Bharat Rakshak

Originally posted by Sanjay:
A telling comment by an IAF pilot was made in the Times of India:
"We are inducting active BVRs in our force only now ... "

what does that mean? is this referring to the mirage fleet only? does he mean, we have had the ability for some time, but haven't practiced it properly (i.e. in its true sense) uptil now?

its possible that the previous practice was in the context of GCI, whilst now its more in the context of AWACS + IFR and sustained air battle instead of raids and intercepts?

a Indo-Israeli PGM deep-strike exercise would be a
nice one. say 4 M2k & 4 F16 strike escorted by
4 MKI and 4F15 Raam. with role reversals.

it can be done on pokhran range. the a/c can also
fly near the border upto 10km as per rules.

the Paks would absolutely hit the roof on that one. YY joint strike conspiracy and what not.

A telling comment by an IAF pilot was made in the Times of India:
"We are inducting active BVRs in our force only now ... "

I guess it means the R-77s have only recently been inducted, the previous BVR weapons were of SHAR not active homing.

Regarding BVR capabilities for IAF M2Ks, it might be pertinent that they are IAF's premier strike aircraft. Premier AD role is MiG29, as seen by Gaurav Chibber's dual lock on Fizzle Farce's '16s.

Besides, neither M2K nor MiG29 retain their primacy with the advent of Rambha.

Daulat - we only have SARH missiles for the M2Ks right now.
It could be that the AdA M2Ks are Mica capable and simulating such shots.

The possibility of an M2K upgrade is very real and I think the BDL/ EADS MoU might really see Micas come into Indian service.

We need to get the best results from every one of our aircraft types and as such upgrades are critical.

One of the French pilots mentioned that they appreciated working with the Indian M2Ks because the Indian M2K sqds are multirole where as the French sqdn the pilot represents is role specific. What is the role of the French sqdn? If it's strike, they are sure ready for AA engagements as well.

In an actual Indian (wartime) scenario, the M2Ks would most likely be the strikers and the Mig-29/MKI would be giving top cover. Right?

Regarding MICA on Indian M2K, it's only a matter of time. Remember that BDL just signed an agreement to manufacture a range of MBDA missiles.

IAF pilots get hands on experience with state-of-the-art techniques :
http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IEH20030213010235&Page=H&Title=Top+Stories&rLink=0

In an actual Indian (wartime) scenario, the M2Ks would most likely be the strikers and the Mig-29/MKI would be giving top cover. Right?

-
thats the story. with only 40 a/c and Jags not
being too agile , the two sqds will be heavily
overworked for deep-strike against difficult targets. the Mig29 has range
limitations...maybe on longer missions some M2ks
would just carry AAMs.

usaf likes to about 8 F15s in a 'wall of fire'
high above the strikers. these use their excellent
look-down shoot-down ability to spear foes with
Amraams from high up.

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
In an actual Indian (wartime) scenario, the M2Ks would most likely be the strikers and the Mig-29/MKI would be giving top cover. Right?

-
thats the story. with only 40 a/c and Jags not
being too agile , the two sqds will be heavily
overworked for deep-strike against difficult targets. the Mig29 has range
limitations...maybe on longer missions some M2ks
would just carry AAMs.

usaf likes to about 8 F15s in a 'wall of fire'
high above the strikers. these use their excellent
look-down shoot-down ability to spear foes with
Amraams from high up.

MKIs? Should be able to replace M2Ks, 29s and Jags.

BTW, with about 130 spanking new M2K in talks, two Qs:
1. Is the Dash five the latest and greatest? Or is it latest and greatest for export? With the 9, etc it just gets confusing.
2. Would India then have the luxury of having deticated M2Ks - strike, air sup, whatever? Or would they still be multi-role ACs?

I'm reading a lot of absurd stuff here.

Someone(preferably Vishnu Som)please answer the following queries accurately and in detail:
</font></li>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The IAF has had the Super-530D on the Mirage-2000C from day one.Matra Super-530Ds are considered BVRAAMs and have a range of 40 km and can reach Mach 4.5 in their final phase.Why is the IAF harping about 'the lack of BVR' on the Mirages?They make it sound as if they had no BVR at all!!
</font></li>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was one piece about an IAF officer saying that 'The French had an ability to intercept/lock-on twenty km away!'Does this mean that the IAF Mirages were flying without Super-530Ds at all?(Reason could be due to their short life like the Super-530F?)
</font></li>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's either the above or the article really meant that the French RDIs had a 20 km extra range advantage.
</font></li>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Were the French Mirages flying with MATRA MICA BVRAAMs or Super-530Ds?If the former,then the french would have a huge advantage since the MICA is an active homer as well as a 10-15 km+ range advantage.
</font></li>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would be absolute BS to say that the IAF Mirage pilots were 'inexperienced' at BVR.They receive exposure to BVR tactics at an early stage on the Mig-23MF.What's the real explanation?

This is the best sales pitch for the Mirage 2000-5 I have seen yet. You've got to hand it to the French...

Originally posted by Amitabh:
This is the best sales pitch for the Mirage 2000-5 I have seen yet. You've got to hand it to the French...

Well, we seem to be playing along just fine..

Niranjan,
The M2K-9 is a variant of the M2K-5 optimized for ground attack (designed for specs supplied by the UAE IIRC).

The most advanced version of the M2K is the -5 Mk2. Some Dassault folk said it was basically a Rafale crammed into a M2K frame.

Amitabh:

You're right about the sales pitch, but it's not just the French (as cy-baru has pointed out). I think this is a joint Dassault-IAF marketing exercise , apart from its legitimate training function.

by leading-edge standards the 530D is totally outdated . replacement and radar upg is a must now. Mica is the easiest to integrate. Derby is not really a BVR is it ? Even Jags could use the Mica-IR and dump the outdated 550.

Between garbled press reports, wishful thinking, and wierd unconfirmed quotes, who knows whats happening in this exercise.

Other than the fact that we're tangling in with the French Air Force, and getting hands-on refuelling practice, I'm not believing anything else.

by leading-edge standards the 530D is totally outdated

Er..no it is'nt.It's probably the deadliest SARH AAM in service today.

Question:

Has the LCA fab been set up yet ? I beleive the one for Sukhoi cost us around 150 million. Then there was also stuff for JAG, is it possible to reuse those for LCA and Mirages ?

my point was all SARHs are on way out. people are
heavily into ARHs now. that goes for Alamo too.

Astra, Mica, K77...way to go.

An offtopic question to Sanjay. Are you Sanjay Badri Maharaj who wrote for BRM? Just curious.

Originally posted by Shashank:
An offtopic question to Sanjay. Are you Sanjay Badri Maharaj who wrote for BRM? Just curious.

No personal questions on the forum. You may contact Sanjay and ask him in private.

Well shashank head Nikhil advice, but short answer to your question is YES

Harry - BTW terrific pics - I think the explanation might be somewhat more prosaic.

Because of the RDI the French can probably exploit the Super 530D to its full potential. Remember the Super 530D was designed for the RDI and our use of the thing with the RDM was an Indian requested compromise. They didn't export RDI at the time.

That is the first explanation that comes to mind.

The second is that there has been a limited upgrade of AdA Mirage 2000s with some of the avionics of the Mirage 2000-5.

Well I tried looking up which squadrons got upgrades, but haven't been succesful in doing that yet. But AdA started getting upgraded mirages since early-90's when they were touting the upgrade program to other customers.

Do we have a F-16 VS M2K info available somewhere ?

It seems my original thread really took off!!

Here are some answers to a couple of questions.

The issue is not about the IAF lacking BVR ... Most IAF pilots I spoke to mentioned that they were exposed to Western/NATO tactics in BVR for the first time. This accompanied by superior EW systems and tactics on the French Mirages ... in addition to a superior radar ensured that in certain parameters our pilots were out of their depth. For this exercise, all Mirages (ours and theirs) were configured to simulate the same weapon launches. All the jets carried training rounds of the Magic 2 (functional seeker heads). There were no R-530s mounted since the launch of the missile was simulated onboard. I was told that the French Mirages were not configured to carry the Mica ...

>>Most IAF pilots I spoke to mentioned that they were exposed to Western/NATO tactics in BVR for the first time.

Jeez Vishnu, no offense, but this is one of the reasons why BRites go berserk with the media and label it "DDM".

Could you please clarify: When you say "first time", do you mean "first time" for western tactics or "first time" for BVR??

If the first, then the repsonse is "duuhhh". These are among the first training exercises the IAf has done against any foreign airforce, and that includes the Russians!

Or do you mean the second interpretation? . . .

KGoan,

We forget that the Russian Air force is actually 'East' for the NATO chaps. 'Western' is normally taken NATO types in which context I am sure that this was one of the first exercises for fighter aircraft. Plus I cant recall any airforce sending its fighter aircraft to India for exercises.

Eitherway i think the statement holds true.

Jagan

My sentence was clear cut ... and simple ... amazed you couldn't understand it.

To clarify ... this is a thread on the IAF interacting with the French Air Force on air combat exercises in Gwalior.

There were certain parameters where the French pilots performed well against our pilots. BVR was one of them.

The reason for this has to do with different tactics and the lack of exposure of our pilots to the tactics that the French employ.

Is this clear enough?

Vishnu,

How long is the excercise and did you hear any news of follow ups in France or other places?

BTW I'm jealous. I just reached home after a long day fighting software bugs. Would you like to switch jobs?

Originally posted by Vishnu Som:
There were certain parameters where the French pilots performed well against our pilots. BVR was one of them.

The reason for this has to do with different tactics and the lack of exposure of our pilots to the tactics that the French employ.

This is directed to all here.

The outcome of the exercise is not relevant at all. Had this not been the case, then the USAF would have been touted as the worst airforce in the history of mankind. So please stop making any deductions whatsoever. And leave the DDM to the mercy of their own super analysis.

Vishnu, thanks.

Jagan, neither can I, although I'm not in your league on the IAF.

BTW, far as I understand it, it was the IAf that used to refuse such stuff, not that the West were unwilling - although I may have that wrong.

When you say "first time", do you mean "first time" for western tactics or "first time" for BVR??

KG: I assume he means the former. IOW, IAF has practised BVR tactics before, but never in these circumstances, i.e. against Western pilots using Western tactics and eqpt. Do you agree?

Mohan,

That's my understanding from Vishnu's last post.

A question to the gurus: Do these exercises give more grist to the "aircraft are better used as pure weapons platforms and not as weapons themselves"?

Vishnu, from your very first post starting this thread, when you say "strike package" what do you mean ? how many aircraft and what types ?

R Sukumar ...

The exercises have involved a variety of aircraft in the IAF inventory in the ground attack role ...

I was witness to two missions taking off day before yesterday ... These involved the following:

* 2 French Air Force Mirage aggressor aircraft.
* Two IAF Jaguars in ground attack
* Two IAF Mirages flying top-cover for the Jags.

In the other mission:

* 2 IAF Mirage aggressors
* 2 MiG-27s in ground attack
* 2 French Mirages defending the 27s.

* IAF and French AF pilots have also flown rear-seat on each others Mirage op-trainers.
* IAF pilots have been in the rear seat of the French Mirage for refuelling ops ... while IAF Mirages witnessed the refuelling at close range.
* French Air Force pilots have also flown in MiG-23 and MiG 21 trainers.

Vishnu

Vishnu, this might be a nit to pick, but I wouldnt call those two aircraft pairs a strike package.

From what you wrote it looks like the Jags were not bounced and did hit the target - which is a good sign.

Did the 27s make it to the target and egress successfully ?

Hmmm, interesting points Sukumar ...

Not sure of the results of either of the missions ... but don't two ground attack jets on a strike mission constitute a "strike package?"

As for the Jags ... yes, it did seem they managed to strike ... but since the results of BVR engagements were not corroborated in the air ... the Jags may have been allowed to proceed with their mission.

I did speak to the IAF Squadron Leader who flew the mission ... he said that he and the French had launched ... almost simultaneously ... but it takes hours for a kill to be confirmed ... before a debrief takes place.

Originally posted by Vishnu Som:

Vishnu,

Just a process check. Is it OK to reveal the information you are revealing on this board from a security clearance point of view? The last thing I would want is for you to get into trouble, or lose your future access to such events, for revealing supposedly confidential information.