instructors. it was Western (American) instructors who realised the difference and accordingly noted in Western Army journals.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2453
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Postby tsarkar » 01 Aug 2007 17:08

Over the 70s & 80s numerous Indians have served in the Middle East, especially Oman and Iraq. Indian instructors have trained Iraqis on the MiG21 & Chinese F7. Often pilots were sent to squadrons with their training half finished. Only those with political loyalty were trained in air to ground operations, the Allende and Sadat assassinations fresh in everyone’s mind.

No denying the American assessment - but just because Indians don’t publish doesn’t mean they didn’t observe.

Samir
Webmaster BR
Posts: 90
Joined: 08 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Samir » 03 Aug 2007 01:45

Folks, this thread has been cleaned up and the trash taken out. Stick to discussions of ID.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 03 Aug 2007 02:41

JaiS wrote:Note the Flanker in the background

Image


Gents what is the reason on SU-30 MKI Rambha the metal around the starboard side around the gun is always unpainted and the material looks steel?

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

Postby JCage » 03 Aug 2007 02:43

Arun

The heat from the muzzle flash burns off the paint- so its left unpainted metal

SRay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 65
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby SRay » 03 Aug 2007 03:31

JCage wrote:Arun

The heat from the muzzle flash burns off the paint- so its left unpainted metal


is it left completely untreated?? what if we want radar absorbent paint on these aircraft? won't that be a major reflector?

been wondering about that area for a while myself...

Yerna
BRFite
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Oct 2003 11:31

Postby Yerna » 03 Aug 2007 04:03

tsarkar wrote:BTW why do all of you refer to the Su30 as Rambha? As my understanding goes, dont see any connection with Indra's apsara. Its neither an official name nor do the men use it.


Rambha is a pretty Telugu actress with a rather 'strong' pair of legs often referred to as thunder thighs. IIRC, some members were drooling over MKI's twin engines just like they drool over rambha's thighs and the name got stuck.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 03 Aug 2007 07:14

In addition to what yerna garu says

t sarakar>Rambha is supposed to beKhumbha stana (in sanskrit), aka
Kuchonnate.....(sanskrit)
the two after burners...., I leave the rest to your imagination...

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

Postby JCage » 03 Aug 2007 12:36

SRay wrote:
JCage wrote:Arun

The heat from the muzzle flash burns off the paint- so its left unpainted metal


is it left completely untreated?? what if we want radar absorbent paint on these aircraft? won't that be a major reflector?

been wondering about that area for a while myself...


For frontal RCS, the leading edges of the aircraft are a problem- wing edges, pylons, weaponry. The intakes and the engine faces (rotating fans can spike up the RCS considerably on the plot). Then there is the radome-with the rotating scanner, and finally the cockpit.

So compared to the above, that metal area is not such a big issue (if we take a look at a Flanker facing head on)- the above areas are the primary contributors.

Each of the above can be minimised to some extent:

- The leading edges, pylons, intakes and even engine faces can be RAM treated
-The radome can be made frequency selective to the frequency of the onboard radar
-The cockpit canopy can be specially manufactured with RCS reduction in mind.

India is working on each of these areas as well.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Indradhanush and RIAT pics contd.

Postby JaiS » 03 Aug 2007 21:36

Credits : I 8 Spotters

IL-78 MKI @ Waddo - Rainy Day

http://www.ukarimages.com/is.php?i=1928 ... Wadd-S.jpg

http://www.ukarimages.com/is.php?i=1928 ... Wadd-S.jpg


Credits : viper 01

RIAT Saturday display

Image

RIAT Thursday display

Image


Credits : Downes0106

All the Flankers at RIAT

Image



One amazing Tornado pic !

Credits : CH2

Image

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 03 Aug 2007 22:44

The last pic of the Tornado is very interesting JaiS. Never seen jet flame so long and "un-controlled". Is this what happens just when you engage after-burner. Seems like pure fuel injected into the last chamber...

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Postby negi » 03 Aug 2007 23:03

pradeepe wrote:The last pic of the Tornado is very interesting JaiS. Never seen jet flame so long and "un-controlled". Is this what happens just when you engage after-burner. Seems like pure fuel injected into the last chamber...

Strange to see an exhaust plume so long and a rather irregular silhouette doesnt look like the missionary dump and burn where fuel isnt injected in any chamber per se but just dumped in the atmosphere the hot exhaust from the AB's then ignites the stuff.

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Postby JaiS » 04 Aug 2007 08:18

pradeepe,

I am not really sure about the explanation and would leave it to the Gurus for confirmation, but your explanation seems to be highly plausible. Some more photos showing long afterburner trails.

F-111G ( flame much more dispersed than the Tornado pic )
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0849081/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0842716/M/

F-15
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1096711/M/

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21765
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 04 Aug 2007 08:27

negi wrote:
pradeepe wrote:The last pic of the Tornado is very interesting JaiS. Never seen jet flame so long and "un-controlled". Is this what happens just when you engage after-burner. Seems like pure fuel injected into the last chamber...

Strange to see an exhaust plume so long and a rather irregular silhouette doesnt look like the missionary dump and burn where fuel isnt injected in any chamber per se but just dumped in the atmosphere the hot exhaust from the AB's then ignites the stuff.


The F-111 used to do such trick at Airshows , I didnt knew that even Tornado could do that

KSandy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 09 May 2005 16:31
Location: Dubai

Postby KSandy » 04 Aug 2007 15:18

Jai S, the comment on the pics you posted above mention that they are not afterburner trails but actually 'Dump & Burn' to impress the crowd. The F15 image though is a good afterburner image.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3035
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Postby Jagan » 04 Aug 2007 21:23

http://bp0.blogger.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/Rq9 ... -h/tyo.jpg
from Live Fist. Click Here if the above doesnt appear

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 04 Aug 2007 21:31

KSandy wrote:Jai S, the comment on the pics you posted above mention that they are not afterburner trails but actually 'Dump & Burn' to impress the crowd. The F15 image though is a good afterburner image.


Says dump and burn in comments. I wasn't aware that fuel dump happened at the rear orfice :lol: . Thought it was at points near the wing tips.

That F15 image with AB is real cool.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Postby negi » 04 Aug 2007 22:06

The F-111 has a fuel vent at the the rear of the tailcone situated between the two engine exhausts, it is due to such a placement of the fuel vent that F-111 is able to carry out its famous 'Dump and Burn' ,

Here one can clearly see the vent between the two exhaust nozzles.fuel vent (courtsey..f-111.net).

The Tornado GR4 has a small triangular fuel vent dump just over the vertical rudder,I doubt whether D&B can be carried out with such an arrangement in place.

Ved
BRFite
Posts: 154
Joined: 08 Jul 1999 11:31

Postby Ved » 04 Aug 2007 22:32

pradeepe wrote:....is this what happens just when you engage after-burner. Seems like pure fuel injected into the last chamber...


Essentially, this is what an A/B is!

KSandy
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 09 May 2005 16:31
Location: Dubai

Postby KSandy » 05 Aug 2007 12:03

pradeepe wrote:
KSandy wrote:Jai S, the comment on the pics you posted above mention that they are not afterburner trails but actually 'Dump & Burn' to impress the crowd. The F15 image though is a good afterburner image.


Says dump and burn in comments. I wasn't aware that fuel dump happened at the rear orfice :lol: . Thought it was at points near the wing tips.

That F15 image with AB is real cool.


Even i am doubtful of such a location for fuel dump in normal cases. Its a risky thing to have fuel dumped almost directly into the exhaust.
I believe most fuel dumps are from the wing tips.
Is it possible that this arrngement has been made specifically for the airshow???? JMT

Shafqat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 07:22

Postby Shafqat » 05 Aug 2007 20:15

This particular RAAF picture clearly shows the use of the 'rear orifice' :D

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1233062/L/

pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Postby pradeepe » 05 Aug 2007 20:38

Shafqat wrote:This particular RAAF picture clearly shows the use of the 'rear orifice' :D

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1233062/L/


Shafqat, awesome picture. Not Indian, but this one has got to make it to my desktop for a few days to stare at - helps in those long meetings at work :wink:

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 05 Aug 2007 21:17

KSandy wrote:
Even i am doubtful of such a location for fuel dump in normal cases. Its a risky thing to have fuel dumped almost directly into the exhaust.


No extra risk. After all - the only thing you want to avoid is spraying your own aircraft with fuel. Wingtip trailing edge or tail are both good. Igniting is obviously no problem - it all happens outside the tailpipe and the aircraft is moving away rapidly. No more dangerous than a human fire breather.

In any case the tailpipe is designed to handle hot gases.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12752
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 06 Aug 2007 14:39

the interior of the engine chambers are burning hotter than the flame on the exterior, and as shiv says, the fuel is heading away from the aircraft


Return to “Military Exercises Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest