Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 14 Dec 2009 14:06

INDIAN AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS –DELHI

The chief of air staff at the master status display as each of the flankers took off and turned south east towards Port Blair beating their own record of 3 minutes per aircraft by a clear 30 seconds each . The box lunch was served and consisted of fresly done Magi noodles with some large chicken pieces and a can of chilled Pepsi . But he was too preoccupied to have lunch and pushed it aside as he started instructed his command level officers onec again without break

- establish a direct link to both once they are in area – tell them to us volume not area in all engagements –we must use all the advantages of home turf and that means availability of ground air defense support and fuel advantage –no flanker should engage in hero giri –no dog fight style engagement till the strike flight reaches within bomb release range –make that clear to all pilots now
- what is the status of Lightings
- sir they have just finished fuelling
- ok that’s nice =tell them to get them off their fat ass asap –the whole battle outcome will depend on we having more assets in the region than the enemy
- any civilian flight in or out of port blair
- no sir not to our knowledge
- what about international flight which use the high altitude air corridor over car nic
- checking sir
- you should have done that 30 minutes back –do it now
- issue immediate NOTAM to all civilian flights that air space over andamans is closed to all civilian and military traffic as of now – divert all flights over sri lanka
- what we have on ground in port blair
- sir two Tu 142 and some Mi 17 s with half a dozen Dornier
- get them dispersed
- get the mobile ATC on line now –shut down all emission from main ATC

The instructions came in a continiuos stream like out of a ZSU 23 6 cannon without pause and the staff officers were all sweating as they communicated the orders to field commanders .


The Russian paradigm of BVR combat has its origins in the Cold War period, when Soviet operational analysis indicated that the low kill probability of missile seekers and airframes, especially if degraded by countermeasures, would be a major impediment to success. By the 1970s the standard Soviet technique in a BVR missile launch was to salvo two rounds, a semi-active radar homing weapon and a heatseeking weapon. To this effect some Soviet fighters even included a weapons select mode which automatically sequenced the launch of two rounds for optimal separation.

The mathematics of multiple round missile engagements are unambiguous - the size of a missile salvo launched is a stronger driver of success than the actual kill probability of the individual missiles. If the missiles are wholly identical by type, then the following curves may be optimistic, insofar as a factor degrading the kill probability of one missile is apt to have a similar effect on its siblings in a salvo. However, where the missiles differ by seeker type and guidance control laws, then the assumption of statistically independent missile shots is very much stronger. A question often asked is why are Sukhoi Flanker variants equipped to carry between eight and twelve BVR missiles? The answer is a simple one - so they can fire more than one three or four round BVR missile salvo during the opening phases of an engagement. In this fashion the aircraft being targeted has a difficult problem as it must jam, decoy and/or outmanoeuvre three or four tightly spaced inbound missiles. Even if we assume a mediocre per round kill probability of 30 percent, a four round salvo still exceeds a total kill probability of 75 percent.
competent Flanker driver gets the first shot with three or four round salvo of long burn R-27 variants, with mixed seekers, leaving one or two remaining salvoes of BVR missiles on his rails, and the same Flanker driver will have modern DRFM monopulse jammers capable of causing likely much more than a 50 percent degradation of AIM-120 kill probability. With a thrust vectoring engine capability (TVC), the Flanker driver has the option of making himself into a very difficult endgame target for the AIM-120 regardless of the capability of his jamming equipment. Since all of the AIM-120s fired are identical in kinematic performance and seeker jam resistance, any measure applied by the Flanker driver which is effective against one AIM-120 round in the salvo is apt to produce the same effect against all AIM-120 rounds - a problem the Flanker driver does not have due to diversity in seeker types and missile kinematics. In electronic warfare terms neither side has a decisive advantage, but the Flanker does have a decisive advantage in aircraft and missile kinematics and in having up to six times the payload of BVR missiles to expend. The simple conclusion to be drawn is that operators of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF should make every effort to avoid Beyond Visual Range combat with late model Flankers, as the best case outcome is parity in exchange rates, and the worst case outcome a decisive exchange ratio advantage to the Flanker. Given the evident design choices the Russians have made, this is not an accident, but rather a consequence of well thought through operational analysis of capabilities and limitations of contemporary BVR weapon systems.


Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Bala Vignesh » 15 Dec 2009 22:31

awesome build up dada.. its shaping to be an awesome combat in the air..

Karmasura
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 21 Aug 2009 07:26
Location: Miami
Contact:

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Karmasura » 15 Dec 2009 23:50

Interesting info about BVR combat choices by the Russkies...

Forgive the naivete... but I have one question. If the KS-172 has a longer range than the R-XX series of missiles, why is it not used in BVR combat? Is it because of size and maneuverability issues (I assume that size and lack of maneuverability is directly proportional to range)??

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 16 Dec 2009 13:38

DRAGON FIRE FLIGHT -20XSU-30 MKK-MISCHIEF REEF-1935 HRS

Patrick Chan was a little nervous .He looked at the multifunctional display and frowned .The fuel consumption was about 18% more than normal and that can be due to to reasons .One the strong head wind he was facing at around 40 kmph as he skirted the Thai airspace at 3000 meters regulation altitude .He knew by now his presence was noted by Thai air defense as well as Bankok ATC but since his transponder was sqwaking the correct military frequency and he was in international air spec –no one has actually challenged his flight.

The protective flight of 26 odd Su 30 MKK was much up and about 100 Km ahead of him and he could see the radar signature clearly . According the flight computer he was 105 minutes from target and the any opposition from the Indians should have started by now . So far his flight has not been even painted by enemy awacs.He knew things are likely to change any moment.

Leaning forward he eased back on the power lever a notch –slowing down the flanker by about 35 kmph to 850 kmph the most optimum cruise speed ,then he set a lower altitude on the panle reducing altitude to 2500 meters .He intended to maintain this altitude till entering the active air defense zone around Andaman islands .

His weapon load included anti radiation KH 31 anti radiation missiles ,FAB 250 in triple racks ,on inner wing pylons and wing tip mounted a pair of R-73 missiles for a close in combat which he he will not have to use .His objective was simple – take out the radar chain around port blair with KH31 and follow up with a straight bombing run on the port blair port and airport .If the situation permits a a part of his flight will divert to Car Nicobar airbase for a direct missile strike on the Runway and Gas tanks .But he knew this will be more difficult task since the presence of Indian flankers in the area .

Unknown to him or for that matter any one in the PLAN a microchip the size of large pinhead installed in the engine control computer have already started working its role .It received the data from aircraft GPS signal in a wireless mode and activated the auxiliary fuel control valve actuator ,increasing the flow of fuel to both engines by about 20% .Most of the extra fuel just got dumped in the exhaust and released in the contrail un burnt –coloring a light shade of grey from snow white as in a good engine .

Russians never trusted the PLAN fully –so this was there way of ensuring the playing field in any combat in the Indian Ocean region or in the Himalayas will never be level.

Nett result on their way back the PLAN flankers will be very low on fuel and will need to refuel much further from home shore –throwing some interesting options for IN planners in north block.

Normally the Kh-31 is carried by the MiG-29 Fulcrum or Su-27 Flanker fighters, including the SU-35 and SU-31 (see above). The Kh-31 is currently being offered for export equipped with either an active or passive RF seeker. The Kh-31 has also appeared under the MiG-31 in an anti-air role, using the passive R/F seeker to home in on U.S. radar planes such as the E-2 Hawkeye or E-3 Sentry. Other possible customers for the Kh-31 include India, Syria, Libya, Iran and China.

The Russian term for general-purpose bomb is fugasnaya aviatsionnaya bomba, abbreviated FAB and followed by the bomb's nominal weight in kilograms. Most Russian iron bombs have circular ring airfoils rather than the fins used by Western types.
In 1946 the Soviet Union developed a series of freefall bombs in four sizes 250 kg (550 lb), 500 kg (1,100 lb), 1,500 kg (3,300 lb), and 3,000 kg (6,600 lb) and sharing a single nose and a single tail fuze. The bomb could be dropped from up to 12,000 m (40,000 ft) and up to 1,000 km/h (625 mph). The original, 1946-series bombs had poor ballistic characteristics at supersonic speed, and their construction was fragile. As an interim measure, upgraded versions of the bombs were built with thicker walls and no nose fuze. The thick-walled version of the bombs were built until 1956.
The 1954 series of high-drag bombs was built in six sizes: 250 kg (550 lb), 500 kg (1,100 lb), 1500 kg (3,300 lb), 3,000 kg (6,600 lb), 5,000 kg (11,000 lb), and 9,000 kg (20,000 lb). The smaller (less than 3,000 kg) bombs had a single nose and a single tail fuze, while the larger weapons shared a single nose fuze and two base fuzes. The FAB-9000 (9,000 kg / 20,000 lb) weapon was roughly comparable to the wartime Grand Slam bomb. Its use in the postwar era was apparently never seriously contemplated, but it was used by Russian aircraft designers as a substitute for early nuclear weapons when determining the size and clearances of bomb bays.
In 1962 a new series of streamlined, low-drag bombs was introduced, designed for external carriage by fighter-bomber aircraft rather than in internal bays. They come in only two sizes, 250 kg (550 lb) and 500 kg (1,100 lb). Both bombs have a single nose fuze.
Both the 54 and 62 series designs remain in use. The most common of these are the FAB-100, FAB-250, FAB-500, FAB-750, and FAB-1000, roughly corresponding to the U.S. Mark 80 series. These have seen widespread service in Russia, Warsaw Pact nations, and various export countries.
Larger bombs with less streamlined shapes also remained in the Soviet arsenal,

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 16 Dec 2009 13:58

IAF STATION LOHEGAON -1740 HRS –LIGHTING FLIGHT -24XSU-30 MKI MK 3

Wing commander Pramod looked the new missiles .It has never been used in combat anywhere in the world and developed exclusively bu Russia for IAF .Seriously upgraded version of veteran R-77 and R-73 for a casual observer will appear same .But he knew the deadly accuracy of this upgraded missiles when he tested it it in simulated BVR launches at a target drones in a super secret weapon test range near Jhansi.
His flight will be responsible for the massive counter air strike once the enemy crosses into Indian air space over Andamans . Loaded with 6 of the newer version of missiles along with equal number of R-73 yet to be named variant –they will be the wall between the PLAN and Fortress Andaman .He knew many of his team mates may not come back but he also knew no one will be allowed to violate Indian air territory ever again.
Russia's leading guided-weapons manufacturer will wheel out revised--if long- touted--versions of its two key air-to-air missile products this month, as it tries to bolster its position in the export arena.

It was time to climb up and get into action .The Rhino guys will sure need their help and need that quickly once the shooting war starts.
As he strapped him self in the first of his team mates were already taxing out in to tarmac .They will mimic the flight path of the Rhinos till Khammam and then spread out in a north easterly direction -making a big mobile air defense screen over the entire Andaman chain aided by the AWACS already moving into position .

Tactical Missile Corp.--also known as TRV--will formally unveil its so-called RVV-SD and RVV-MD missiles for the first time at the Moscow air show later this month. The RVV-SD is an improved version of the R-77 (AA-Adder), while the RVV-MD is a variant of the R-73 (AA-11 Archer).
The radar-guided R-77 has been sold widely, with China and India placing significant orders for the weapon, as was the case for the R-73. The baseline R-77 was designed in the 1980s, with development complete by around 1994. India was the first export customer for the export variant, known as the RVV AE, with the final batch delivered in 2002.
A problem for the company was the lack of adequate funding during the 1990s and the first part of this decade to support further evolution of the R-77, either for the Russian air force or the export market. The basic version of the R-77 is not thought to have entered the Russian air force inventory in significant numbers.
Meanwhile, Western suppliers have been pushing into some traditionally Russian markets--while major customers such as India and China have been pursuing their own missile programs such as the Astra and the PL-12, respectively.
The RVV-SD and RVV-MD already appear to be part of Russia's bid for India's medium multirole combat aircraft competition. Both designations were included by MiG on a presentation covering MiG-35 Fulcrum armament during Air Show India in February.
The basic R-77 is known as the Article 170, and the RVV-SD includes the upgrades associated with the Article 170-1 designation. The 170-1 development has been underway for some time, and testing is believed to have been carried out. The RVV-SD is in effect the export variant of the 170-1.
According to information released by the company, the missile is 15 kg. (33 lb.) heavier than the basic R-77/RVV AE, weighing 190 kg. rather than 175 kg. Maximum range claimed is increased to 110 from 80 km. (68 from 50 mi.). The missile is also slightly longer at 3.71 meters (12 ft.), rather than the 3.6 meters of the basic variant.
The radar seeker has also probably been upgraded. Russian missile manufacturer Agat previously confirmed it was working on seeker upgrades for the R-77, implying that at least two projects were underway, one for export and one for the Russian air force.
Vympel--which originally designed the R-77, and is now part of TRV--is also working on a more extensive upgrade of the missile than the 170-1. This project is designated the Article 180, and is in effect a mid-life upgrade for the weapon. This is intended to provide a further improvement in range, with the design including a dual-pulse motor configuration. Moving from the R-77's signature lattice fin configuration to a conventional fin is also part of this program.

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 16 Dec 2009 14:03

The Soviet FA-VVS or tactical air forces were tasked with providing air support for Soviet land force formations, and protecting them from hostile air attack. Most of the guided missiles developed by the Soviets during the Cold War were developed for Frontal Aviation forces.

In perspective, what is most apparent about Soviet tactical ASM development during this period is the split focus between precision guided missiles intended to bust fortifications and opposing ground forces, and anti-radiation missiles intended to bust NATO air defences. These two categories are the most strongly represented.

The technological strategy pursued by the Soviets varies widely. Some weapons are unique Soviet designs, adapted or evolved from other designs, some are unique original, and some like the Kh-58 can only be described as copies of Western equivalents.

Contemporary Russian tactical ASMs reflect this heritage, and most use the airframe and propulsion systems of their Soviet predecessors, albeit with incremental technological improvements reflecting two decades of elapsed time. More interesting has been the infusion of digital technology into missile guidance systems, and increasingly, replacement of Soviet era electro-optical and radar technologies in seekers.

Many weapons are unique, such as the impressive Kh-31 / AS-17 Krypton, which has evolved into multiple roles. Similar evolution has been seen with the Kh-59M / AS-18 Kazoo, and Kh-25M / AS-10 Karen.
The Soviet military industrial complex was scattered across virtually all republics which had a well developed industrial base, and many which did not. Key manuafacturers of missile components, especially guidance systems and subsystems, were located across the RSFSR (Russia), the Ukraine and Belarus. After the fall of the Soviet Union, this collaboration continued by necessity. A major upheaval developed in 2004 when the Ukraine split away and was effectively embargoed by the Russians, resulting in the loss of key capabilities in both design and manufacture, which were located in the Ukraine.

Many are being reconstituted in Russia, for instance Geofizika is re-establishing production of infrared missile seeker technology previously manufactured by Arsenal in the Ukraine, who are now effectively bankrupt as Russia is no longer purchasing their seekers for use in AA-11 Archer missile production.

In tactical guided weapons the principal impact was produced by the loss of the Lviv based Tekon/Elektron, which designed and manufactured the Tubus-2 series stabilised television seekers used in the Kh-29TE / AS-14 Kedge, Kh-59 Ovod / AS-13 Kingbolt, Kh-59M Ovod M / AS-18 Kazoo and key components of the associated APK-9E datalink pod. It is not clear whether the Russians will attempt to reconstitute this capability, or develop entirely new replacement products. In this respect the global transition from thermionic imagers to CCDs may well dictate new designs, but none have been reported as yet. Belorussia's Peleng is offering a replacement TV seeker design.



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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 16 Dec 2009 15:29

LIGHTNING FLIGHT -24XSU-30 MKI MK3 -72 KM NORTH EAST OF HYDERABAD – 1815HRS

Wing commander Pramod knew –why they have been selected or rather assigned by the air chief for the main counter air operation at long range over the bay of Bengal.Apart from the newer generation missiles which got inducted when aspurious report was generated by IAf that most of the old R-77/73 need replacement .After the standard reaction from press and opposition many of whom knew the real story the new upgraded missiles were inducted quietly along with what very few knew the latest Irbis-E radars
Giving the flankers of Lightning squadron a formidable edge over the PLAN counter parts .He knew he has the privilege of first time using it in combat.

With the new Irbis E radar his flankers will shoot and scoot much before the PLAN SU-30 MKK can even be aware of they have been shot and even if the A-50 s accompanying the Su 30mkk manage to detect at extreme range (highly unlikely) the R-77 version they were carrying simply cannot lock in at that range .He ofcourse will have to fly the thin red line between total surprise and success against detection and a traditional dog fight very carefully .



Pulse Doppler radars remain the primary long range sensors used by fighter aircraft for BVR combat. This is for several good reasons. Infrared sensors cannot penetrate cloud or other atmospheric propagation impairments as well as X-band microwaves can. Radar, conversely, can penetrate most weather conditions and impairments from the stratosphere down to the lowest layers of the troposphere. Effective range is another consideration, as radar performance is limited by the pulsed power-aperture product of the design, which in the current state of the art permits X-band fighter radars to acquire larger targets at distances in excess of 200 nautical miles (~400 km). Radars are also capable of rapidly divining the velocity, direction, altitude and often identity of targets, which can be problematic for passive sensors operating in the optical bands. Radars typically also double up as X-band datalink transmitters for long range missiles, an important factor in achieving high kill probabilities in BVR combat, where the time of flight of the missile would otherwise create opportunities for a target to move outside of the No Escape Zone (NEZ) of a BVR missile seeker. For the forseeable future radars will remain the primary tool for the acquisition, tracking, and engagement of targets in the BVR air combat game.

The design parameters of most interest to analysts and competing radar designers in this area are those which determine the ultimate limits on the detection range of the radar against representative airborne target types at long ranges. These are all contained in the most basic forms of the radar range equation, and the physics of radar performance it describes.
The BARS is the most advanced radar developed by Russian industry during the 1990s. It is unusual in being designed with a hybrid array arrangement, the receive path using very similar technology to US and EU AESAs, with similar sensitivity and sidelobe performance, but using a Travelling Wave Tube and backplane waveguide feed for the transmit direction, a technology closest to the B-1B and early Rafale EA radars. As such the BARS is a transitional design sitting in between Passive ESAs (PESA) and contemporary AESAs. There is no doubt this design strategy reflected the unavailability to Russian designers of the Gallium Arsenide power transistors used in Western AESAs.

The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybrid phased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering a noise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. The antenna is constructed using phase shifter and receiver 'stick' modules, a similar technology to early US AESAs.

Three receiver channels are used, one presumably for sidelobe blanking and ECCM. The EGSP-6A transmitter uses a single Chelnok Travelling Wave Tube, available in variants with peak power ratings between 4 and 7 kiloWatts, and CW illumination at 1 kW. Cited detection range for a closing target (High PRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI. The phased array can electronically steer the mainlobe through +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. The whole array can be further steered mechanically. Polarisation can be switched by 90 degrees for surface search modes.

The BARS remains in production for the Indian and Malaysian Irkut built Su-30MKI/MKM variants. The radar is available with a range of TWT power ratings, this being the source of considerable confusion to observers who have not tracked this program since its inception. The result is a wide range of performance figures depending on the resulting Power Aperture Product. That the antenna has good power handling capability is evident in its adaptation for the Irbis E design.

Given the similarity between the Irbis E and BARS, existing BARS operators will over time effect block upgrades to convert their BARS inventories into the Irbis E configuration.
The follow on to the BARS is the new Irbis-E (Snow Leopard) hybrid phased array, in development since 2004 and planned for the Su-35BM block upgrade, and as a block upgrade or new build radar for other Flanker variants, such as the Su-35-1. It will enter production before the end of this decade.
The Irbis-E is a direct evolution of the BARS design, but significantly more powerful. While the hybrid phased array antenna is retained, the noise figure is slightly worse at 3.5 dB, but the receiver has four rather than three discrete channels. The biggest change is in the EGSP-27 transmitter, where the single 7 kiloWatt peak power rated Chelnok TWT is replaced with a pair of 10 kiloWatt peak power rated Chelnok tubes, ganged to provide a total peak power rating of 20 kiloWatts. The radar is cited at an average power rating of 5 kiloWatts, with 2 kiloWatts CW rating for illumination. NIIP claim twice the bandwidth and improved frequency agility over the BARS, and better ECCM capability. The Irbis-E has new Solo-35.01 digital signal processor hardware and Solo-35.02 data processor, but retains receiver hardware, the master oscillator and exciter of the BARS. A prototype has been in flight test since late 2005.

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 16 Dec 2009 16:48

IAF STATION CAR NICOBAR –COBRA FLIGHT – 14XSU 30 MKI MK 3

Group captain Vinod waited impatiently for the take off clearance –behind him stretched the long line of 13 more latest flanker variant all equipped with Irbis E radar and atleast 2 KH 31 P long range anti radiation missiles and 4 standard R-77 missiles apart from 4 R-73 in dual launch rail pylons .

His flight will be first to intercept the PLAN flankers far out over the Andaman sea as they clear the Thai air space and approach the Andaman air defense identification zone .Flying radar silent they will approach head on going supersonic at the time of missile launch and actually launching the first salvo of R-77 at maximum range to lure the PLAN fighters switch on their jammers and then quickly following up with the anti radiation missile shots at the aircraft carrying jammers still out of range of the PALN R-77 s which have some what shorter engagement zone and no escape zone

The R-73 were for extreme emergency only –the specific instruction from air chief was very clear – no close combat –shoot and scoot is to be the ground rule for this air battle .

Currently classified capabilities such as the use of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar as an X-band high power jammer against the Russian BARS or Irbis E radar are not a panacea, and may actually hasten the demise of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF in a BVR shootout. This is for the simple reason that to jam the Russian radar, the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar must jam the frequencies being used by the Russian radar, and this then turns the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar into a wholly electronically predictable X-band high power beacon for an anti-radiation seeker equipped Russian BVR missile such as the R-27EP or R-77P. The act of jamming the Russian radar effectively surrenders the frequency hopping agility in the emissions of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar, denying it the only defense it has against the anti-radiation missile. A smart Russian radar software designer will include a "seduction mode" to this effect, with narrowband emissions to make it very easy even for an early model 9B-1032 anti-radiation seeker.
The flipside of the electronic combat game is no better. The F-14A/B/D included the AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track set which allowed a target to be tracked despite hostile jamming of the AWG-9/APG-71 radar. It is clear that the addition of the podded AAS-42 to the Super Hornet and "air to air" use of the JSF EOTS are intended for much the same purpose. While this may permit the continuing use of the AESA radar to datalink midcourse guidance commands to the AIM-120s, it does nothing to deny the Flanker its own BVR shot. The notion that the defensive jamming equipment and infrared decoys will be highly effective against late model Russian digital missile seekers can only be regarded to be optimistic.

In electronic warfare terms neither side has a decisive advantage, but the Flanker does have a decisive advantage in aircraft and missile kinematics and in having up to six times the payload of BVR missiles to expend. The simple conclusion to be drawn is that operators of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF should make every effort to avoid Beyond Visual Range combat with late model Flankers, as the best case outcome is parity in exchange rates, and the worst case outcome a decisive exchange ratio advantage to the Flanker. Given the evident design choices the Russians have made, this is not an accident, but rather a consequence of well thought through operational analysis of capabilities and limitations of contemporary BVR weapon systems.

Klaus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2168
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 12:28
Location: Cicero Avenue

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Klaus » 17 Dec 2009 11:23

Hello BRFites,

I am a newbie here, just about 1 week old. This forum is really top-class. Hope our strategic policy makers take some lessons from these scenarios.

Btw, does Vivek Ahuja sirs battle in Bhutan indicate a Chinese annexation of Bhutan? Why dont we do the same before it is too late, it might go a long way in alleviating the Chicken's Neck scenario? The King could retain his position as a honorary one and they could be granted statehood, the RBA will be incorporated into the IA. Same could go for Nepal as well, however it has become slightly more complicated of late!
Regards,
Klaus/Girish

bksahu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 17 Dec 2009 14:37
Location: Lost in the sun

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby bksahu » 17 Dec 2009 14:42

Hi All,

I am a newbee here.I am following the BRF from last 1 year.Excellent posts by Shankarda and Vivek Ahuja Sir.
But no more posts from Ahuja sir.........Where is he gone?????
:((

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 17 Dec 2009 18:27

INDIAN AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS –DELHI


The chief of air staff as the magenta dots representing flankers on ground changed one by one two blue .The complete tactical picture on real time basis was still not available mainly because the incoming PLAN flankers on the first wave was flying in low(most likely radar off mose) and still out of detection range of the pair of Phalcons orbiting 100 km south east of Port Blair .But he expected the the situation to change in les than 15 minutes unless the PLAN flankers have slowed down considerably or changed flight path due south –which he thought unlikely .

- please set up open links to both Phalcon air battle commanders –I want to hear every god damned conversation that goes in –also make sure the data links and radio intercepts from our sat birds are coming in nice and smooth –any goof up and I will make sure you will spend the rest of working life on ground duty in Mizoram and Nagaland –thundered the chief of Indian Air Force.
-
The he laid back and thought for a while on the latest modifications to the Indian R-73 and R-77/27 missiles by the manufacturers at an undisclosed price and known only to a hand full of personnel in IAF –and it was intended to be kept that way for the next 10 years atlas

He knew if correctly deployed the advanced Russian seeker will take an un heard of toll on incoming bandits but for that to happen everyone will have to work in perfect concert and discipline .He intended to ensure it was kept that way all through the long air battle forming up over the bay of Bengal

The achievable kill probability of any missile depends on its kinematic performance, especially during the endgame phase of flight, against the intended target, and the performance of its seeker and fusing subsystems, especially in a countermeasures environment.

U
ntil the 1980s Soviet missile technology lagged the West in propellants, airframe designs, and guidance designs. That changed with the deployment of the R-27 and R-73 missiles during the 1980s, as these competed on a equal footing, or outperformed their Western equivalents. In kinematic terms, the WVR R-73 series, and the BVR R-27 and R-77 are highly competitive against their Western equivalents, and the long burn variants of the R-27 outperform all Western solid propellant competitors.

The next evolutionary step for Vympel is the production of the air breathing ramjet RVV-AE-PD design, displayed since the 1990s at numerous trade shows. This missile spurred the development of the Meteor for the Eurofighter Typhoon. The attraction of ramjet BVR AAMs lies in their ability to sustain thrust and thus turning performance in the endgame phase of an engagement, where conventional soild rocket missiles are flying on inertia alone and rapidly lose speed when turning. It is worth noting that the high lethality of late generation WVR missiles like the Python 4/5 is in a large part due to the missile's ability to sustain ~100G class load factors during the endgame manoeuvre, precisely the regime in which most BVR missiles fail to kill their targets.

Range extension options for the baseline R-77 include booster packs, discussed in Russian literature, or larger diameter rocket motors containing a larger propellant load, the latter proposed some years ago for R-77-ZRK surface to air derivative of this missile.

In terms of kinematic performance, a key factor which is almost universally ignored by Western planners other than the F-22 and F-111 communities, is the impact of the launch aircraft's kinematics at the point of missile launch. A supersonic Su-35 sitting at Mach 1.5 and 45,000 ft will add of the order of 30 percent more range to an R-27 or R-77 missile. Low performance fighters like the F/A-18E/F and F-35 JSF simply do not have this option in the real world, and the reach of their missiles is wholly determined by the parameters of the propellant load inside the missile casing, and the ability of the midcourse guidance algorithms to extract every bit of range from that stored energy. The result of this is that an AIM-120C/D which might look better on paper compared to an equivalent R-77 subtype will be outranged decisively in actual combat.

Russian seeker technology has advanced in strides since the early 1990s, largely as a result of the commodification of Gallium Arsenide monolithic chips and digital signal processing chips in the globalised world market. Agat, which manufactures the 9B-1101K semi-active radar seeker for the R-27EP/P, the 9B-1103K active seeker for the R-27EA/A, and the 9B-1348E seeker family for the R-77 missile family, publicly disclosed some years ago the use of the Texas Instruments TMS-320 series digital signal processing chip in a late model 'digital' variant of the 9B-1103K seeker. This chip is a mainstay of Western military radar design.

The move away from analogue and hardwired digital seekers to software programmable digital seekers is an important milestone for the Russian industry, since it opens up many choices in signal processing and counter-countermeasures techniques hitherto only used by US, EU and Israeli manufacturers. In practical terms a later model digital variant of the 9B-1103K or 9B-1348E will be no less difficult to defeat by jamming than Western equivalent active seekers [

The monopulse slotted planar array antenna technology used in the 9B-1103K and 9B-1348E seekers compares closely to the antenna technology seen since the AIM-120A was deployed, and due to its dual plane monopulse design provides good resistance to a range of legacy jamming techniques.

Russian concern about Western countermeasures is reflected in a propensity since the 1980s to use dual plane monopulse seeker designs, and even the baseline Agat 9B-1101K semi-active homing seeker in the R-27R/ER variants is a classical monopulse design, built for high jam resistance (refer photos).

The infrared homing seeker technology used in Russian BVR missiles has also evolved considerably since the Cold War. Early R-27 Alamo variants used the legacy Geofizika 36T seeker. There are claims that more recent variants use the far more agile Arsenal Central Design Bureau Mayak/MK-80M seeker series, developed for the R-73M Adder WVR missile, and since then announced by Vympel as the seeker for the initial heatseeking variants of the R-77 Adder. The R-73 series WVR missiles have evolved, to the extent that the 'digital' K-74E variant is a highly competitive scanning two colour design, inherently resistant to many flares and with the counter-countermeasures flexibility inherent in software programmable guidance systems. Given the established pattern of migrating extant WVR missile seekers into BVR missiles, it is a safe prediction that late build heatseeking R-27ET/Ts and early build heatseeking R-77Ts are likely to use late build derivatives of the Arsenal MK-80M series, such as the MM2000 subtype.

It is well known that Russian industry is working on a Focal Plane Array (FPA) seeker for their future WVR missiles, to compete against the ASRAAM, AIM-9X, Iris-T and Python 5 seekers, adding further infrared counter-countermeasures capabilities. The open question is whether the future Russian FPA seeker will match the midwave Indium Antimonide detector array technology in the Raytheon 256x256 device in the ASRAAM/AIM-9X, or whether the Russians will leapfrog a generation and opt for much more capable QWIP (Quantum Well Imaging Photodetector) technology pioneered by Germany's industry during the late 1990s.

There is considerable Russian scientific literature available on QWIPs, which allow a single chip to concurrently image targets in two infrared colour bands, and permit tailored infrared colour sensitivity absent in bandgap detector technology such as the legacy InSb designs used in ASRAAM and AIM-9X seekers. With the exception of the now retired F-117A, and the remaining B-2A, infrared emissions are a major signature issue for low observable fighters. While the low observable technology used is generally good against the upper radar bands, it is less so against high performance lower band infrared sensors. A QWIP based missile seeker operating in the LWIR bands (8-12 micron and 15 micron) has the potential to be quite effective, if the midcourse guidance scheme can get the BVR missile close enough to acquire the target.

Details of the Avtomatika 9B-1032 passive X-band RF anti-radiation seeker remain classified at this time, and even the antenna configuration has not been disclosed to date. This remains a unique capability in the R-27EP/P Alamo and R-77P Adder. What is clear is that the drive to digitise all Russian AAM seekers will be reflected also in anti-radiation seekers. It is known that the PLA has funded Russian development of new passive seeker technology for this application.

Fusing technology in use includes radio-frequency proximity fuses and in more recent designs, active laser proximity fuses.
What is unclear from Russian literature at this time is whether there is an intent to expand the range of seeker technologies to increase kill probabilities in countermeasures intensive environments, and against low observable targets. Other than incremental development of extant seekers, there are options in the upper millimetric wave bands, and in LIDAR/LADAR (laser radar) technologies. While these may suffer similar weather penetration limitations to passive infrared sensors, this is often irrelevant in high altitude BVR combat above the tropopause. There are no fundamental technological reasons why extant microwave band radar seekers and laser homing seekers cannot be evolved to provide additional millimetric band and laser based seekers, respectively.




Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3469
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Chandragupta » 17 Dec 2009 19:53

Shankar ji, give it all in one go!! Getting tough to wait now :lol:

Sudhanshu
BRFite
Posts: 307
Joined: 14 Feb 2006 22:15
Location: USA

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Sudhanshu » 17 Dec 2009 21:13

Hey Shankar just a suggestion (which can be easily ignored)

Just like our own hero Air chief, It would be great if you could develop a character on Chinese side too, someone who might be great tactician etc. (You know what I am trying to say here).

In all fairness, we all know Chinese army/Air force nothing less than their Indian counter part in context of professionalism only we differ in psychology and thought process.

Mayuresh
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 16:01

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Mayuresh » 17 Dec 2009 21:17

Awesome scenario Shankarji!

Shankar wrote:Unknown to him or for that matter any one in the PLAN a microchip the size of large pinhead installed in the engine control computer have already started working its role .It received the data from aircraft GPS signal in a wireless mode and activated the auxiliary fuel control valve actuator ,increasing the flow of fuel to both engines by about 20% .Most of the extra fuel just got dumped in the exhaust and released in the contrail un burnt –coloring a light shade of grey from snow white as in a good engine .

Russians never trusted the PLAN fully –so this was there way of ensuring the playing field in any combat in the Indian Ocean region or in the Himalayas will never be level.

This sounds slightly far-fetched - Just my opinion, pls do not change the scenario based on it

bksahu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 17 Dec 2009 14:37
Location: Lost in the sun

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby bksahu » 17 Dec 2009 22:21

I second with sudhanshu bhai.......Shankar da, a similar officer with commies side will give the scenario a interesting edge... its just my humble opinion....anyways tereffic buildup......please post the next part soon...cant wait for that.....

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54548
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby ramana » 18 Dec 2009 09:50

Shankarji, You know how the Brits use psy-ops? They always paint a noble enemy who's fault is being with the enemyside. Considering that your stories are about the only psy-ops we everr will have form Indian side, please consider these requests if it fits the scenario.

Also can you or others scare up a scenario based on Yudh Abhyas and Zardari troubles and gradual jihadification of TSPA?

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 18 Dec 2009 13:12

PLAN HEADQUARTERS –BEIJING –PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA -1600 HRS

Admiral Li shao Chi was visibly worried . He wanted to make this strike mission a spectacular success but was not at all sure of Indian air defense tactics or the true capability of IAF flankers particularly how good they are evading incoming missiles and with their thrust vectoring ability the so called ability to turn on a dime without loosing altitude .

His biggest worry was deciding on a no escape kill envelope in this situation .He did not trust the Russian leaflets one bit and also PLAAF intelligence have indicated some of the IAF flankers may be equipped with Irbis E or even better radars and upgraded missiles which the Russians never even talked with the Chinese counterparts .

And it was also obvious IAF will target the low flying flankers loaded for ground strike first ,once they are gone turn the whole strength on the escorts which will then turn into a pointless war of attrition where IAF have a decisive advantage being closer to home base and air tanking support and consequently can stay on air indefinitely using both area as well as altitude to evade and attack the PLAN escorts with BVR only and close in for the kill only when PLAN flankers are short of fuel. IAF will undoubtedly push the flankers to wave top and then go for WVR engagement where the thrust vectoring capability will generate a massive advantage against the PLAN Su-30 mkk .

The obvious solution was to not let the Indians differentiate which is strike and which is escort –that was when they launch the BVR weapons chances are some of the ground strike aircraft will survive and damage the naval air installations in the target are .If they can put the port blair and car nicobar airbase out of action even for 12 hours or so a follow up attack is possible under more level playing condition .Denied their home bases the Indian flankers will have to deploy from mainland bases of Viazg and Chennai or Arkonam or at the worst get their Russian carrier with its complement t of Mig 29k into action .That will be a good opportunity for PLAN to settle one major irritant for ever .He knew if he can show some damage to Indian installation in andamans area to political bosses then his unauthorized strike mission may be forgotten band and a follow on full fledged attack authorized by the politburo.

He spoke quite on the phone connecting him to battle control centre located on the basement of the building .The instructions were passed on to the pair of orbiting A-50 s accompanying the strike formation (200 km behind) and the ground strike component of the PALN fleet started climbing slowly to mix up with the escorts at an altitude of 6000 meters

The attack plan was good –it called for the entire fleet of flankers to approach the two primary targets in two separate large groups. On the target area one by one the strike aircraft will peel off escorted by a pair of flankers on SEAD role with anti radiation missiles and guns .While the strike aircraft will go on bombing run the escorts will shoot up the anti air defenses radars and fuel creating a chaos .The bombing run over the strike aircraft will rejoin the main force at 6000 meters and the second strike aircraft will drop down on a different approach axis again with its pair of escorts .

Two factors however escaped the Chinese admiral –since it was the most tightly guarded secret of Indian air defense 1) the true capability of Akash surface to air missiles 2) the ELINT gathering capability of INSAT satellites

As the instructions bounced from ground to sat to PLAN aircraft it was sucked up by a pair of INSAT sats and down linked to air headquarters direct after atime gap of about 5 minutes .It was not a true real time intelligence but quite close .

Also the PLAN admiral did not know most of the inhabited islands in the Andaman’s are not exactly inhabited –many of them was “occupied” by small air defense units equipped with variety of air defense missiles including shoulder fired once and also a plethora of ZSU-23-4 anti aircraft guns . Flying low over the islands o a strike mission was not exactly a good idea.

Fortress Andaman was not a myth

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 18 Dec 2009 13:19

One reason given is the need to protect the aboriginal tribes on the islands from outside influence.

But the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, more than 1,200km (750 miles) from the mainland, are also strategically located.

Their southernmost point is just 150km from Indonesia's Sumatra and their northernmost fewer than 50km from the Coco islands controlled by Burma

In effect, they give India a foothold in south-east Asia.

"The Andaman and Nicobar Islands are crucially located, offering a strategic view over the shipping traffic between the gulf and the Malacca straits," says Commodore C Uday Bhaskar of the Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.

The location suits India's grand ambition of becoming a regional naval power capable of extended operations beyond the range of shore-based support.

The Andamans' natural harbours and coral reefs offer perfect locations for ships and submarines.


It is a Cold War mentality. India is sensitive about its military installations in the Andamans
Suba Chandran,
defence analyst

Despite opposition from Pakistan, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands became part of India when the British left the subcontinent over five decades ago.

But the Andamans remained away from public glare as the government developed the mainland.

The strategic importance of the islands was realised during India's 1971 war with Pakistan, when the Indian navy used them as a base to blockade and attack the naval bases and ships of what was then east Pakistan, now Bangladesh.

In the following years, more Indian naval assets were added and air bases were built.

When the islands developed, more people from mainland India settled there.

Integrated command

But while India realised the islands' strategic importance, defence cuts and unfavourable economic conditions in the early 1990s dogged military development.

Air force base on Car Nicobar
The air base on Car Nicobar is the only clear military damage

But in the late 1990s, the then-ruling Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition diverted more resources to bolster India's military capability.

In 2001, India established an Integrated Services Command of army, navy, air force and coast guard in the Andamans.

With the new set up, India aims to control maritime trade activities in the region and counter sea-borne terrorism and piracy.

There have also been media reports that some air and sea assets of India's Strategic Nuclear Forces Command would be placed in the region.

But veteran Indian nuclear affairs analyst, K Subramanyam, says: "Nobody will place their strategic assets in a remote place like the Andamans as they would become an easy target."

With so much military and strategic significance, it is not surprising that Indian officials are wary of foreign aid agencies in the Andamans.

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 18 Dec 2009 19:40

Never neglect the psychological, cultural, political, and human dimenstions of warfare, which is inevitably tragic, inefficient, and uncertain. Be skeptical of systems analysis, computer models, game theories, or doctrines that suggest otherwise.
--- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speech at NDU, 29 Sep 2008
Read and reread the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustaphus Adolphus, Turenne and Frederick; take them as your model; that is the only way of becoming a Great Captain, to obtain the secrets of the art of war.
--- Napoleon
The personality of the general is indispensable, he is the head, he is the all of an army. The Gauls were not conquered by the Roman legions but by Caesar. It was not before the Carthaginian soldiers that Rome was made to tremble but before Hannibal. It was not the Macedonian phalanx which penetrated to India but Alexander. It was not the French Army which reached the Weser and the Inn, it was Turenne. Prussia was not defended for seven years against the three most formidable European Powers by the Prussian soldiers but by Frederick the Great.
--- Napoleon
You should not have a favorite weapon.
--- Miyamoto Musashi, A Book of Five Rings


IAF HEADQUARTERS –DELHI

-Sir we have a changing situation and a possible problem

The air chief came alert to the new information –dropping his Cigar ( strict no no inside combat center in Vayu Bhavan but it was not lit and hence overlooked )

- what happened was the short response
- One of the Phalcons have just come into detection range of the bandits – it is a large formation as estimated from sat Intel but now the low level aircraft are climbing to the level of the escorts – the air battle commander is confused –he is requesting instruction on how to re deploy our interceptors in the situation.
The chief of air staff looked at his hand and then at the face of every one in the room before replying

-those damn Chinese are copying our operation tactics –the tactics we used way back in 1948 in Srinagar – when the airport was under Pakistani gun range –we landed troops one air craft at a time in a a challenging night operation while rest of the DC-3 were circling overhead ,distracting the gun crew attention .

Only this time the aircraft are Su 30 MKK and they will not be landing troops they will destroy our port and air bases

- ok guys now we have 50 priority targets – all must be taken out before they release their ordnance – but before that we should try to at least identify and mark which is a possible strike aircraft and which is loaded with heavy ground strike weapons –any ideas
The question came in quickly and as the senior sector and area commanders started discussing the young wing commander from air chiefs staff responded instantly

-Sir lets spook them hard – the escorts will react much faster than the strikers and the phalcon can mark the possible ordnance each is carrying –and also they are supposed to respond differently to an emergency

- son I am listening –carry on –the air chief muttered as his eyes glinted anticipating the follow up from his favorite wing commander an young Mirage pilot who he hoped would sit in his chair
- Sir let us use the jamming capability of the Phalcons in tandem –if we can block their communication channel even for a minute the escorts will climb high and switch on their radars and the strikers will dive for the waves but much slower –our Phalcons can tag each aircraft and give a number which can be data linked to the interceptor flights –that will allow them to formulate their attack plans much better –also this will allow the Phalcon to alert the ground defense units much more accurately and well in time so that they get a warm reception when they get feet dry
- Good thinking sonny – get on the horn to Phalcon 1 air battle commander –use secured sat data link onlee – discuss and finalize the details with the communication guys –I want the plan put action in 5 minutes –we don’t have the luxury of wasting time –not now

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 18 Dec 2009 20:10

b]PLAN HEADQUARTERS –BEIJING –PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA [/b]


China and Russia began negotiations for the purchase of the Su-30MK multirole fighter in 1996 while the Su-30MK was still completing its final development. The initial deal of 38 aircraft valued at about US$2 billion was agreed upon in August 1999. On March 9, 1999, the first prototype named "Blue 501" made its maiden flight. On June 19, 1999, the second prototype named "Blue 502" made its maiden flight, and like the first prototype, this one was also used mainly for aerodynamic performance tests. No. 3 & No. 4 named respectively as "Blue 503" and "Blue 504" were built later that year and were mainly used for weaponry tests. All flight tests were conducted in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, with the second "K" of Su-30MKK representing Komsomolsk-on-Amur, instead of "Kitayski" for China. It was rumored that such security measure was performed under the Chinese request, and it was not until sometimes after August 15, 1999, after the Russian Air Force commander-in-chief had openly acknowledged to western reporters in public that China had ordered Su-30MKK, did the Russian changed their documentation to use the second "K" to indicate "Kitayski" for China. The variant specially configured according to the requirements of the People's Liberation Army Air Force was designated as the Su-30MKK.[3] The Chinese requirements mandated significant upgrades of the original Su-30MK, and Sukhoi Design Bureau utilized many new resources such as CAD / CAE / CAM to speed up the process. According to the Sukhoi Design Bureau, it only took 9 months from the time the design started to the completion of the first prototype named "Blue 501". In January 2003, the People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force ordered 24 Su-30MKK2s which are improved variants of the original MKKs.[
Like its Indian counterpart, Su-30MKI (Flanker-H), Su-30MKK is also shares 85% compatibility with Su-35 in terms of hardware, but in terms of software, Su-30MKK differs from Su-35 (Flanker-E) on a much greater scale in comparison to Su-30MKI because the different mission requirements by China. The Flanker family aircraft has the problem of the reduction of maximum g-force level being decreased to 7g from the 9g at speed between 0.7 Mach to 0.9 Mach, and this problem was completely solved on Su-30MKK by adopting new measures. According the Sukhoi Design Bureau, Su-30MKK is the first of the Flanker family to achieve so after Su-35 / 37 (Flanker-E/F). Higher percentage of composite material is used for Su-30MKK in comparison to the original Su-30MK. In addition, new aluminum alloy were used to replaced the old type used on Su-30MK for weight reduction. The twin rudders mainly made of carbon fiber composite material were larger on Su-30MKK in comparison to that of the original Su-30MK, but contrary to what was once erronemously claimed by some western sources, Sukhoi Design Bureau revealed later that the increased space in the rudders were used for additional fuel tanks, instead of larger communication UHF antenna. The capacity of the fuel tanks in the wings is also increased. A twin nose landing gear of size 620 mm x 180 mm has replaced the single nose landing gear of size 680 mm x 260 mm used on Su-30MK to accommodate the increased weight. The maximum take-off weight and weapon load are increased to 38 tons and 12 tons respectively, but this extreme limit is often avoided by taking off at lighter weight. It was rumored that the Chinese pilots were not as experienced as Russian test pilots when operating at this extreme limits, which contributed to the crashes at least partially. The original K-36 ejection seat on Su-30MK is replaced by K-36M ejection seat for Su-30MKK.
In addition to the newly added fuel tanks in the rudders capacity totaling 280 kg, there are four main fuel tanks. No. 1 tank with capacity totaling 3,150 kg is in the front, No. 2 tank with capacity totaling 4,150 kg is in the middle, No. 3 tank with capacity totaling 1,053 kg is in the rear, and No. 4 tank with capacity totaling 1,552 kg is located in the wings. During aerial refueling, the maximum capacity of Su-30MKK is receiving up to 2,300 liters per minute. The altitude of refueling is limited to 2 km to 6 km, and the speed is limited to 450-550 km/h. Aerial refueling probe is located in front of cockpit on the left, and the design is capable of night refueling.


Admiral Li shao Chi - checked the display and nodded with satisfaction . With two larger mixed groups now heading into enemy air space it will be impossible for the Indians to discriminanatly shoot down the ground attack formation and even if 30% weapons make to target the indian air naval capability in the region will be serious ly degraded allowing the next pahse of the operation to progress at optimal speed

However being a navy man he was not fully aware of the limitation of air to air refuelling of the PLAN Su-30mkk that is the maximum altitude and speed as well as the price paid for increasing the range with maximum payload was reduced ECCM capability .

This is one flaw Russians were well aware of and consequently indians -the jamming pods carried by the A-50 Bariev pahalcons as well as some of the Su 30 MKI will be used to full advantage

Also he was not aware of the higher than normal fuel consumption of the ground attack aircraft as it changed altitude .As it climbed to 6000 meter most of the flight used up the mission reserve -they will not be able to make more than one low level pass at supersonic speed and even then if they dont find the target they will have to dump the weapons on the ocean or the forests if they want to reach home .

A refuelling will be unavoidable at medium altitude and at comparatively low speed .

The hawks will be waiting -but he did not know that

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 19 Dec 2009 12:22

NO 74 AKASH GROUP –BARATNG ISLAND -ANDAMANS

Wing commander Tamang finished one last minute check of the system . His long range acquisition radar was still in stand by mode based on specific instruction from the air battle commander on board Phalcon 2, who was controlling the ground to air defense of Fortress Andaman directly. The inbound target data was being fed to the Akash flight control computers on a real time basis . 3D central acquisition radar will be switched on only when the enemy aircraft gets close to missile launch range thereby denying them the chance to knock them out with anti radiation missiles.
Under his command were six launchers with 3 missiles loaded in to each giving full 180 degree coverage to the Port Blair air defense area .The emergency back up was another identical unit at Ross Island just opposite the harbor. Two more groups were located on North Bay at the approach to port and one in INS UTKROSH adjoining the international airport

While wild speculation was rife in the international press about the capability and deployment of Akash missile system –including its capability to carry nuclear warheads –the truth is quite different. It is arguably one of the best area defense missile system in the world superior to the much vaunted Patriot by almost a generation .Developed over decades it was the most the most advanced of all missiles developed under integrated guided missile program initiated by APJ Abdul Kalam under direct instruction of then erstwhile prime minister Indira Gandhi .Capable of shooting anything that flies if supported by adequate scanning and tracking radar support –it creates an impenetrable shield in the are which it is deployed .If two missiles are fired at a single target the kill probability s in excess of 100% with single missiles it is around 85%.
Very soon it it will be tested in combat for the first time against the incoming PLAN strike fleet –the large number of bandits ensured the multi tasking capability of the Akash missile system will be loaded to the limit and the tracking computer will have to guide as well as prioritize the incoming targets and also cycle the multiple launchers as one launcher of 3 missile exhausts its load and auto reloading sequence will come to play.
The international strategic community was blissfully unaware of Akashs’s true capability including PLAN – there was absolutely no indication the extent of deployment also adding to the confusion.

Akash is India's medium range surface-to-air missile (a copy of the Russian SA-6 surface to air missile) defense system developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Bharat Electronics Limited(BEL) as part of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program.[3][4][5] The missile can target aircraft up to 30 km away, at altitudes up to 18,000 m.] Akash can be fired from both tracked and wheeled platforms.[1] Akash is said to be capable of both conventional and nuclear warheads, with a reported payload of 60 kg. A nuclear warhead could potentially give the missile the capability to destroy both aircraft and warheads from ballistic missiles. The missile is described as being able to strike several targets simultaneously, which could mean either separate, independently targetable warheads, or a sufficient blast to destroy a number of them.
Along with India, a limited number of other countries including the US, Russia, Japan, Israel, and some EU countries have developed operational multitarget-handling surface-to-air missile systems. With the successful user trials of Akash, India has validated the technology and operational efficacy of this missile system. This system is claimed to be more accurate than the MIM-104 Patriot as it has thrust during the entire course of its flight compared to the Patriot that has thrust only for the first 12 seconds, after which the missile coasts, thus making it less accurate. Apart from that the Akash can be launched from static or mobile platforms, including a battle tank. In May 2008 Indian scientists announced they had developed a patented path-breaking technology will increase the range of missiles and satellite launch vehicles by at least 40%. ] The enhanced range is made possible by adding a special-purpose coating of chromium based material to the blunt nose cone of missiles and launch vehicles. The material acts as a reactive-ablative coating that forms a thin low density gaseous layer over the tip of the rocket or missiles as they approach hypersonic speeds; this super-heated gas layer reduces drag by 47%, thereby allowing range enhancements at least 40%.[9] he first test flight of Akash missile was conducted in 1990, with development flights up to March 1997.
Two Akash missiles intercepted two fast moving targets in simultaneous engagement mode in 2005. 3-D Central Acquisition Radar (3D-CAR) group mode performance is also fully established. The Akash Project has been the most expensive and missile project ever undertaken by the Union government of India in the 20th century. Total development costs for the missile and associated radars and systems was almost $120 million to the taxpayers.
Akash is a surface-to-air missile with an intercept range of 30 km. It has a launch weight of 720 kg, a diameter of 35 cm and a length of 5.78 metres. Akash flies at supersonic speed, reaching around Mach 2.5. It can reach an altitude of 18 km. An on-board guidance system coupled with actuator system makes the missile manoeuvrable up to 15g loads and a tail chase capability for end game engagement. A digital proximity fuse is coupled with a 55 kg pre-fragmented warhead, while the safety arming and detonation mechanism enables a controlled detonation sequence. A self-destruct device is also integrated. It is propelled by Integrated Ramjet Rocket Engine. The use of ramjet propulsion system that enables sustained speeds without deceleration throughout its flight.[] The Missile as command guidance in its entire flight.[3]
The design of the missile is somewhat similar to that of SA-6 with four long tube ramjet inlet ducts mounted mid-body between wings. For pitch/yaw control four clipped triangular moving wings are mounted on mid-body. For roll control four inline clipped delta fins with ailerons are mounted before the tail. However, the internal schema shows a different layout with an onboard digitial computer, no Semi-active seeker, different propellant, different actuators and command guidance datalinks. The Akash carries an onboard radio-proximity fuse.
Each Akash battery consists of 4 self propelled Launchers (3 Akash SAMs each), a Battery Level Radar - the Rajendra, and a Command post (Battery Control Centre). 2 batteries are deployed as a Squadron (Air Force), while up to 4 form an Akash Group (Army configuration). In both configurations, an extra Group Control Centre (GCC) is added, which acts as the Command and Control HQ of the Squadron or Group. Based on a single mobile platform, GCC establishes links with Battery Control Centres and conducts air defence operations in coordination with air defence set up in a zone of operations.
For early warning, the GCC relies on the Central Acquisition Radar. However, individual batteries can also be deployed with the cheaper, 2-D BSR (Battery Surveillance Radar) with a range of over 100 km.
Each Akash battery can engage up to 4 targets. Each battery has 4 launchers with 3 missiles each, with each Rajendra able to guide 4 missiles in total, with a maximum of 2 missiles per target. Up to a maximum of 4 targets can be engaged by a typical battery with a single Rajendra if one missile is allotted per target.
Communications between the various vehicles are a combination of wireless and wired links. The entire system is designed to be set up quickly and to be highly mobile, for high survivability.
The Akash system can be deployed by rail, road or air.
The missile is guided by a phased array fire control radar called 'Rajendra' which is termed as Battery Level Radar (BLR) with a tracking range of about 60 km.[14]. It can track 64 targets in range, azimuth and height and guide eight missiles simultaneously towards 4 targets. The Rajendra derivative on a BMP-2 chassis and to be used by the Indian Air Force is known as the Battery Level Radar -II whereas that for the Army, is based on a T-72 chassis and is known as the Battery Level Radar-III.
A single Akash missile has an 88% Probability of kill. Two missiles can be fired, five seconds apart, to raise the Probability of Kill to 98.5%.
Long range target acquisition is performed by the 3D Central Acquisition Radar (3D CAR), which is a long range surveillance radar that can track 150 targets in Track while Scan mode at a range of 180 km. [
n December 2007, the Indian Air Force completed user trials for this missile. The trials, which were spread over ten days were declared successful after the missile hit the target on five occasions. Multiple targets handling capability of Akash weapon system was demonstrated by live firing in C4I environment. Before the ten day trial at Chandipur, ECCM Evaluation tests were carried out at Gwalior Air force base and mobility trials were carried out in Pokhran. The IAF had evolved the user Trial Directive to verify the Akash's consistency. The following trials were conducted: Against low flying near range target, long range high altitude target, crossing and approaching target and ripple firing of two missiles from the same launcher against a low altitude receding target.[
The Indian Air force was satisfied with the performance of Akash after extensive flight trials and has decided to induct the weapon system. An order for two squadrons were placed initially, with these being inducted in 2009. The IAF found the missile performance to be satisfactory and placed orders for 16 more launchers to form 2 more squadrons for India's northeast theater. On March 30, 2009 Tata Power's Strategic Electronics Division (SED) announced that it had bagged the INR 1.82 Billion order for the 16 additional Akash launchers to be delivered in the next 33 months.[20]
More orders are expected, as the IAF phases out its Pechoras and as the Indo-Israeli JV to develop a MRSAM (Medium Range SAM) for the IAF has been put on hold, while a similar program for the Indian Navy proceeds unimpeded.




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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 19 Dec 2009 19:20

BAY WATCH -IAF A-50 BARIEV PHALCON –SOME WHERE OVER BAY OF BENGAL

Air commodore Digvijay Sing was mad at being told continuously what to do and what not to do by the air chief .After all he has flown flankers since it was inducted more than decade back. As he scanned the master tactical display he waited for the single word signal that will make him initiate the massive jamming power of his aircraft to blank off the inter aircraft communication and sat –aircraft communication all in one go but only for a short time period before the jamming pod starts overheating when he will have to switch off the broad band jamming .Also he has to synchronize perfectly with the other Phalcon so that the effect is maximum . As the PLAN aircraft reacts to such massive jamming they will have to separate and that will give the key to their identification

The signal came one short transmission

-bay watch –eagle one –go black repeat go black

Digvijay looke at his communication system officer and raised his hand .The communication officer leaned forward and moved the sliding power lever of the broad band jammer all the way forward and raised his hand in return –the engine note of A-50 changed as nearly 200 kw load was applied suddenly and the lights dimmed and stayed dim for a full 90 seconds

For that duration the incoming PLAN flankers had no communication except a screeching noise on the earphone and the pilots acted reflexively .As the escorts climbed out and separated out the strikers dived for the wave tops to evade detection and air to air collision but much more slowly .Both the Phalcons noticed and recorded the change in flight profile of the bandits and transmitted it real time to the flight leads as well air force command net . In les than 2 minutes the identity and mission of individual PLAN aircraft was made and transmitted .



I
srael Aircraft Industries (IAI) developed its Phalcon system for Israeli defence forces and for export. Airborne Early Warning, Command and Control (AEWC&C) systems play a major role on the modern battlefield by providing real-time intelligence and command and control needed to achieve and maintain air superiority over the combat area and to enable surveillance of borders in peacetime. The world's most advanced AEWC&C system, the PHALCON, was developed and produced by ELTA using Active Phased Array Electronic Scanning Technology rather than a mechanically rotating antenna (rotodome) used by current AWACS systems, giving PHALCON greater operational flexibility and performance by several orders of magnitude. The Phalcon AEW&C aircraft is based on four sensors: phased-array radar, phased-array IFF, ESM/ELINT and CSM/COMINT. A unique fusion technology continuously cross-relates the data gathered by all sensors. When one of the sensors reports a detection, the system automatically initiates an active search of the complementary sensors.
• The AWE&C phased array radar replaces the conventional rotodome radar. It is mounted either on the aircraft fuselage or on top of the aircraft inside a stationary dome, providing full 360� coverage. This electronically steered beam radar delivers a tremendous advantage over mechanical rotating antenna, as it supports the tracking a high maneuvering targets. The radar can detect even low flying objects from distances of hundreds of kilometers, day and night, under all weather conditions. Verification beams sent at specific, individual, newly detected targets eliminate false alarms. Moreover, track initiation is achieved in 2 to 4 seconds as compared to 20 to 40 seconds with a rotodome radar
• The IFF system employs solid state phased array technology to perform interrogation, decoding, target detection and tracking. A monopulse technique is used to implement azimuth measurement. The IFF data is automatically correlated with the phased array radar.
• The ESM/ELINT system receives, analyzes and locates radar signals, covering 360o. It combines high sensitivity with high probability of intercept, and achieves excellent accuracy in bearing measurement. The system uses narrow-band super-heterodyne receivers and wide-band instantaneous frequency measurement (IFM) techniques to provide very high accuracy and probability of intercept of airborne and surface emitters. Very high bearing accuracy for all received signals is achieved through Differential Time of Arrival (DTOA) measurements. The system also collects and analyzes ELINT data.
• The PHALCON's CSM/COMINT receives in UHF, VHF and HF, rapidly searching for airborne, shipborne or ground communications signals of interest. Selected radio nets can be monitored for signal activity. A DF capability locates targets. Detected signals can be assigned to monitoring receivers instantaneously. The system makes extensive use of computers to reduce the load on operators.
The aircraft communicates, via its data link, with Air Defense HQ. Data from additional air defense sensors are fused to create a complete spatial picture.
The PHALCON systems can be installed on a variety of platforms, such as the Boeing 707, Boeing 767, Boeing 747, Airbus and C-130. This system has already been sold to Chile, where it is designated "Condor". Under the aegis of Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai and Defense Ministry Director General Ilan Biran, six agreements for cooperation between Israeli, American and European defense firms were signed on 15 October 1998. Under one of these agreements, IAI/ELTA Electronics Industries Ltd. and Raytheon Systems Company will cooperate on the development, production and marketing of AEWC&C systems on a world wide basis. The new project will be based on PHALCON. The two companies have already teamed up to compete for tenders for AEWC&C syste

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Singha » 19 Dec 2009 20:41

general query - what kind of mechanical arrangement is able to generate electricity
using ultimately the main shaft of jet engines which are rotating at 1000s of rpm and very hot env?

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 444
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby aditp » 19 Dec 2009 20:46

Singha wrote:general query - what kind of mechanical arrangement is able to generate electricity
using ultimately the main shaft of jet engines which are rotating at 1000s of rpm and very hot env?



Its called an auxiliaries gearbox, that drives the alternator for electricity, oil pumps for lubricant flow, AC compressor for HVAC and hydraulic pumps for control surface actuation among others. Each device receives inputs at its rated speed, even if the turbine is going 1000s of rpm.

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 20 Dec 2009 13:34

Conventionally, a two-spool turbojet comprises an engine nacelle housing a high pressure spool comprising a high pressure compressor and a high pressure turbine, and a low pressure spool comprising a low pressure compressor and a low pressure turbine and driving the fan.

The function of such a turbojet is generally not only to provide the airplane with thrust, but also to provide the airplane with electricity for various purposes such as powering computers, cabin lighting, etc.

The present trend is to increase the amount of mechanical power that is taken off and converted into electrical power, given the increasing role played by electrical means, which have the reputation of being flexible in use on board an airplane.

An electricity generator is used for transforming a fraction of the mechanical power delivered by the turbojet into electricity.

The generator is not usually situated in the turbojet. A secondary shaft is connected via gearing to one of the shafts of the turbojet, thereby setting it into rotation when the engine is operating, and thus transmitting thereto the mechanical power needed to make the electricity generator operate. The generator may be placed close to the end of the shaft, outside the turbojet.

In another known configuration, described in PCT international application WO 2007/036202, the electricity generator may also be arranged inside the turbojet, and more precisely inside the high pressure spool. Advantageously, that generator operates reversibly, so that it also acts as a starter.

When starting a turbojet, the high pressure spool is the first to be put into rotation using an electricity generator operated as an electric motor. The high pressure compressor then feeds the combustion chamber with air under pressure, thereby enabling combustion to be established, and enabling the high pressure stage of the turbojet to start. The low pressure turbine is then driven in rotation by the exhaust stream of primary air, thereby driving the low pressure spool and the fan. Once the turbojet has started, the power supply to the electric starter is switched off so it ceases to act as a motor driving the high pressure compressor.

Arranging the electricity generator in the high pressure spool has as its main advantage the fact that the generator can be used both as an electric motor for starting the turbojet, as described above, and also as an electricity generator for delivering electricity to the remainder of the airplane.

Nevertheless, that configuration presents various drawbacks. The most noticeable is the poor overall efficiency with which mechanical power is converted into electrical power when the electricity generator is disposed in that way. The extra consumption of fuel needed to provide given electrical power is greater when the electricity generator takes power from the high pressure spool than when it takes power from the low pressure spool.

Furthermore, arranging the electricity generator in the high pressure spool is difficult. The spool constitutes a region of small diameter that includes numerous pipes. The generator is thus difficult to put into place and to maintain.

Furthermore, since the vanes of the high pressure compressor are generally variable-pitch vanes, it is difficult to reduce the distance or airgap between the rotor and the stator. As a result, the electricity generator made in that way usually presents relatively low efficiency.

Finally, installing an electricity generator that draws its power from the high pressure spool can raise a problem of turbojet operability. If too much mechanical power is taken, then there is a negative effect on the operation of the high pressure spool that can lead to pumping of the high pressure compressor, in particular when the engine is operating at slow speed.

Another known way of taking mechanical power from a turbojet in order to produce electricity is described in PCT international application WO 2005/073519.

In order to generate electricity, that document proposes adding an additional turbine that is dedicated to producing electricity and that is located downstream from the fan in the secondary stream of a turbojet, said turbine rotating independently of the spools of the turbojet.

Nevertheless, adding that turbine makes the structure of the turbojet much more complex and increases its weight and its volume. In addition, the efficiency with which mechanical power is converted into electrical power is relatively low.


The object of the invention is to define a turbojet comprising a high pressure spool, a low pressure spool driving a fan disposed in a stationary casing, and an electricity generator arranged in the fan, taking power therefrom, and including a rotor incorporated in the fan, without presenting the above-mentioned drawbacks.

This object is achieved by the fact that the electricity generator also includes a stator incorporated in the fan casing.

The arrangement of the electricity generator in the fan, i.e. more precisely on moving portions of the fan and on stationary portions such as the fan casing, presents several advantages.

A first advantage lies in the fact that a large amount of room is available for the electricity generator. The fan casing, which is a portion of the engine nacelle, is sufficiently large to house the windings that enable electricity to be produced together with the electrical harasses that enable said electricity to be taken to the pylon supporting the turbojet. Installation and maintenance of the electricity generator are therefore disturbed little or not at all by problems of available space.

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 20 Dec 2009 14:28

COBRA FLIGHT – 14XSU 30 MKI MK 3 – BAY OF BENGAL-150 KM FROM DRAGON FIRE FLIGHT – 7000 METRS

Group captain Vinod checked the left multi functional display –It showed both the anti radiation missiles have been selected and armed but still not detecting any radiation source so lay inert waiting like an eager blood hound without a fox to chase . The radi came alive with the voice of air battle commander
- cobra lead –bay watch – weapon launch authorization code zulu zulu 37 – execute attack plan delta repeat delta
- bay watch –copy –executing attack plan delta in 10 seconds –stand by
Vinod reselected the weapons and cycled through the choices and clicked on the long R-77 icon on the display and then clicked again to arm up the missiles .Attack plan delta called for max speed intercept with a pair of R-77 at max range followed up with another salve of KH-31 anti radiation missile at the same target and then disengage for refueling at pre designated tanking point 250 kms behind
- cobra lead to cobra flight – standby to execute attack plan delta –over
- bay watch – cobtra lead – flight ready to execute attack plan delta on your command –standing by
- copy that cobra lead – your distance to target is now 135 km – target heading 065 –altitude 1500 meters –speed 1100 kmph – you may go active no
Vindo flicked up the circuit breaker which immediately activated the powerful Irbis E radar and his central display came alive .At the same time he activated the data link to his team mates who now have separated out in a wide bow formation as a standard pre missile launch precaution and also to prevent being dazzled by the motor flash from the missiles
- bay watch acquired targets – request weapon free – oh sh—they are painting us
- cobra lead – bay watch – launch exactly at 100 km distance to target not before – 10-9------------4 3 21 –now
Vindo flicked open the fire switch cover and squeezed once waited for mandatory 3 seconds and squeezed again and the two long missiles dropped free into the slip stream and ignited with a small delay as it closed in the distance quickly his own radar warning receiver started blipping first intermittently and a long continuos wail like a crying dog indicating he has atleast one missile locked on .
Vinod did not wait ,did not think just pulled the stick all the way forward and power lever to the stops .The flanker zoomed up and like a rocket in a shower of automatically dispensed chaff packets and the Chinese r-77 fired at extreme range lost the lock ,vinod kept on climbing when the radio came alive
-cobra lead –you in clear –resume attack
Vinod looped back and once again facing the incoming flight ,as he leveled out he selected the KH-31 s and once again launched a pair with regulation 5 second interval .
The anti radiation missile seeker head selected the two most prominent radiation source and homed in remorslessly. One of the PLAN pilot realized and switched off quickly but it was too late as the missile passed by the laser proximity switch blinked and the flight path before Flanker was suddenly full of shrapnel’s which cut through the fuel and explosive laden jet in a matter of seconds, turning it into a fiery ball . The other flanker pilot was slow to react and the second KH 31 slammed into the Radom at twice the speed of sound killing him even before the aircraft exploded in mid air
But everyone was not so skilled and not as luck – 3 Su-30 MKI will never make back to base as they fell to the first salvo of active radar missiles fired by the bandits . The orbiting phalcon recorded 8 confirmed PLAN kills with a loss of three Indian aircraft .Not a bad exchange ratio but then the three who were now floating over the bay of Bengal in their parachutes will have a lot of explaining to do once back to base and for now the war for them was over . In the end 2 pilots and 1 weapon system officer will die of injuries sustained during ejection rest will join fleet but much much later
As regards the PLAN –the sudden loss of 8 aircraft half of which were the strike version –slowed down the momentum of the attack and the groups reformed quickly to press on –the air battle over Andamans have just started .


Remember the scene in the movie Top Gun when Navy pilot Pete “Maverick” Mitchell gets the upper hand on his instructors by slowing down, pulling up the nose of his F-14 Tomcat, and watching his opponent fly right by? The idea was to get a quick, unexpected position behind the bad guy, putting Maverick (played by Tom Cruise) and his trusty sidekick Goose into place to win the Engagement.
Real fighter pilots will tell you that what Maverick does is a showoff move that bleeds off so much energy that you’re vulnerable to getting shot down yourself. What a pilot really needs is a way to quickly get in the right position to fire at the enemy. Today’s most maneuverable fighters use thrust vectoring, which can make a jet turn faster and more tightly.
Powered by Pratt & Whitney F119 turbofans, each with 35,000 pounds of thrust, the F-22A—the Air Force’s newest fighter—sports a nozzle that can direct exhaust thrust up or down as much as 24 degrees.
The advantage to pilots is superior low-speed and high angle-of-attack maneuverability, compared to conventional-thrust aircraft, says Second Lieutenant Aaron Hoke, a propulsion engineer on the U.S. Air Force team that manages the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor program at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.
“Our [one-on-one] tactics have changed to incorporate the ‘post-stall’ regime, where other aircraft cannot operate,” explains Captain John “Rocks” Wagemann, who flies the F-22A in the First Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. Thrust vectoring enables the pilots to fly up and over in a very tight arc, Wagemann says, and “gives us the nose authority to turn the jet while the wings are stalled, similar to a controlled flat spin.”
Thanks to advanced computers and flight control systems, pilots don’t have to think about choosing vectoring or executing specific steps to perform a maneuver. They simply point the airplane where they want, and the onboard systems automatically coordinate the right combination of flaps, rudder, elevator, and nozzle angle. “The F119’s vectoring nozzle is integrated into the F-22 flight control system” so that “the pilot doesn’t control the nozzle independently,” says Chris Flynn, Pratt & Whitney’s F119 director.
Flaps in the engine nozzle point up or down to “steer” the jet exhaust, making the airplane more responsive and maneuverable. In a two-engine airplane like the F-22, directing the exhaust from both engines upward points the nose up, while reversing the direction points the nose down. The F119 engines are designed to vector in the same direction and by the same amount. The nozzle is said to be “two dimensional” when the shape of the throat is rectangular.
Flight tests of thrust-vectoring designs began in the early 1990s with airplanes like NASA’s modified F/A-18 and F-15, the Rockwell/MBB X-31, and a modified Air Force F-16. In 1994, the X-31 demonstrator was fitted with what German program managers called a “poor man’s thrust vectoring nozzle”—three paddle-like vanes that pushed into the exhaust stream—and the results were spectacular. Without thrust vectoring, the X-31 lost twice as often as it won against the F/A-18 in mock combat; with it, the X-31 didn’t lose once in 129 matches.
1 2


Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9820
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Yagnasri » 20 Dec 2009 15:35

What is great here is the nature and extent of the knowledge inculidng tech details etc people like Shankar have.

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 21 Dec 2009 12:51

LIGHTNING FLIGHT -24XSU-30 MKI MK3 -120 KM SOUTH EAST OF CAR NICOBAR

Wing commander Pramod – scanned the air search display –he has gone active just few seconds before on express command from the Phalcon and now getting the tactical situation downloaded into his head ,after all no computer acts faster than the god given one when out of box situation arises .He knew 3 friendlies are already down along with 8 bandits but here were plenty more . He did not want to loose single member of his team but also knew that is not a practical wish while facing a very well armed determined adversary .As he watched the radar display form he also recapitulated the instructors notes while training for many on many BVR combat situation.

Based on all of this, you have probably figured out that the RADAR is the primary sensor for detecting bogeys BVR. It may also be possible to get data from air borne sensor platforms such as an AWACS. Regardless of where this data comes from initially, you must act upon the information and begin to take measures to put yourself at a tactical advantage. To accomplish this, there are 6 basic steps that must be set into motion:
• 1. Detection
• 2. Sorting
• 3. Targeting
• 4. Intercept
• 5. Engage
• 6. Separate
These are not different items you can execute; they are steps that must all be executed in this order to avoid a breakdown of the tactical plan. You must understand and be familiar with each step.
Detection
Until you know the bandit is there, you can do anything. It is quite possible, and does happen, that flights of opposing sides may fly right by each other. "But I have my RADAR on," you are thinking. Well, that is great, but real RADAR, and thus a well-modeled RADAR package, is not the all seeing "RADAR of GOD". There are parameters you must meet to be able to even get another aircraft to show up on your scope.
RADARS have what are called "search volumes", or "areas of scan". Modern fighters have a "sweep" or side to side scan of 120° . This single sweep is called a bar. There are normally between 4 to 6 bars that you have the ability to adjust. So if one bar is so limited, why not always use 4 bar scans? A one bar scan allows the RADAR to get back to a detected object 4 times faster than a 4 bar scan, thus updating your screen that much faster. In the period of time RADAR scans 4 bars, a bandit could easily move out of the RADAR scan area. Remember, most modern aircraft have on board sensors to alert them if they are "pinged" or "painted" by RADAR. ("ping" and "paint" are terms used to denote being scanned and/or detected by RADAR.)
As a result, once you detect a bandit, he may have enough time to move out of scan range. Also, a smaller scan elevation (number of bars), thus more frequent updates, and usually increase the odds that you will be able to "Lock" onto the bandit.
A 4 bar scan is useful when you are "sweeping" (generally scanning) an area for unknown aircraft. Once you have a general fix on the bearing and altitude of the bogeys, you would want to go to a smaller scan. In addition to the selection of number of scan bars, you are generally able to point the RADAR cone up or down as well.
Once you have detected bogeys, you need to sort them. To sort them is to answer 4 primary questions:
• 1. Are they Friend or Foe?
• 2. How many are there?
• 3. What formation are they in?
• 4. What are they doing?
The first thing you must do when you detect a bogey is to alert the other aircraft in your flight. This is first, foremost, and paramount. You want to let everyone with you know what you see; where you see it, and make sure they all see it too. You can then confirm or deny each other's findings and insure you really know what is out there.
Targeting Now you must target your bandits. Generally, a targeting plan is briefed before take off. You could call your targets in the air, or more realistically, take your target orders from your wing leader
This is where you will close in and engage the bandits. At this time, you would drive to the weapons envelope, lock and launch your missile. If you are fortunate, and did everything right, you will get a BVR kill. Remember that, while you are setting up to shoot, when you detected the bandit, he probably detected you. He is more than likely doing the same thing to you; you are doing to him. So as you approach the bandit, keep him out of weapons parameters.
No matter how sure you are of your eminent success, always be prepared to separate and leave a fight. Watch you Escape Window and know where it is. You also need to know where you plan to go after the fight. Enemy pilots calling for help and brilliant balls of fire, followed by trailing smoke from a rapidly descending chunk of aircraft tends to attract just a wee bit of attention. Know what heading you plan to egress on and be prepared to do it.



Lima one to lima 4 and 9 – bogey at 4 o clock low –confirm
Lima 4 to lima one copy
Lima 9 to Liam one copy
Lima flight -stand by for weapon launch
Lima lead to bay watch – closing in with multiple bogey – range to target 110 km – decreasing – positive identification su-30 mkk – IFF not responding
- bay watch to lima one –confirm targeted flight is hostile –you are weapons free on all targets –fire at will –do not close to less than 60 km – good hunting
On the display the PLAN flankers started spacing out a prelude to missile launch and at the same time Pramods radar warning started blipping intermittently confirming he has been spotted also and about to get a hot tube up his front engine intake unless he acts first .
-Lima 2 to Lima flight –execute attack plan alpha –now
N his command the 24 su-30 mkis quickly formed up a vertical box as the seperasted and started acquiring individual targets simultaneously .the data link on full power established a seamless chain of signal between each attacking aircraft . There were three row spaced out at 2000 meters vertical separation and 5 km horizontal separation .
Lima 1 to Lima flight – confirm in position
As the confirmation came in one by one Pramod authorized R-77 launch one by one .He waited . Each flanker launched 4 R-77 each at the incoming bandits and maintained a combined closing speed of 3000 kmph till the missiles went on terminal guidance mode and became autonomous. Then they broke up in a classic bomb fragmentation pattern in a cloud of chaff and flares since PLAN was known to posses the latest R-77 with infra red seekers.
The PLAN aircraft also launched but in a more guarded way about two missiles per aircraft since they were conserving weapons for the egress .the net result was a total of 96 missiles were heading for the PLAN jets and about the same number were heading for the home aircraft .
But the Irbis E radar on Su-30 mki made the crucial difference as it allowed the Indians to launch about 7 seconds early and the midcourse guidance lock had to maintained for a shorter time . Most of the Indian flankers were already on defensive move and retracting fast from the battle engagement zone as the hostile missiles reached the area .
None of the Indian pilots saw the kills all they saw was some of their team mates being blown out of the sky by the incoming missiles . All in all 4 su-30 mkis were lost in the engagement against a loss of 11 Su-30 mkk of PLAN, most of them on escort mission.
The air battle commander noted the high attrition with concern. 4 lost for 11 bandits was acceptable but the enemy has many more assets to throw in than us and so better prepared to accept punishing losses ,
Lima flight –bat watch – return to base 41 and 95 – go for refueling immediately –want to catch those bas----- on their way out –do not repeat do not go below 7000 meter or you will be shot at –all air space below 6000 is now free fire zone for defense purpose –over
- copy bay watch –lima lead – going back to tank up –over

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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 21 Dec 2009 16:05

As the air battle raged over Andamans –the world watched with baited breadth –it was first time since World War 2 such a well matched air battle was being fought over ocean and both sides fighting with the best Russia hardware to offer and Indian flankers carried much more than Russian hardware

However they were quick to notice the distinct advantage or edge of IAF over PLAN getting generated due to better familiarity with the aircraft ,better Russian as well as Israeli avionics ,better use of awacs by the IAF and of course fighting over known oceans .

Aerial combat in the coming decades will be dominated by players who have command of information over their opponents, and are able to exploit that advantage offensively. Information has become the new high ground in the game of aerial combat. Globally, and especially in Asia, this has been reflected by sustained high levels of investment in capabilities historically operated onl y the US and NATO nations, such as AWACS/AEW&C and networking of combat aircraft, AWACS/AEW&C, and ground based surveillance systems.

Concurrently we have observed strong investment in counter-ISR systems, intended to render AWACS/AEW&C impotent. Such systems include very long range air to air missiles such as the Russian R-37/AA-13 Arrow and R-172/K-100 intended to destroy AWACS/AEW&C, but also capable ground based jamming systems like the SPN-2/4/30 series, Pelena 1, Topol E and supporting ELINT systems like the Orion/Vega 85V6 series.

There are two fundamentally different views currently espoused in assessing the future of aerial combat.

One view, popular in some Western defence bureaucracies is the 'asymmetrical model' of aerial warfare, which makes the assumption that Western nations will have a one -sided advantage in combat conferred by the possession of AWACS/AEW&C and networking, which is uniformly assumed not to be a future capability operated by any potential opponents. On this basis, it is then assumed that fighter aircraft can have low performance as their role in aerial combat will be primarily as stand-off missile trucks, shooting at opposing combat aircraft in long range beyond visual combat. As the opponent is assumed to always be dumb, and neither operate AWACS/AEW&C and networking, nor be capable of understanding the situational picture, the low capability fighter is assumed to prevail most of the time. The best regional example of this philosophy in practice is the Canberra DoD which has elevated the low performance F/A-18F and JSF above the F-22A Raptor using the 'asymmetrical model' as a justification.

The much more conservative view of future aerial combat is the 'symmetrical model', which assumes that all substantial players will own and competently operate AWACS/AEW&C and networking, and will deploy ground based jammers and long range counter-ISR missiles to threaten all airborne ISR capabilities. The most visible proponents of the 'symmetrical model' are the US Air Force, who have invested heavily in the very stealthy supercruising F-22A Raptor precisely to be able to penetrate deeply into hostile airspace and kill off an opponent's AWACS/AEW&C, and other ISR and counter-ISR assets. In practice, we can expect the 'symmetrical model' to play out across the battlespace, with both sides jamming each other's ISR and networks, and aiming to shoot down each other's ISR platforms. Whether an AWACS/AEW&C platform is killed by a 200 nautical mile range R-172 missile or an F-22A armed with an AIM-9X or AIM-120D is an entirely academic argument. It is entirely possible that in some conflicts the attrition or high risk of attrition of ISR platforms may force both sides to withdraw them rather than lose them, leaving fighters to fend for themselves, creating an environment not unlike the air battles of the 1940s.

The US Air Force are seeking around 400 F-22A Raptors for precisely these reasons, but have been repeatedly frustrated by the Washington DoD bureaucracy who are unwilling to release the necessary funds. While we have seen little in the way of rational argument to support this conduct to date, what little argument is visible tends to be manifestations of 'symmetrical model', i.e. “advanced F-15Cs are good enough since we have AWACS and networking ....”.

Analysts who have studied Russian technology exports and counted the ongoing sales of fighters, missiles, AWACS/AEW&C aircraft, networking, ELINT and jamming equipment, uniformly share the view that the reality of future air combat will be much closer to the 'symmetrical model' than the 'asymmetrical model' seen over Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and over the Bekaa Valley in 1982. Nevertheless defence bureaucrats in many Western nations remain firmly wedded to the 'asymmetrical model', with its implicit assumptions of Russian inferiority in all basic technologies used for air combat.

In sizing up Russian combat aircraft against their Western rivals, the nature of future air combat is critical, since it determines what priorities should be applied to specific capabilities and performance parameters in fighter aircraft, their systems and weapons.

Comparing Basic Technologies

Basic technologies determine what kind of airframes, propulsion, systems and weapons can be employed by either side in a conflict. The side with a significant lead in basic technology will prevail, all else being equal, due to the performance and capability gains that lead confers.

Perhaps the most foolish of the popular misconceptions of Russian basic technology is that which assumes that the US and EU maintain the technological lead of 1-2 decades held at the end of the Cold War. Alas, nearly two decades later, in a globalised, digitised and networked world, the US retains a decisive lead onl y in top end stealth technologies, and some aspects of networking and highly integrated systems software. The Russians have closed the gap in most other areas, but importantly, have mastered the difficult embedded software technology so critical for radar and electronic warfare systems, as well as sensor fusion, networking and engine and flight controls. The Russians are working very hard at closing the remaing gap, with the planned PAK-FA fighter to be properly shaped for low observable and very low observable stealth capability.

The latest Russian MiG-35 Fulcrum F and Su-35-1 Flanker E+ both

Radio Frequency Jammers – the most important developments over the last decade have been the advent of Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) and towed decoy technologies. The Russians have mastered the former and have offered it for export (MSP-418K) some years ago, and are now offering the Lobushka towed decoy, claimed to be comparable to the US ALE-50. Some Russian jamming equipment is much more refined than Western equivalents, the KNIRTI Sorbstiya jam pod carried by numerous Flanker subtypes boasts a wideband phased array RF stage, much more effective against monopulse emitters, and more sophisticated than the wideband horn or lens emitters in Western equivalents.

Supercooled Engine Blades – the Russians announced over a year ago low rate Initial Production (LRIP) of the AL-41F engine, designed originally as a supersonic cruise equivalent to the F-22A's P&W F119-PW-100. The hot end technology used in the AL-41F core has since migrated also into the AL-31F-117C variant for the Su-35-1. Cited performance figures for these engines indicate the Russian industry has closed much of the gap the US opened with the F119/F135 family of the engines.

Engine FADEC – Full Authority Digital Engine Control systems are now available for a range of more recent Russian engines, including the AL-31F-117C. Whatever lead US and EU manufacturers may have is now onl y incremental, and mostly in maturity of software.

Thrust Vectoring Nozzles – to date the onl y full production Western air combat fighter with TVC capability is the F-22A, while the Russians have exported 2D TVC in the Su-30MKI, and offered 3D TVC for other types. Russian TVC is integrated with the flight controls, not unlike the F-22A arrangement.

Digital Flight Control Systems – the Russians demonstrated their first quadruply redundant DFCS in the Su-37 during the 1990s and now offer it as an option for the Su-30MK series, Su-35 and likely as an MLU option for Su-27SKM rebuilds. The onl y incremental advantage held by US and EU manufacturers is in greater maturity of embedded software, an advantage which will not last.
Radar Absorbent Materials and Structures – the US still retains a lead in this technology, but the Russians continue to make robust advances in coatings, laminates, and other controlled impedance technologies. Much of the Russian effort to date has been focussed on reducing the signature of conventional aircraft, rather than the US focus on fully shaped new designs. Russian Kazantsev laminates have demonstrated 100 fold signature reduction in the X-band, and recent citations indicate that robotically applied inlet tunnel coatings (Flanker) have achieved a 30 fold reduction in X-band signature. These are significant performance achievements, insofar as they challenge existing reduced signature US designs like the F/A-18E/F. While the US still leads at the top end of this technology, the Russians have closed much of the gap in 'commodity' technologies for treating conventional and legacy fighters.

Airborne Datalinks and Networks – the Russians have long been users of digital datalinks, primarily for GCI and AWACS support of interceptors. During the 1990s they invested heavily in intraflight datalink technology intended to network flights of fighters, and the TKS-2 system currently exported on Flankers provides the capability to share sensor data between multiple aircraft. The Russians are now offering an equivalent to the JTIDS/Link-16 system on their latest fighters. What advantage the US and EU retain in this technology is primarily in the maturity of software and protocol designs, another gap which will not last.

Inertial and Satellite Navigation Equipment – the advantage held by the US over Russia at the end of the Cold War has largely evaporated in this area, in part due to the wide availability of RLG and GPS technology in the global market. The US still retains a strong lead in wide area differential GPS technology.
Glass Cockpit Technology – the US introduced Active Matrix LCD panel displays during the early 1990s, with the Russians closing this gap using commodity technology some years ago. All current production Russian fighters use glass cockpits, and the Su-35-1 will employ two large area panels emulating in AMLCD technology the projector screen arrangement in the Joint Strike Fighte

Active Radar Guided Missile Seekers – At the end of the Cold War the US led globally with the digital AIM-120A/B AMRAAM and AIM-54C Phoenix missiles. Since then the Russians have closed much of this gap with the R-77 Adder's Agat 9B1348, and its derivative 9B1103M for the R-27 missile. The most recently reported subtype of this seeker uses the same Texas Instruments TMS320 digital processor as is used in most Western radars and seekers. What technology gap remains is in the maturity of embedded software and packaging.

ElectroOptical Guided Missile Seekers – the latest scanning digital seekers used in the R-73/R-74 Archer series of heatseeking missiles are a generation behind the seekers in the AIM-9X, Python 4 and ASRAAM, but given the ease with which Rafael produced the EO guided Python 5, this gap could close very quickly. The lack of Russian investment in this area suggests that the capability of the late model R-73/R-74 is regarded to be adequate

If we compare a late model AESA equipped F-15K/SG subtype against the late model Su-35BM/Su-35-1, both likely to be rolled off a production line at the same time, these Flankers will outperform these F-15s in much of the flight envelope, especially at transonic speeds. With the AL-41F engine the Flanker will be able to sustain decent supersonic speed on dry thrust, giving it an energy advantage throughout the envelope. How much supercruise capability the hybrid AL-31F-117 series engine will provide remains to be seen. With conformal fuel tanks the F-15 will have comparable range to the Flanker with external PTB-2000 drop tanks. Equipped with the Irbis E the Sukhoi will achieve a first look / shot capability over the F-15 with an APG-63(V)2 AESA radar. In terms of EWSP capability, the Sorbstiya jammers will deliver better EIRP than the legacy ALQ-135 series, and the Khibiny-M will be comparable to the ALR-56M series. An area of uncertainty is how much of their newer radar signature suppression technology the Russians will incorporate in export Flankers.

In performing an overall summary, the Flanker will outperform or match the F-15 in most cardinal parameters and capabilities.
The onl y Western fighter which offers a decisive advantage in all cardinal parameters over the Su-35BM/Su-35-1 is the Lockheed-Martin F-22A Raptor. On internal fuel and subsonic profiles the Flanker will outrange the F-22A slightly, and it is likely that in high alpha low speed manoeuvre the Flanker may perform better. However, in the classical high altitude high speed long range missile combat regime the Raptor will beat the Flanker every time due to the generational advantages of all aspect wideband stealth and supersonic cruise.

In conclusion, the notion that contemporary production Russian fighters are inferior in technology, performance and overall capability to their US/EU peers is largely not correct, and predicated on assumptions about Russian technological capabilities which ceased to be true a decade or more ago. The disdain toward the Flanker shown by many senior bureacrats in Western defence establishments reflects, sadly, nothing more than their lack of insight and understanding as to how far the Russians have progressed since 1991 in a globalised high technology economy.


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

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Shankar » 21 Dec 2009 17:01

DRAGON FIRE FLIGHT -8XSU-30 MKK-50 KM FROM BARATANG ISLAND -100 KM FROM PORT BLAIR PORT AND AIRPORT

Patrick Chan looked at the screen and did not like what he saw. The damned Indian pilots are all over and firing off like mad men at everything on their sights and then pulling back to refuel and then should be back to reengage any time now

It is a typical now or never situation as he keyed in the inter aircraft frequency

-dragon fire flight –dragon lead – we are going in now –dive for the deck as we get feet dry repeat dive for deck as we go feet dry in 5 minutes –go for max dive angle –level out at 500 ft (he did not want to bang against the tall trees ) –we use strike plan won shu repeat won shu –over .This meant in plain language the 8 strike aircraft will split up and attack from four corners of the compass with Port Blair at the centre ,crossing over the target zone in less than 60 second. interval.

Dragon flight –lead –commence bomb run on my count – 5 4 3 2 1 –now

Like a well choreographed dance of death the 8 fully laded Su-30 mkk each with nearly 12 ton of dumb bombs dived for the ground like a mass of corkscrew each peeling of the spiral at the exact moment to give them the desired attack heading .

Very quickly the attack developed and the Indian interceptors in the sky was for a few seconds lost in confusion since the pre determined engagement envelope and interception profile was no longer valid

AIR HEADQUARTERS –DELHI

The chief of air staff understood the paralysis of decision making of the newly inducted air battle commander .He took control quickly and decisively

- free air defense missiles – tell the flankers pilots to clear the area – admiral your ships too are also free to engage anything that moves in air –

Thousand of kms away in the emerald bay fo Andaman 15 different warships activated their radars and searched the sky but the PLAN pilots were good ,very good by the time they have been located and tracked they have already semi lost in the ground clutter and streaking over the night sky of Andaman island at near supersonic speed in a blaze of afterburner

NO 74 AKASH GROUP –BARATNG ISLAND -ANDAMANS


Wing commander Tamang knew some thing like that can happen and he was ready as he received the direct voice command from chief of airstaff and his Rajendra radar went active on full power the creen immediately lit up with fast moving blips of two PLAN flankers approaching his position .The system operator switched to auto launch mode and 2 akash missiles leapt of the launcher on a direct intercept course this was followed by two more from the launcher at right angle to the first .The four red dots climbed swiftly ,acquired their targets and then zoomed back for a precision impact a few seconds later . Both the enemy aircraft did not even realize what hit them till the last moment and the multi million dollar aircrafts exploded over the crocodile infested baratang creek with a hiss of steam and hot mud .

NO 12 A IGLA GROUP –JUST OUTSIDE JARWA ENCLAVE

Squadron leader Mahesh scanned the night sky and soon rewarded by the green light on the pistol grip that confirmed his missile was getting a signal to lock on ,10 seconds later the light changed to yealow blinker confirming that the seker has aquired a target and in the distance

He squeezed the stubby trigger and the missile leaped free –chasing the incoming pair of Chinese flankers choosing the lead aircraft and exploding on the super hot after burning tail pipe ,making the aircraft cart wheel into the forest –exploding and starting a fire .The second flanker was lucky as he flashed overhead and corrected course to Port Blair airport barely 30 km away.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 518
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby pralay » 21 Dec 2009 17:24

just a question.
Can't the PLAF 30mkk carry Air to Surface missiles ?
they would be in perfect shoot and scoot position then ?

bodhi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 02 Dec 2009 09:25

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby bodhi » 22 Dec 2009 08:50

sameer_shelavale wrote:just a question.
Can't the PLAF 30mkk carry Air to Surface missiles ?
they would be in perfect shoot and scoot position then ?


why use aircrafts at all when they can use surface to surface missiles with conventional warheads to attack the islands?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3971
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby kit » 22 Dec 2009 10:37

Why use conventional aircraft ? A massed strike with a hundred cruise missiles coupled with anti radar drones like Harpy and defence suppression with drones like 'beast of kandahar' would definitely be cheaper and more effective.Stand off jamming and guidance can be given by 2-3 long range AWACS type aircraft.The strike can be followed up a conventional attack using manned aircraft.Chinese capability to manufacture missiles in very large numbers should be kept in mind.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 444
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby aditp » 22 Dec 2009 10:55

kit wrote:Why use conventional aircraft ? A massed strike with a hundred cruise missiles coupled with anti radar drones like Harpy and defence suppression with drones like 'beast of kandahar' would definitely be cheaper and more effective.Stand off jamming and guidance can be given by 2-3 long range AWACS type aircraft.The strike can be followed up a conventional attack using manned aircraft.Chinese capability to manufacture missiles in very large numbers should be kept in mind.


Yeah, and the Phalcon's & the MKI's massive ECM & ECCM capabilities are also well speculated. SO in this speculation vs speculation war, no guess who succeeds. Not much fun though.In pure Dubyaman ishtyle "Bring 'em on" Shankarda.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Singha » 22 Dec 2009 11:52

imo before going in with a attack by flankers, they will launch HN-x ALCM from Tu16 badger bombers from much further out. this would be to target airbase runways.

once the orbiting fighter screens have to full back to mainland to refuel and
rearm, with local runways out of comission, then a manned strike of the type described work have better impact.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 444
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby aditp » 22 Dec 2009 12:29

To launch the HN-xx at Port Blair, the Tu-16 would have to be somewhere over Myanmar. That can be tackled by the MKIs from Assam.

But the Pandas wont do that. They read Vivek_Ahuja's scenario and learnt their lesson. The Badger would be mincemeat. So they sent the MKK instead. :lol:

PS: Admiral Li shao Chi is acting covertly. He may not have all resources available. Remember this is an unauthorised rogue strike.

JimmyJ
BRFite
Posts: 211
Joined: 07 Dec 2007 03:36
Location: Bangalore

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby JimmyJ » 22 Dec 2009 23:49

But I wonder whether such a large operation would go unnoticied by the higher ups, just think about the logistics needed and radars of all the nations on the way. But oh ya this is really enjoyable, especially because of the speed of posting. Never gives the mind to think of anything else.

Sudhanshu
BRFite
Posts: 307
Joined: 14 Feb 2006 22:15
Location: USA

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Sudhanshu » 23 Dec 2009 04:41

Don't forget all this happening in matter of hours, not in days.

It requires even one business day to get political people informed of such situations, off course except informations like if their own nation is being attack.

There are some evidence suggest, 1965 operation was planned and executed by Pak army alone. Everybody else got involved only later on.

shobhit.raj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 09 Dec 2009 09:58

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby shobhit.raj » 23 Dec 2009 09:08

Bala Vignesh wrote:awesome build up dada.. its shaping to be an awesome combat in the air..


Hi Bala,

I've become of fan of Military scenario's since i read Mr. Vivek_ahuja's scenario. The problem is .... he is no longer contributing. In this thread earlier, you had mentioned that you had a doc from Mr. vivek's scenario. Is it a 230 page Indo-China write up? If yes, then that is left incomplete at page 230. Any idea where can i get the rest of the material?

If not, then could you please send me the document at shobhit.rajmalani@gmail.com.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Possible Indian Military Scenarios - XII

Postby Bala Vignesh » 23 Dec 2009 22:07

shobhit.raj wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:awesome build up dada.. its shaping to be an awesome combat in the air..


Hi Bala,

I've become of fan of Military scenario's since i read Mr. Vivek_ahuja's scenario. The problem is .... he is no longer contributing. In this thread earlier, you had mentioned that you had a doc from Mr. vivek's scenario. Is it a 230 page Indo-China write up? If yes, then that is left incomplete at page 230. Any idea where can i get the rest of the material?

If not, then could you please send me the document at shobhit.rajmalani@gmail.com.


Its just 210 pages... and i am not sure whether its complete or not.. i'll bring it up to date if it isn't... and send it you...


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mollick.R, VipinM and 46 guests