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

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22038
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Postby Austin » 07 Jul 2007 22:01

JCage wrote:Actually - wrt many key parameters, yes! They have been very very public with the access to the bird about many key operational capabilities. Not the RAF per se, but the EADS combine. Partly to counter public criticism of the program & partly because of the participating nations strong democratic credentials, and most importantly, because they have been very concerned with export sales.

If you actually look at the open reports, its fairly possible to build up a good capability overview of the EF. Of course, I am not getting my hands on operational frequencies, beam widths of the captor etc etc - but the rest, many people worldwide have a good idea. And by the end of this exercise, so will the IAF. I have kept pointing you to some data sources, with good reason!


It is always possible to build a good capability of any aircraft including the likes of F-22 based on opensource information ,But the million dollar question is how much of it has Truth and how much is just mere propoganda/half-truth , they would revel as much as they would like to.

No body discusses Operational matter, operational procedures ,EW/ECM , Radar capabilities,employment , weapon system details etc etc , This exercises are are done to build interop between airforces and build some common operation procedures

You are thoroughly mixing up things here! The EF design, and to a fair extent the Rafales too, come from the 80's not the 90s! The EF program was born way back, but the design aims of the program need to be kept in mind, as do the Rafales. There is little doubt that the EF was more of a classic air superiority fighter with RCS reduction being in the form of band aids


Thats incorrect , Typhoon was always from design a Low RCS Aircraft and not a patch work as it is made to believe , Infact with the RCS reduction they have achieved by design the Typhoon didnt travel the extra mile like the MKI and Rafale fellas have done to reduce its RCS ,
The Rafale is ofcourse a Low RCS by design aircraft , But there are reports that the Typhoon has lower RCS than Rafale but then again people dispute that.

The Typhoon Marketing folks only began highlighting reduced RCS as its achievement when the other folks of its generation began the marketing hype about their respective RCS ( namely Rafale ) , so it became necessary for them to also highlight their design achievement , Purely marketing needs to compete.

When you see a Rafale with Black Paint then you tend to feel that Wow Factor effect , Give the same same paint/camo to LCA or EF and you will find similar Wow factor there.

The patch work on RCS reduction is basicly done by the Russian/MKI folks. But if it helps them than why not.

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

Postby negi » 07 Jul 2007 22:27

Sigh. did follow the argument going on here I guess Austin bhai has a point or two,its simple if Typhy has a smaller RCS than the MKI then its should have some bearing on the engagement scenario,the argument that RCS reducing measures arent descrenable until and unless it is below 0.1msq is also not appropriate for if it is really the case why is IAF and RU investing time and money on reducing the RCS of the MKI (they aint gonna achieve that 0.1 msq are they ?).

I guess both MKI and Typhy will play by their strengths rather by other ones weakness for they would be much more sure about confident about the former.And if whatever Raymond says about BVR simulation(BVR AAM specs for both would be the same) then it essentially comes to BARS v/s the CAPTOR along with the RCS of the two birds (it remains to be seen whether the alleged edge BARS has over the CAPTOR is negated by the smaller RCS of the Typhoon ).

Though I would love to see MKI emerge victorious ,my money is on Typhoon (only in BVR realm though for in WVR there aint any competition to Rambha ).

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Postby Cain Marko » 07 Jul 2007 23:13

negi wrote:Sigh. did follow the argument going on here I guess Austin bhai has a point or two,its simple if Typhy has a smaller RCS than the MKI then its should have some bearing on the engagement scenario,the argument that RCS reducing measures arent descrenable until and unless it is below 0.1msq is also not appropriate for if it is really the case why is IAF and RU investing time and money on reducing the RCS of the MKI (they aint gonna achieve that 0.1 msq are they ?).


Actually we need to understand that RCS has very little bearing on BVR engagements between to 4.5 a/c such as these esp against something like the MKI. The Typhoon for example, has to have an RCS some 16 times lesser than the MKI for the detection range to be halved. An RCS difference of a square meter or 2 is hardly going to make a difference with powerful radars such as the BARS. You'll need to have an RCS difference in orders of magnitude to compensate for this and i'm afraid with EFTs and external weapons none of the MRCA birds have such an edge. As far as using RCS reduction measures on the flanker, the difference after such treatments has in fact been very dramatic (reduction by as much as 10X has been claimed). So in effect you may very well find an MKI with 5sqm and an EF 2000 with 2sqm facing each other.

I guess both MKI and Typhy will play by their strengths rather by other ones weakness for they would be much more sure about confident about the former.And if whatever Raymond says about BVR simulation(BVR AAM specs for both would be the same) then it essentially comes to BARS v/s the CAPTOR along with the RCS of the two birds (it remains to be seen whether the alleged edge BARS has over the CAPTOR is negated by the smaller RCS of the Typhoon ).

Exactly, the Bars mk1 (the mk3 on the MKI.3 could be higher) is supposed to have a detection range of no less than 180-210km for a 3sqm bird. OTOH, the CAPTOR has a range of about 160-180km for a 5sqm bird (which actually seems to be quite the stretch for a slotted array. Compare this to other radars of a similar size and tech and its quite surprising) Assuming that an MKI with external weapons has an RCS of about 5sqm and the EF2000 weighs in at a marginal 2sqm (1/10th of F15+external weapons), they are going to detect each other at approximately the same time. Then it boils down to who gets lockin first and fires first, which is where I give the MKI more credibility because
1) It has 2 pilots and hence workload is distributed (while one pilot manouvers, the other jams and develops counterattack measures)
2) It has missiles with longer range and should get first shot (even though this is not necessarily an advantage in a simulated scenario)
3) The BARS has an incredible power output along with a monster antenna with variable frequencies, IOW its not going to be so easy to jam or break lock.
4) Here again ECM comes in and we can hardly guess at which has a better suite.
Overall, I'll agree with Austinsahib - its too difficult for us to call either way.
JMT

REgards,
CM.

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

Postby Samir » 07 Jul 2007 23:42

Here is a description to add to my earlier post (forwarded):

The typhoon and the Su-30 was a kind of stand off in the 1 vs 1.. the Su-30 in any case is not meant for that sort of fight in the first place..AWACS are being used..the typhoons biggest advantage is light weight i.e., high thrust to weight ratio, so good climb performance and very fast acceleration..so it can get out of trouble quickly..more importantly it can regain energy fast after a energy depleting manoeuvre..it was too evenly matched to really compare, Su-30 great on snap maneuvering but more energy depletion while lesser maneuvering by the Typhoon but lesser energy depletion...(in BVR type scenarios) there is still a fair amount of maneuvering, albeit at large distances, and a lot of stand offs due to missile defeating maneuvers at large distances, till such time that a merge takes place..so one guy locks the other break away, turn around, then some one locks or fire and the others avoid etc and a lot to do with keeping a high SA on who is where doing what in large number situations..and in these kind of situations when the Typhoon needs to maneuver aggressively it has a lot of power to enable it to do so..BVR is a lot of cat and mouse stuff, while close combat missile type is more messing around with gun combat taking the cake...the Typhoon has only been doing close combat till now. bigger stuff yet to take place..the pilots maneuver not just to try break lock-ons to them but also to to stay away from a know threat of better capability or also to defeat the missile after launch...remember the chaps are just not airborne to stay in one place and fight , they have an objective to reach, that necessitates a forward movement...that is the basic premise in BVR combat

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 07 Jul 2007 23:47

Specific Energy of turn seems to be a very important factor, If what Samir says. MKI can always have a engine upgrade with MLU.

the growth potential is tremendous, add to that a 3000 moduled GaN AESA. :P

On the other hand, I did read in a NAL paper, that LCA has been designed to keep this SET as low as possible, means how quick it can regain energy.

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

Postby JCage » 08 Jul 2007 00:00

negi wrote:Sigh. did follow the argument going on here I guess Austin bhai has a point or two,its simple if Typhy has a smaller RCS than the MKI then its should have some bearing on the engagement scenario,the argument that RCS reducing measures arent descrenable until and unless it is below 0.1msq is also not appropriate for if it is really the case why is IAF and RU investing time and money on reducing the RCS of the MKI (they aint gonna achieve that 0.1 msq are they ?)..


What you have to understand is the 4th square law. To reduce detection by half...guess how many times the RCS has to reduce?

Here try it yourself...(RCSnew/RCSold)^.25 * Detection range old = New detection range.

With AWACS on either side, with the ability to reach out at 500 Km for a 5 square mtr object...is 1 or 3 or 5 going to make any discernible difference in pure terms?

And can the radars on the MKI and EF both lock on for engagement at the max ranges of their respective munitions?

See both, and you'll quickly realise why the US went for true stealth.

Earlier on in this thread, I crunched the numbers according to the above formula.. look through those..

Samir,

Cant understand your post... sorry..
Has BVR combat taken place, or has it only been WVR so far with the Typhoon & BVR with the Tornados?
the Typhoon has only been doing close combat till now. bigger stuff yet to take place

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

Postby Samir » 08 Jul 2007 00:03

JCage - As far as I can make out - only a combination of BVR and WVR with Typhoons.

Also: I've just forwarded on an email/chat above.
Last edited by Samir on 08 Jul 2007 00:05, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby negi » 08 Jul 2007 00:04

joey wrote:Specific Energy of turn seems to be a very important factor, If what Samir says. MKI can always have a engine upgrade with MLU.

Imho the enrgy bleed is dependent on the cumulative drag due to the airframe and the weapons loadout at a given altitude and speed it is independent of engine thrust.

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

Postby JCage » 08 Jul 2007 00:14

Samir wrote:JCage - As far as I can make out - only a combination of BVR and WVR with Typhoons.

Also: I've just forwarded on an email/chat above.



Thanks Samir..this is what threw me...there is an excellent bit about the Typhoon / the energy state as far as I could make out, speaking of BVR....but this at the end confused me:

"the Typhoon has only been doing close combat till now."

Perhaps the author meant that prior to the Exercise the Typhoon had only been doing close combat.. :?: :idea:

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

Postby Samir » 08 Jul 2007 00:35

Jcage: I think he meant that on the first day it was all just combat profiles (1-v-1) and no strike profiles (i.e., I think "close combat" was being used as an imprecise term for aircombat).

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

Postby negi » 08 Jul 2007 00:39

JCage wrote:What you have to understand is the 4th square law. To reduce detection by half...guess how many times the RCS has to reduce?

Well speaking strictly in terms of math majic yes I am aware of it,however what I was talking about is we cant talk both ways right ? if the low RCS of Typhy isnt a significant entity worth the consideration,then why do we emphasise on MKI's RCS reduction measures specially when the difference between the RCS of both aircraft more than the total RCS of Typhy.

With AWACS on either side, with the ability to reach out at 500 Km for a 5 square mtr object...is 1 or 3 or 5 going to make any discernible difference in pure terms?
No but then I never took any AWACS into consideration for I just added on to the one on one duel between the Typhy and MKI as being discussed in the thread,now I dont know what will actually happen during the exercises in Waddo (as I have always said if it is purely the platform evaluation which people wish to do then take out awacs and such external variables).

And can the radars on the MKI and EF both lock on for engagement at the max ranges of their respective munitions?

Well that is why I asked the question about the way BVR AAM parameters are laid or defined in such exercises,Raymond said missile specs remain same for both the sides and I took it.My pov is based on a major assumption (BARS and CAPTOR are almost similar in terms of performance )for I doubt whether the Russian definition of defining the fighter sized target is same as the one used by NATO (is it 3msq or 5msq ?) and hence I neglected 30-40 Km difference in the detection range of the two

See both, and you'll quickly realise why the US went for true stealth.

Yes I do and that is why in this case I never categorically made any statement about the outcome of a BVR duel between the MKI and EF.

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

Postby JCage » 08 Jul 2007 00:55

negi wrote:Well speaking strictly in terms of math majic yes I am aware of it,however what I was talking about is we cant talk both ways right ? if the low RCS of Typhy isnt a significant entity worth the consideration,then why do we emphasise on MKI's RCS reduction measures specially when the difference between the RCS of both aircraft more than the total RCS of Typhy.


Because the MKIs RCS reduction- if true- I make no claims either way, is of the order which can make a difference vs the original RCS of the Su-27. But has anyone claimed that this makes the MKI invisible or superior to the Typhoon? Nope - all it does is point out that assumptions made by the Typhoon supporters of the MKI/ New Flankers being very easy to detect on account of their sheer size are not necessarily accurate.
But either ways, with a 2 mtr square fighter against a 5 mtr square one (say)...AWACS makes sure both naughty chaps are visible to everyone..no hiding, no sneaky stuff.


No but then I never took any AWACS into consideration for I just added on to the one on one duel between the Typhy and MKI as being discussed in the thread,now I dont know what will actually happen during the exercises in Waddo (as I have always said if it is purely the platform evaluation which people wish to do then take out awacs and such external variables).


Hello! :) This is no longer WW2 or for that matter platform valuation alone...what every AF does is fight as a system, the better system wins! And individual components ie platforms matter, but the "mesh" is more equal than other factors. For instance, the RAF took the USAF "to school" when its E3 supported Tornado F3 ADVs took on the Alaska based F-15s. Now tell me, which is the better platform? :)
Even the RAF/FRAF are not going to be looking at Typhoon/Rafale alone. The follow on to the JOUST studies etc used AWACs supported Typhoons vs combat sweeps of ingressing MiG-29s supported by Su-27 top cover. The French AF is evaluating the Rafale supported by its E3s and generating tactics accordingly. Even Waddo is AWACs learning..





Well that is why I asked the question about the way BVR AAM parameters are laid or defined in such exercises,Raymond said missile specs remain same for both the sides and I took it .My pov is based on a major assumption (BARS and CAPTOR are almost similar in terms of performance )for I doubt whether the Russian definition of defining the fighter sized target is same as the one used by NATO (is it 3msq or 5msq ?)


There is no one size for NATO or Russia per se.... Ranges need to be checked against respective countries targets. I wont go into detail over the Russian ones, but Aircraft manuals ie official literature use 3. The 5 metric is used by Phazatron as it gives better ranges. Also what matters is purpose. Zaslon ranges were given against both bomber sized and fighter sized targets..but then we have to check which fighters and which bombers respectively! The US, has moved to a 1 Sq Mtr target. They have invested correspondingly in test and evaluation eqpt.


Yes I do and that is why in this case I never categorically made any statement about the outcome of a BVR duel between the MKI and EF.


Wokay.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Jul 2007 01:16

negi wrote:
JCage wrote:What you have to understand is the 4th square law. To reduce detection by half...guess how many times the RCS has to reduce?

Well speaking strictly in terms of math majic yes I am aware of it,however what I was talking about is we cant talk both ways right ? if the low RCS of Typhy isnt a significant entity worth the consideration,then why do we emphasise on MKI's RCS reduction measures specially when the difference between the RCS of both aircraft more than the total RCS of Typhy


Nah, its the context that makes the difference. Is RCS an issue?
In case of a standard flanker (RCS 10msq+) with N001 vs and EF 2000 (2msq) with Captor, it might make all the difference. the N001 will probly detect the typhoon @ about 70-80km and lock on @ about 50 odd km. Typhoon OTOH, will probly detect said flanker @ around 200km and lock on @ 140km. In this scenario, RCS makes a BIG difference.
Now modify it a bit:
Instead of a N001, use a a NO11M Bars mk1 and the situation will still favor the EF2000 but the gap has closed. On further and final modification of said scenario - add RCS measures to flanker (thereby bringing it to MKI standard) and RCS drops to half of original plus modify BARS to mk3 standards - now we have a real competition and the RCS hardly makes a difference.

Samir's input supports this - hence so much emphasis on manouvering, energy depletion, lock breaking etc. IOW, its really too tight to say that either bird will prevail over the other off hand.

Regards,
CM.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Jul 2007 01:56

JCage wrote:Hello! :) This is no longer WW2 or for that matter platform valuation alone...what every AF does is fight as a system, the better system wins! And individual components ie platforms matter, but the "mesh" is more equal than other factors. For instance, the RAF took the USAF "to school" when its E3 supported Tornado F3 ADVs took on the Alaska based F-15s. Now tell me, which is the better platform? :)
Even the RAF/FRAF are not going to be looking at Typhoon/Rafale alone. The follow on to the JOUST studies etc used AWACs supported Typhoons vs combat sweeps of ingressing MiG-29s supported by Su-27 top cover. The French AF is evaluating the Rafale supported by its E3s and generating tactics accordingly. Even Waddo is AWACs learning..


JC,
Quick question - how will IAF make use of AWACS in an aggressive scenario, ahem ingressing into Puki territory? Won't it be a risky venture to have a $ 0.5 billion asset backing up combo of MKI/M2k/Jags deep into far away pockets of Pakiland? In case such ingress is made without AWACS support (lets say a mixed dabba of Jags+M2ks/Baaz+MKIs for top cover) targeting something in west pak or even S.Chinki land, how fareth the lads in grey over hostile territory?
One feels that this is where an IRBIS/KS 172/Brahmos combo will be really handy. MKIs could form their own AWACS (and even though the package won't have 360 deg coverage), the forward hemisphere should be v. well taken care of with an MKI or 2 making quick crazy ivanish manouvers every now and again to check the rear. Perhaps the networking abilities of the Shornet could also be exploited given such a scenario.
Humor me for a second and tell me if such a thing is even remotely possible or has any precedent.

Regards,
CM.

Rishirishi
BRFite
Posts: 1017
Joined: 12 Mar 2005 02:30

Postby Rishirishi » 08 Jul 2007 03:10

Awacs will be escorted. Besides it will have the advantage of spotting any nearing fighters.
Also the range of the IAF Awacs will b arround 500 km, so it will be effective from withing the Indian teritory. Most Paki airfields can be monitred, from 100 km Inside Indian side.

Nevertheless, you have a point. It is a very expensive piece of equipment and that is a problem itself.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Jul 2007 03:56

Rishirishi wrote:Awacs will be escorted. Besides it will have the advantage of spotting any nearing fighters.

The problem isn't PAF a/c so much; i'd be more concerned with SAMs esp. the medium-long ranged ones that Pak is trying to get a hold of...with these an AWACS would be in trouble. Of course, thats where a Brahmos equipped Su 30MKI comes in. :twisted:

Also the range of the IAF Awacs will b arround 500 km, so it will be effective from withing the Indian teritory. Most Paki airfields can be monitred, from 100 km Inside Indian side.

True, but they've got a couple of facilities in Baluchistan (delivery systems in quetta?) that might be out of AWACS reach.

Regards,
CM.

Kapil
Webmaster BR
Posts: 284
Joined: 16 Jun 2001 11:31

Postby Kapil » 08 Jul 2007 07:41

JCage wrote:[made by the Typhoon supporters of the MKI/ New Flankers being very easy to detect on account of their sheer size are not necessarily accurate.
But either ways, with a 2 mtr square fighter against a 5 mtr square one (say)...AWACS makes sure both naughty chaps are visible to everyone..no hiding, no sneaky stuff.




Hi Jcage,
But do remember that Su27s had tactics to take out AWACS under escort.And they still work.

Kapil
Webmaster BR
Posts: 284
Joined: 16 Jun 2001 11:31

Postby Kapil » 08 Jul 2007 07:44

Heres an update and a new air-air pic too:
Click on the pic to read more.

Image

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3247
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Postby Cain Marko » 08 Jul 2007 10:08

Kapil Saar and Samirji, thank you for the excellent updates. Drooling for more. JC and GUrus, your analysis of the same would be sincerely appreciated.
From Kapil's article:
While it does not imply to say that the air combat sorties were meant for backslapping each other, it may be understood that in today's aerial combat scenarios of 'beyond visual range' (BVR) capabilities of air platforms, it is highly unlikely that any of the modern-day fighters will ever get into a situation that warrants extreme close air combat, as in the situations simulated in the 'one-versus-one' sorties. With a 'kill' criterion of front-gun ranges during 'one-versus-one' being mostly under 1000 metres and a visual tracking envelope behind the target for only up to a 60-degree cone for most fighter aircraft of the world, the unlikely scenario gets further exemplified.

Does this mean that BVR 'one vs one' MKI/EF2000 battles never took place and were restricted purely to WVR scenarios? It'll be interesting to see what the next few days bring.
Kapilsaar, any scores? or was it a draw? I'd be surprised if the EF2K came out on top in WVR with TVC+HMS, the MKI should come out on top, esp. @ slower speeds. one advantage that the EF2000 would have over the MKI in WVR would be the humungous flanker would be easier to spot, at the same time the MKI has 2 sets of eyes which would also be an advantage for it.

Regards,
CM

Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Postby Raymond » 08 Jul 2007 11:15

Cain Marko wrote:Okay, I need some more clarification. My original point was that since ARH AAMs have a radar transmitter (seeker?) that goes "on" in the terminal phase, won't it light up the target's RWR? OTOH, since the SARH missile does not emit any radio waves (no transmitting radar), how is the target going to know that it is approaching and is in its end game?. No doubt, it has already been notified by its RWR of the launch platform, But if there are a couple of enemy a/c emitting at the same time, how does the target know a) a missile has been launched by either of the a/c and b) which a/c has actually launched it? If it is entirely dependent on the MAWS (which work on heat emissions as you point out), then does a MAWS have 360 deg coverage and @ what distance will it detect exhaust emissions from a missile?

The RWR detects several characteristics of the enemy's radar emissions falling on it to properly identify(fingerprint) and localize the radar threat.Now when the enemy's radar is in STT and it launches a SARH and the radar starts to guide it,then some charactertistics of those radar emissions changes which can be detected by RWR and it can be known the missile has been launched.On the other hand in ARH the enemy's radar can guide it by datalink while just being itself in TWS mode.So its very hard to detect an ARH launch.Now when the missile comes very near to you,it wil trip your MAWS and you will have an warning.That distance is generally around 10-15kms.Yes when the ARH's seeker goes active it will be detected by the RWR,but generally since the RWR is optimized for detecting emissions from fighter /SAM/AWACS etc. radars its only when the ARH is very near the RWR detects it.)Also theres some problem with RWRs in general that if you set the sensitivity lightly,it sometimes get tripped for no apparent reason and automatically starts to deploy countermeasures.So the ARH can become active some distance away(depending on its seeker) and the RWR detects it only when its close(and then MAWS also gets into action).
So in SARH you know when the missile is being launched,and then again when your MAWS is activated.In ARH you know when the missile is very near you activates its seeker or your MAWS warns you.Thats why ARH have much more the element of surprise than the SARH ones.Of course long range IR ones are still more dangerous as they are passive and will only be detected by yuor missile warning system.

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

Postby JCage » 08 Jul 2007 15:32

Samir wrote:Jcage: I think he meant that on the first day it was all just combat profiles (1-v-1) and no strike profiles (i.e., I think "close combat" was being used as an imprecise term for aircombat).


Samir thanks!! Combining the chat transcript with this press release from the IAF:

The operational part of the 'Exercise Indradhanush-2007' began with a series of 1 vs 1 air combat sorties. Both the variants landed with their much-touted reputations intact as each side tested their potential with their adversary in the air to their limits. These sorties were premised not entirely on having winners or losers – but more for their evaluator and training values as encapsulated in the objectives. And both sides ended-up sharing an enhanced respect for each other's capabilities – both in terms of training values, and combat potentials of the diverse aerial platforms.

While the RAF fielded some of their most-experienced and highly-qualified pilots, some of them being very senior performance evaluators in active service, the IAF pilots were a mix of 'young to middle-level pilots' from the 'Rhinos' squadron. The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI's observed superior manouevring in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated. The IAF pilots on their part were also visibly impressed by the Typhoon's agility in the air.


While it does not imply to say that the air combat sorties were meant for backslapping each other, it may be understood that in today's aerial combat scenarios of 'beyond visual range' (BVR) capabilities of air platforms, it is highly unlikely that any of the modern-day fighters will ever get into a situation that warrants extreme close air combat, as in the situations simulated in the 'one-versus-one' sorties. With a 'kill' criterion of front-gun ranges during 'one-versus-one' being mostly under 1000 metres and a visual tracking envelope behind the target for only up to a 60-degree cone for most fighter aircraft of the world, the unlikely scenario gets further exemplified.



..it appears that the MKI & EF have engaged only in extreme close combat...which allows the chat transcript to be understood..

..What the author (posted by you) meant is now clear:

#1- He laid out the cat & mouse game that is BVR, with manoueverability/ energy state etc being important
#2- Pointed out both the MKI (relys on TVC) and EF (relies on light weight & installed thrust excess) different strengths in air combat but both used their respective strengths pretty well.
#3- Which ties into the EFs performance in BVR as well
#4- Ends with a point that the EF has only done close combat till now..
Last edited by JCage on 08 Jul 2007 15:35, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby JCage » 08 Jul 2007 15:34

Samir, the IAF press release is not clear whether BVR is planned for later on in the exercise, any comments from your end?

gauravjkale
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 29 May 2007 15:32
Location: Mumbai

Postby gauravjkale » 09 Jul 2007 11:56

the whole impression i am getting here is that when it comes to actual exercise results, we are all in dark and nothing is leaking out as it has been in the past. It seems like MKI is not having the advantage of being superior that it has been enjoying till date with other kids on the block.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9822
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Postby sum » 09 Jul 2007 12:15

While the RAF fielded some of their most-experienced and highly-qualified pilots, some of them being very senior performance evaluators in active service, the IAF pilots were a mix of 'young to middle-level pilots' from the 'Rhinos' squadron

Why should this statement be added unless its a kind of admission that we got whooped a little and didnt overrun our opponents unlike last few excercises?
Dont remember these statements from COPE etc.....Maybe,its a kind of a excuse?? Any opinion from the gurus?
added later:my opinion only....nothing to take away credit from the great pilots of the "rhinos"...

gauravjkale
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 29 May 2007 15:32
Location: Mumbai

Postby gauravjkale » 09 Jul 2007 12:29

moreover dont think the pilots flying MKI are young or middle level pilots with lesser experience.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3980
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Postby Kartik » 09 Jul 2007 12:54

gauravjkale wrote:moreover dont think the pilots flying MKI are young or middle level pilots with lesser experience.


what does that mean ? the Rhinos are a mix of very experienced Wing Cmdrs, experienced Sqdn Ldrs and relatively new Flt Lts.

gauravjkale
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 29 May 2007 15:32
Location: Mumbai

Postby gauravjkale » 09 Jul 2007 12:59

While the RAF fielded some of their most-experienced and highly-qualified pilots, some of them being very senior performance evaluators in active service, the IAF pilots were a mix of 'young to middle-level pilots' from the 'Rhinos' squadron


Was replying to above statement where it says the RAF pilots are the experienced one and our are less experienced. I think that pilots flying MKI can in no circumstances be the less experienced one.

ckeck this link guys, the tornado image is too good.

url

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3980
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Postby Kartik » 09 Jul 2007 13:01

and that is exactly what I'm saying is wrong- the MKI pilots are not all very experienced- its a motley crew of experienced and rookie pilots..some of the rookies who came in from the Hawk training in UK were directly inducted into MKI squadrons.

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2785
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Postby prahaar » 09 Jul 2007 13:09

IIRC, it was mentioned in the Su-30 MKI series on TV that initially they only had experienced pilots transferring from other squadrons/aircrafts but later they started inducting Rookies with potential directly into the MKI squadrons.

gauravjkale
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 29 May 2007 15:32
Location: Mumbai

Postby gauravjkale » 09 Jul 2007 14:04

ohh,, didnt knew dat.

gauravjkale
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 29 May 2007 15:32
Location: Mumbai

Postby gauravjkale » 09 Jul 2007 14:20

few more amazing pics on this link.
seems like mki have brought lot of trigger (camera) happy out ....

url

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby HariC » 09 Jul 2007 21:15

I never thought I would say this - but I am BORED seeing pictures of the MKIs again and again and again.. All these guys are good, so once you have seen some pics from some, you have seen them all.


But then it must only be me..

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 » 09 Jul 2007 21:19

Sacrilege :twisted:

venkat_r
BRFite
Posts: 292
Joined: 20 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby venkat_r » 09 Jul 2007 21:26

Fatwa against the Blasphemy :D

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 09 Jul 2007 22:15

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Source: Clicky

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

Postby JCage » 09 Jul 2007 22:17

prahaar wrote:IIRC, it was mentioned in the Su-30 MKI series on TV that initially they only had experienced pilots transferring from other squadrons/aircrafts but later they started inducting Rookies with potential directly into the MKI squadrons.


When any new type is inducted, only experienced pilots get to see it..they devise the standard operating procedures, form a pool of experienced crew and operations personnel, maintenance crew. Then when the IOC & FOC are over, when the Ops book is ready, when tactics & methods are clear, the aircraft is treated just like any other type in the AF.
Its a common fallacy made by many- as Gaurav above, that the MKIs get the "Cream" ...actually all squadrons have a mix of senior personnel and others. In this case, the difference between the RAF & IAF ops is also clear-- this is the first time, the RAF is facing the Super Flanker & they have a rare chance with the IAF visiting the UK, so they have brought out their big guns. In contrast, the IAF is intent upon learning as much as possible till the next Indradhanush, so they have picked a representative set of pilots and send them across. This was the same practise followed even in Cope India. Its all about learning! How would the IAF know how it would fare in combat, by using cherrypicked pilots, or by sending what represents a typical squadron profile, to engage in an exercise. The latter is more valuable.

Rahul Shukla
BRFite
Posts: 565
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 23:27
Location: On a roller-coaster.

Postby Rahul Shukla » 09 Jul 2007 22:22

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Rishte mein to hum typhoon ke baap lagte hain, naam hai SU30 MKI :twisted:

Source:Clicky

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

Postby JaiS » 10 Jul 2007 06:32

Indian Air Force chief heads for the UK as "Ex-Indradhanush" engages both forces

New Delhi: The Indian Air Force (IAF) chief, Air Chief Marshal, Fali Homi Major, departed on a weeklong visit to the UK on Sunday during which he will witness the ongoing joint air exercise "Indradhanush" being conducted by the two air forces.

During the visit, ACM Major will also visit RAF Valley, Wales, where Indian pilots are currently being trained on the Hawk advanced jet trainer (AJT).

During his visit he will meet his British counterpart, Air Chief Marshal, Sir Glenn Torpy, and also attend the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire.

The joint exercise marks the first time that the frontline Sukhoi Su-30 combat jets are coming up against the top-of-the-line Eurofighter Typhoon. The Eurofighter is also one of the contenders for an IAF order for 126 multi-role combat aircraft and a global tender is likely to be floated later this month.

Indradhanush
Meanwhile, the Indradhanush exercise has begun on a dramatic note for both the air forces. According to an IAF release, the operational part of the exercise began with a series of one-to-one air combat sorties.

'Both sets of pilots landed with their much-touted reputations intact as each side tested their potential in the air to their limits,' an IAF release said.

'These sorties were premised not entirely on having winners or losers - but more for their evaluator and training values as encapsulated in the objectives. Both sides ended-up sharing an enhanced respect for each other's capabilities - both in terms of training values, and combat potentials of the diverse aerial platforms,' the release added.

According to the IAF sources, while the RAF fielded some of its most-experienced and highly qualified pilots, some of them being very senior performance evaluators in active service, the IAF pilots were a mix of young to middle-level pilots.

'The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30's superior manoeuvring in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated. The IAF pilots on their part were also visibly impressed by the Typhoon's agility in the air,' the release said.

gauravjkale
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 75
Joined: 29 May 2007 15:32
Location: Mumbai

Postby gauravjkale » 10 Jul 2007 10:11

for those who got bored with MKI pics, check this link..

url

but MKI rocks...

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9822
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Postby sum » 10 Jul 2007 10:23

Hi guys,
None of the pics from any of the links are showing in my PC(damn it!!! :x )....can anyone explain why and how to remedy it??im using IE....


Return to “Military Exercises Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest