Su-30MKI: News and Discussion - August 9, 2014

[brar_w]

have been dancing up and down after the last time. The Iaf looks to have more than gotten back for that typhoon pr stunt

LOL at their "analysis" - there is a common theme amongst all these folks - they are simply unable to accept the fact that they came out second best even if its the honest thing. At least the USAF guys were open about their experience after the rest of the USAF community was reportedly grilling them that they lost to them injuns and what not. So they volunteered their info to Av Leak to set the record straight. That didn't stop that dude who didn't even take part in Red Flag from shooting his mouth off of about the IAF contingent though, even revealing stuff about the F-22 and USAF issues with EW and what not.

The Col. in question caused quite a bit of trouble for folks at Red Flag iirc. Even his claims about the F-22 are doubtful. He claimed a 28 degrees per second sustained turn at 20,000 feet at I would assume very low fuel. That is extremely doubtful given what even the best sustained turners of the past or even aircraft like the Typhoon and a hypothetical F-16 variant can do. The Typhoon has exceptional sustained turning ability and I think it can do a max of 24 degrees a second..The raptor in the best case should be around that give or take some.

[Karan M]

have been dancing up and down after the last time. The Iaf looks to have more than gotten back for that typhoon pr stunt

LOL at their "analysis" - there is a common theme amongst all these folks - they are simply unable to accept the fact that they came out second best even if its the honest thing. At least the USAF guys were open about their experience after the rest of the USAF community was reportedly grilling them that they lost to them injuns and what not. So they volunteered their info to Av Leak to set the record straight. That didn't stop that dude who didn't even take part in Red Flag from shooting his mouth off of about the IAF contingent though, even revealing stuff about the F-22 and USAF issues with EW and what not.

The Col. in question caused quite a bit of trouble for folks at Red Flag iirc. Even his claims about the F-22 are doubtful. He claimed a 28 degrees per second sustained turn at 20,000 feet at I would assume very low fuel. That is extremely doubtful given what even the best sustained turners of the past or even aircraft like the Typhoon and a hypothetical F-16 variant can do. The Typhoon has exceptional sustained turning ability and I think it can do a max of 24 degrees a second..The raptor in the best case should be around that give or take some.

He was probably referring to ITR with TVC not STR.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... ia-on-you/

[Viv S]

It wasnt a slur but a compliment melawd, gustakhi maaf. Go on their forums and bellyache about all this if you must about how (un)professional they are, instead of wasting our time with this drivel which adds nothing to the discussion about the Flanker vs the Typhoon or the stupendous performance by the IAF.

Because I'm not Indian enough for this forum huh? I guess I'll just wait to get my expulsion notice from the moderators then.

[brar_w]

I specifically remember him saying sustained. ITR should be more than 28 even going by some of what has been seen at air-shows especially at lower altitudes.

Here's an interesting discussion

[Karan M]

It wasnt a slur but a compliment melawd, gustakhi maaf. Go on their forums and bellyache about all this if you must about how (un)professional they are, instead of wasting our time with this drivel which adds nothing to the discussion about the Flanker vs the Typhoon or the stupendous performance by the IAF.

Because I'm not Indian enough for this forum huh? I guess I'll just wait to get my expulsion notice from the moderators then.

Nothing to do with moderators or your indianness me lawd, your hissy fit apart. Merely that when folks were trying to parse out details of the IAFs performance and the Flankers capability, you were busy trying to downplay it & also cast slurs on the IAFs professionalism. Enough time spent on your drivel already. If you have anything worthwhile to add about the exercise itself, as versus your opinion from on high about how the IAF should have revealed details , then we're all ears.

[Karan M]

I specifically remember him saying sustained. ITR should be more than 28 even going by some of what has been seen at air-shows especially at lower altitudes.

Here's an interesting discussion

No skin off my nose if he was wrong about that as well.. looks like he had 1-2 many beers and was playing to the gallery.

[Viv S]

Nothing to do with moderators or your indianness me lawd, your hissy fit apart. Merely that when folks were trying to parse out details of the IAFs performance and the Flankers capability, you were busy trying to downplay it & also cast slurs on the IAFs professionalism. Enough time spent on your drivel already.

Just a reminder - you decided to 'waste' your time attacking my post instead of ignoring it (both of us would be happier off for it). While of the two articles describing the exercise, one was posted by me (for the benefit of folks involved in 'parsing out details on the IAF's performance').

[Karan M]

This advertorial for the EF had some details
https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/W ... _Power.pdf

In 2007 and 2011, the RAF were bragging that:

Live training exercises with Indian Air Force Su-30MKI fighters in 2007 and
2011 were an unusual opportunity to test the Eurofighter’s WVR combat
capabilities against the most advanced ‘Flanker’ then in service. The RAF
Typhoons involved in the exercises were able to reliably beat the Su-30MKIs
by countering the latter’s advantage in horizontal turning and high-alpha
2
manoeuvres through superior acceleration and vertical manoeuvres,
coupled with helmet-cued missile targeting.
3Personal interview with RAF staff officer in the Typhoon programme, High Wycombe,
20 February 2015.

Looks like the IAF decided to set the record straight this time around. 12-0 washout in WVR is fairly unequivocal.

n terms of sensors, the CAPTOR-M radar currently mounted on the
Eurofighter is widely recognised as one of the most powerful and precise
of its kind. It can be used to detect and track targets at ranges of over
100 nautical miles

The Bars/Flanker combination apparently proved equal to the task as well.

[Karan M]

More rubbish and blah-blah

Quite, quite, me lawd. Quite quite. Yawn.

[Viv S]

Quite, quite, me lawd. Quite quite. Yawn.

You'd still like to continue flaming the thread?

[Karan M]

Quite, quite, me lawd. Quite quite. Yawn.

You'd still like to continue flaming the thread?

I'm actually contributing to the thread me lawd, whilst laughing at your pomposity. Pfft.

[Karan M]

Beautiful pictures of the Flankers in the UK, plus pictures of the crew, pilots and personnel.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/photos ... 1722373860

[member_20067]

Beautiful pictures of the Flankers in the UK, plus pictures of the crew, pilots and personnel.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/photos ... 1722373860

my fav...

[Karan M]

Some more pics and details here:
http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2015/07/raf- ... scenarios/

[Viv S]

I'm actually contributing to the thread me lawd, whilst laughing at your pomposity. Pfft.

I take it the forum upgrade broke the ignore button?

[brar_w]

I specifically remember him saying sustained. ITR should be more than 28 even going by some of what has been seen at air-shows especially at lower altitudes.

Here's an interesting discussion

No skin off my nose if he was wrong about that as well.. looks like he had 1-2 many beers and was playing to the gallery.

Could be ! While 28 dps sustained is an insanely high number for any fighter no matter what it costs, 28 ITR is a possibility at that altitude depending upon the fuel state and payload. The Rafale does its best (like most) at SL which is in the early 30's..Its ITR falls to below 25 dps at 20,000 feet. The F-22A has an excellent T2W and TVC so it should be able to be in the 30's dps easily at lower altitude so its entirely possible that the Col. may have used ITR at some unspecified payload or fuel state but there was no OPSEC case unlike the infamous incident where another F-22 pilot was investigated (to his credit he was not found guilty ) of an OPSEC violation because he was posting information online...

[Viv S]

Could be ! While 28 dps sustained is an insanely high number for any fighter no matter what it costs, 28 ITR is a possibility at that altitude depending upon the fuel state and payload. The Rafale does its best (like most) at SL which is in the early 30's..Its ITR falls to below 25 dps at 20,000 feet. The F-22A has an excellent T2W and TVC so it should be able to be in the 30's dps easily in many altitudes so its entirely possible that the Col. may have used ITR at some unspecified payload or fuel state but there was no OPSEC case unlike the infamous incident where another F-22 pilot was investigated (to his credit he was not found guilty ) of an OPSEC violation because he was posting information online...

Dozer was investigated?

[Karan M]

This is perhaps the biggest advantage of the Flanker because of which it can continue to stay relevant in an era of smaller more discreet platforms.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254309277/Ad ... ssian-AESA

C.

Tikhomirov NIIP X-Band AESAs
In August, 2009, Tikhomirov NIIP were permitted to publicly display the new AESA developed for the PAK-FA, and also a clear candidate for FLANKER retrofits, stating that the integration of an AESA into the FLANKER airframe would not present difficulties [15].

The large 0.9-1.1 metre diameter aperture provided by the FLANKER nose and radome design will be especially attractive to an AESA designer. This aperture size permits around twice as many AESA modules of similar size to most current Western designs, apart from the F-22A Raptor APG-77 and F-15C APG-82.

The implications of this are sobering, insofar as with modules rated at half the peak power of the current state-of-the-art, such a radar could provide about the same peak power rating as current upper tier US AESAs. The power aperture would thus be higher due to the aperture area being so much larger. With COTS derived modules of much higher peak power rating than current US military GaN HEMT technology, a future FLANKER AESA could have a very much higher Power Aperture Product figure [7]. In 2009, there were two candidate AESA designs for installation in new build, or retrofit into existing service FLANKERS. These radars are NIIR Phazotron's intended “Zhuk-AS/ASE”, scaled up from the Zhuk AE, and a derivative of Tikhomirov NIIP's new PAK-FA AESA.

Both radar designs would be based on the quad channel TR module technology first disclosed during the public release of the Zhuk AE. These X-band modules are now being mass produced on an automated line by NPP Istok, who are also planning S-band module production.

Mostly Russian produced GaAs components are employed. Cited capacity is sufficient for 50 AESA radars annually [7].

The Tikhomirov NIIP AESA design for the PAK-FA employs an antenna aperture very similar in size, if not identical, to the aperture of the N035 Irbis E hybrid PESA. The design is intended for fixed low signature tilted installation, rather than gimballed installation, and auxiliary cheek arrays are planned for, emulating intended F-22 placement. The design is claimed to have been integrated with an existing BARS/Irbis radar back end for testing and design validation purposes. Public statements made in Russia claim 1,500 TR module elements. Counting exposed radiating elements on video stills of the antenna indicates an estimated 1,524 TR channels, with a tolerance of several percent. This is within 5% of the 2008 model for a FLANKER AESA, produced by Air Power Australia [7][15]. NIIP have publicly claimed detection range performance of 350 to 400 km (190 to 215 NMI), which assuming a Russian industry standard 2.5m2 target, is consistent with the cited 2008 model for a radar using ~10 W rated TR modules, which in turn is the power rating for the modules used in the Zhuk AE prototypes.

This puts the nett peak power at ~15 kW, slightly
This puts the nett peak power at ~15 kW, slightly below the Irbis E, but even a very modest 25% increase in TR module output rating would overcome this. There are distinct differences between the AESA displayed by NIIP for Vesti, which has less depth and uses circular radiators, and the examples displayed at MAKS 2009 and depicted on brochures, which are constructed using TR module sticks and are several inches deeper. Until further disclosures are made, the final AESA configuration will remain uncertain. The best strategy available to the Russian industry for reducing AESA cost is the export of AESA upgrades to the large global community of FLANKER users over the coming decade, emulating the US approach with this technology.

Tikhomirov NIIP brochures state that the existing AESA would be the basis of AESA upgrade designs for the Su-27/30/35 FLANKERS.

[Karan M]

I'm actually contributing to the thread me lawd, whilst laughing at your pomposity. Pfft.

I take it the forum upgrade broke the ignore button?

Irony! Use it, why don't you, instead of whining
Pfttt...meanwhile I continue to contribute and laugh as well.

[brar_w]

Could be ! While 28 dps sustained is an insanely high number for any fighter no matter what it costs, 28 ITR is a possibility at that altitude depending upon the fuel state and payload. The Rafale does its best (like most) at SL which is in the early 30's..Its ITR falls to below 25 dps at 20,000 feet. The F-22A has an excellent T2W and TVC so it should be able to be in the 30's dps easily in many altitudes so its entirely possible that the Col. may have used ITR at some unspecified payload or fuel state but there was no OPSEC case unlike the infamous incident where another F-22 pilot was investigated (to his credit he was not found guilty ) of an OPSEC violation because he was posting information online...

Dozer was investigated?

Yes, for an OPSEC violation. He was humiliated to a degree because his case was set as an example being the first of a kind in the post-internet/chat-room world. Basically the memo in the USAF on how to behave in an online setting uses him as a case study

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/03 ... peaks.html

[Karan M]

Can you guys take the US centric stuff to another thread?

[Karan M]

Bill Sweetman on Su-35 - and a lot of which applies to the Su-30 MKI as well.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/su-35-coul ... -limelight

Even two years ago, at the MAKS show in Moscow, the Su-35S—combining the proven aerodynamics of the T-10 family with a new integrated flight and propulsion control system including 3-D thrust-vectoring—showed some moves that no other aircraft has emulated in public, including a seamless transition from a dynamic deceleration (“Cobra” maneuver) into a low-airspeed turn, and flat spins—inverted and upright—under full control.

Any such demonstrations will be followed by a chorus of the usual suspects noting that “air show maneuvers” don't equate to air combat capability. However, flight demonstrations are not aerobatic tricks. Unpredictable flight paths challenge the guidance algorithms of any missile system and rapid nose-pointing can permit a short-range missile launch with a greater kill probability.

[Viv S]

Irony! Use it, why don't you, instead of whining
Pfttt...meanwhile I continue to contribute and laugh as well.

Meanwhile, I add you to my ignore list as there is little chance you will not stop with your missionary zeal in...

[Karan M]

Mikhail Simonov on super manoeuverability in BVR

Simonov explains
“Super-maneuverability should be looked at as a system of maneuvers for close aerial combat. Once the pilot receives a signal that his plane is being tracked by enemy radar, the first thing he needs to do is to go vertical. While gaining altitude and losing speed the aircraft starts to disappear from the screens of radars that use the Doppler effect.
“
However, the opponent is no fool either and will counter by pitching his aircraft upward as well. By that time our plane is going vertical and its speed approaches zero. But all Doppler radars can recognise only a moving target. If the aircraft speed is zero or simply low enough to prevent the enemy radar from calculating the Doppler component, for the enemy our aircraft will disappear. He may still be able to track us visually, but he will not be able to launch a radar-guided missile (either active or semi-active), simply because the missile’ s seeker would not pick-up the target.”

Might be easier to just rely on EW but interesting nonetheless.

[Karan M]

Irony! Use it, why don't you, instead of whining
Pfttt...meanwhile I continue to contribute and laugh as well.

Meanwhile, I add you to my ignore list as there is little chance you will not stop with your missionary zeal in...

Oh my - some poor soul is upset he/she isn't on ignore. Use it me lawd, use it and quit .

[Karan M]

IAF Flanker in the UK plus Garud Force (trained with the RAF Regiment - similar missions)

[eklavya]

The objective of the RoE is not be fair it is to enable a productive training exercise.

And the point is even when the IAF does well in a bilateral exercise, the media doesn't need to be given the specifics. For good reason.

How can you have any thing productive or learning experience to begin with without having a fair ROE.

If you read upon BFM done in many bilateral exercises and AFM/AI has carried many such article the ROE includes all regime of flight and includes one to one and one to many and many to many engagement , both sides gets fair chance in BFM and all exercises are done in friendly training exercises with opportunity to learn and share.

What is BFM? Many thanks in advance.

[Viv S]

What is BFM? Many thanks in advance.

Basic fighter manoeuvring. (Dogfighting manoeuvres.)

[shiv]

How can you prepare a pilot for adverse circumstances without placing him in adverse circumstances?

What are the adverse circumstances that pilots are placed in?

Let me put it another way - if the Su-30MKI is that much better than the EF at BFM then by definition the RoEs are unfair and should be tilted against the Sukhoi (the same way that the F-22 always fights with one hand tied to give its opponents a fighting chance). In this case (if the kill ratios are accurate), the setups were likely lower speed encounters and kept so since they're safer and easier to conduct.

(And I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a wet blanket anti-jingo here.)

You are coming across like a good golfer. The rules you have created for fighter combat exercises are normal in golf, and are also good to "show off" capability that is already known. When the US wants to "show off" the F-22 they do absurd things like making a fighter fight with one hand (the non dominant hand?) to give its opponents a fighting chance.

When you don't know the other team's capability - that is, you do not have a figure for his handicap, then it has to be one on one (or worse) with no holds barred. That way one side might really face "adverse circumstances" and be guaranteed to live and learn.

[shiv]

I am reminded of a discussion I had elsewhere which I gave up because the gulf was too large between the person who was saying something and what I was saying.

The man was saying that in wartime when a hostile set of aircraft attack one's homeland, the person in charge of air defence will not send his most capable fighters for defence - but will send the "least capable" or send something that he feels is "most equal" to the attacking force.

I had a lot of taqleef with this. I was already mentally biased because this was a person who had earlier suggested the use of Indian security cameras fixed outside Paki air bases to see what they are doing - so my state of mind to start with was not totally calm.

The problems I had with his suggested air defence paradigm were

• The defending air base commander may not have exact information about the particular aircraft types that are attacking so that he can sit back and say - "Hey F-7s attacking today so I will use MiG 21s today "
• It's not as if air bases being attacked are like a cafeteria where there is a choice of aircraft you can send for air defence "Hey it's F-16s today so I'll send my MiG 29s" or simply send something else because some other aircraft is attacking
• Obviously, if the defenders sent up as "equal in capability" to the attackers are shot down then you have lost planes and pilots based on an arbitrary assessment that sought to "equalize the odds" rather than ensuring the highest probability of killing the attackers.
• It is the theoretical equalizing of odds in war that is absurd - like two knights jousting over maid Marian. One must fight to win. Not "equalize odds"

The point is that in combat an attacker or a defender may come up against the best that the adversary has. He may win, he may lose, but his idea would be to win no matter what. In earlier wars Indian aircraft returning from missions, low on fuel have avoided tangling with F-104s simply because the chances of doing a dogfight low on fuel and getting back to base even if they won (a Mystere did shoot down an F-104) would be slim. Better to escape if possible - which is a sort of "victory" that allows the same plane and pilot to be used for an attack again later.

One cannot decide beforehand in war that an attacking formation will definitely be stronger overall than a defending force or vice versa. A combat training exercise must have situations where the chances of getting killed are high and escape or victory in such a situation would be a lesson for everyone.

Any "fixing" where it is decided that one force is "too good" so they will use only 1/3rd of their capability is completely absurd as a training exercise. That apart - if an Su-30 and a Jaguar were to tangle in a dogfight and the Jaguar won then there is no point in giving an excuse later and saying "The Su-30 was not using even half its capability because it is so soo much superior to Jaguar. If it had done everything it can then the Jaguar would have been toast". That is a lame excuse after a useless exercise. If 10 such exercises are held and the Jaguar wins more than 2 or 3 then there would be some lessons to learn. On the other hand if the Su-30 is using all its capabilities and a Jag still wins 2 or 3 there are different lessons to be learned.

[wig]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 44466.html

Indian Air Force 'beats RAF 12-0 in training exercise' – using Russian-designed jets
excerpts from the above article

India’s top guns have claimed they humiliated the cream of the RAF during a two-week exercise which offered British pilots a rare chance to go up against some of the latest Russian-designed fighter jets.
Operation Indradhanush saw the Indian Air Force (IAF) bring four of its fleet of Russian-designed SU-30MKI Flanker fighter aircraft to RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire to face off against the RAF’s Typhoon FGR4 fighter.
The exercise was relished by British pilots as an opportunity to train alongside Russian-designed aircraft, amid increasing tensions in the Baltic – where the RAF has deployed fighters following the conflict in Ukraine – and more frequent interceptions of Russian bombers off the British coastline.
However, to the dismay of RAF officers, their Indian counterparts have reportedly taken the unusual step of publicly claiming to have come away from the exercise with a resounding 12-0 victory against their UK opponents.

In an interview with Indian television, IAF Group Captain Ashu Srivastav claimed victory over the British aircraft during close-range dogfights – prompting an RAF source to label his claim “comical”.

Group Captain Srivastav said the performance of his pilots was “exceptional”, while other reports in the Indian media said that IAF aircraft were able to defeat the more advanced RAF Typhoon aircraft not only in one-on-one combat, but also in situations where one IAF pilot was pitted against two Typhoons.

Responding to the Indian claims, the RAF source they were clearly designed for the “domestic audience”. He told The Independent: “There must have been some clouded recollection on the flights back to India, as the headlines of the Indian press bear no relation to the results of the tactical scenarios completed on the exercise in any shape or form.”

The RAF source also stressed that the Typhoons had effectively been fighting “with one arm behind their backs” as they did not make full use of their more advanced weapons systems.
Tony Osborne, the London bureau chief of Aviation Week, also suggested caution when dealing with the Indian claims. “These cricket-style scores claimed by the IAF look impressive but should be treated with caution and certainly not as a realistic gauge of combat capability,” he said.
“We have to view these scores through the haze of pilot bravado, national pride and also some political correctness. Nonetheless, the Su-30MKI is one of the aircraft that the Typhoon was designed to tackle and defeat, and no doubt in the right hands would present a potent challenge. Today [though] the aim would be to engage aircraft like the Su-30MKI from long-range before the two could come together in a dogfight.”

Even the Indian pilot admitted the SU-30s were “less successful” in the longer-range combat exercises.

Aviation experts also pointed to an exercise in 2011 when RAF fighters decimated the ranks of the visiting IAF pilots, prompting the then Air Chief Marshal of the RAF, Stephen Dalton, to comment: “Well, they lost.”

A spokesperson for the RAF said of this summer’s exercises: “Our analysis does not match what has been reported, RAF pilots and the Typhoon performed well throughout the exercise with and against the Indian Air Force. Both [forces] learnt a great deal from the exercise and the RAF look forward to the next opportunity to train alongside the IAF.”

and some comparative figures from the article

Typhoon FGR4: Britain’s best

Armament rating 8.0/10

Manoeuvrability 9.7/10

Max Rate of Climb 65k ft/min

Service Ceiling 65k ft

Max Speed 2.35 Mach

Fuel Economy 0.68 km/l

Unit Cost $125m

Probability of winning cannon dogfight 66%

Sukhoi su-30Mk1: Russia's best

Armament rating 8.5/10

Manoeuvrability 7.8/10

Max Rate of Climb 60k ft/min

Service Ceiling 56k ft

Max Speed 1.90 Mach

Fuel Economy 0.58 km/l

Unit Cost $47m

Probability of winning cannon dogfight 34%

[member_22539]

^Pathetic H&D saving exercise. The RAF must learn to take it as well as they give. I don't remember any IAF personnel making excuses for their "supposedly" poor performance in the earlier exercise. Just goes to show where pakis got their obsession for H&D from.

[shiv]

OK Now I have a real picture of Indradhanush. This year it was definitely a case of

• information designed for the “domestic audience”.
• there must have been some clouded recollection on the flights back to India
• Typhoons had effectively been fighting “with one arm behind their backs"

On the other hand, in a previous exercise when RAF fighters decimated the ranks of the visiting IAF pilots, prompting the then Air Chief Marshal of the RAF, Stephen Dalton, to comment: “Well, they lost.” At that time

• There was no Brit audience interested enough so no question of any statements for "domestic audience"
• British pilot recollections were crystal clear unlike the hazy recollections of Indian pilots
• No mention of how many Typhoon arms were tied but the Su-30s were using three or four arms all flailing about

It was the British who gave us laws and a sense of justice after all.

[member_22539]

^To think the mighty britshit empire has been reduced to this, to making excuses for humiliating failures. They have not only degenerated in quantity, but they are also now decrepit in quality as well.

To think that britshits have become little more than white pakis, how sad (NOT).

[sanjaykumar]

Reading between the lines it can be inferred the Su did very well. Significant there was no explicit denial.

[Austin]

OK Now I have a real picture of Indradhanush. This year it was definitely a case of

• information designed for the “domestic audience”.
• there must have been some clouded recollection on the flights back to India
• Typhoons had effectively been fighting “with one arm behind their backs"

On the other hand, in a previous exercise when RAF fighters decimated the ranks of the visiting IAF pilots, prompting the then Air Chief Marshal of the RAF, Stephen Dalton, to comment: “Well, they lost.” At that time

• There was no Brit audience interested enough so no question of any statements for "domestic audience"
• British pilot recollections were crystal clear unlike the hazy recollections of Indian pilots
• No mention of how many Typhoon arms were tied but the Su-30s were using three or four arms all flailing about

It was the British who gave us laws and a sense of justice after all.

Brits stiff upper lip

[Singha]

reduced to saving some h&d claiming the typhoon was not playing to its strengths and would finish the fight at long distance...

if things head south, in a isolated clash during a hot-peace they usually start at short range...only after a war starts properly does long range clearance for weapons come.

for example two typhoons fly out to intercept a pair of bear bombers on a probing mission over the north sea ... escorted by two fighters(su35) and a midas tanker tailing behind in company with a Bear-J...something goes wrong a too-close pass to a bomber escalates the fighters to drawing a bead on the typhoons...and the fight starts to get HUD footage from 6-o-clock even if no shots are really fired...

secondly, nothing stopped the brits to also call for other mock engagements at other ceilings and speeds.

they obviously thought the typhoon was good enough to win in the engagements described..."teach the natives a thing or two" and badly miscalculated lol

[shiv]

I am certain the Typhoon is a great aircraft - but if a British Air Marshal had to say "They lost" last time I am sure the famous British sense of fair play and justice - (remember the Goddess Minerva and her scales and all) should not have any trouble adjusting to a 12-0 kick up the backside no? i mean it wasn't as though Vishnu Som started this. That Air Marshal did back then.

[Austin]

More details on Indradhanush in this link with good pictures

Military Exercise – Indian Summer: Indradhanush 2015

The co-operation between the Royal Air Force and the Indian Air Force (the Bharatiya Vayu Sena) is one that clearly goes back generations, traced back to World War One when ten Indian pilots flew with the Royal Flying Corps and has been accelerated over the years, most recently including the Nepal relief work earlier this year. The most prominent UK/India military exercise has been the Indradhanush operations (meaning ‘Rainbow’ in the Hindu religion). This was the fourth of its kind and the second to have taken place in the UK, the first being in 2007 when six Su-30MKIs deployed to RAF Waddington.

So it was that, in late July 2015 between 20-31st of this mixed-weather month, the Indian Air Force’s 2 Squadron ‘Winged Arrows’ deployed four HAL-built Su-30MKIs from 11 Wing at Tezpur AFS in Northern India for the 13hr, three-day transit over three continents to operate with the RAF’s Typhoon FGR4s of No 3(F) Squadron out of RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire. Supporting the deployment were a C-17A Globemaster III from India’s 81 Squadron/28 Wing ‘Skylords’, a C-130J-30 Hercules from 77 Squadron/28 Wing ‘Veiled Vipers’, both from Hindon AFS, as well as an Il-78MKI ‘Midas’ tanker from 78 Squadron/41 Wing based at Agra AFS. The Il-78MKI tanker and the C-130J-30 transport were taking part in the exercise itself, each stationed at RAF Brize Norton for the duration, whilst 190 personnel supported the entire Indian deployment.

The Indian AF ‘Flankers’ primarily worked with No 3(F) Squadron, which is commanded by Wg Cdr Chris Moon at RAF Coningsby. ‘We operated the exercise on a Crawl, Walk, Run basis’ explained Wg Cdr Moon. ‘The Crawl phase it was familiarisation sorties, getting used to UK airspace – though a few of the IAF pilots were trained at RAF Valley – and simple 1v1 sorties. Then we built up to 2v1, 2v2 and BVR, followed by the escalation into large force exercises with 8v8 BVR engagements’.

The largest mission of the exercise was the final one, undertaken on the afternoon of 29 July with ten Blue Force (six Typhoons and four ‘Flankers’) against ten Red Air with the objective being for the Blue Force to escort the two Hercules (one IAF, one RAF) from ‘Blueland’ into ‘Redland’ for a para-drop.

‘We also swapped between Red and Blue Air, including DACT’ continued Wg Cdr Moon, ‘but we’ve been primarily working together with the IAF against other Typhoon squadrons as well as the aggressor Hawk T1s from No 100 Squadron at RAF Leeming. There was also some joint-nation working as ‘White Force’ for STANEVAL purposes out of the AWC at RAF Waddington.

Whilst we are not likely to incur a 1v1 encounter with an aircraft like the Su-30 during our deployed ops to the Baltics for example, we do intercept Russian-built types and the chance for the Typhoon Force to go up against another, dissimilar high-performance aircraft was invaluable. It’s been great – you can read so much and be briefed so much on the ‘Flanker’ but it’s not until you’re up there with it that you see what it’s about. Between us, we operate two of the best dogfighters in the world, and it’s fair to say that the results have quite often come down to whoever was the best pilot on the day’.

Unlike the previous deployment, the IAF Su-30MKIs were permitted to use their full potential including their N011M radar, as well as the thrust vectoring control on their Lyulka AL-31FP engines. ‘We both have our strengths, the Typhoon is a ‘high-rate’ fighter and the ‘Flanker’s is a high-Alpha, slower-speed fighter’ continued Wg Cdr Moon. ‘We debrief over in the squadron and merge the tracks we fly and [are] able to read the Blue and Red Forces via RAIDS on the RAF jets and a similar system on the IAF jets, and you’ll be pleased to hear that the combined Typhoon and ‘Flanker’ package has been doing extremely well.

We also simulated air-to-ground mission, and we have simulated EPW2 drops as well as Paveway IVs and the Indian AF has simulated a vast variety of weapons. We have learnt that we operate in a very similar manner. You’d expect the types to have different strengths – such as two-seat versus single, and we do have subtly different weapons ­– but we have learnt that we can integrate together, certainly when it comes to the planning, briefing and debriefing. There were very few surprises and we achieved all of our objectives.’ This was echoed by Sqn Ldr Avi Arya, a Qualified Weapons Instructor responsible for training pilots on the radar and weapons systems of the Su-30. He said: ‘Both are Fourth Generation aircraft and so are matched evenly, so the learning value comes from the person to person contact, it’s the man behind the machine which matters. All fighter pilots speak the same language, that’s the common thing we have and it’s very comfortable to learn from each other.’

Wg Cdr Moon’s No 3(F) Squadron took the lead but others were desperate to join the fight. ‘Of course, from second we knew they were coming we were bombarded with requests from all over the RAF for people to get involved in the exercise’ he said. ‘The Lossiemouth squadrons were not so involved due to logistics, but the Coningsby-based units have been involved at any chance they could.’

he pilots clearly relished the chance. Speaking shortly after his first encounter with the thrust-vectoring equipped Su-30MKI, Typhoon pilot Flt Lt Mike Highmoor had no doubt about the values of the bilateral exercise: ‘This is fantastic. It’s the first time I’ve flown against a ‘Flanker’ this morning and it’s fascinating to see another air force do its thing in a different aeroplane. Flying against an aircraft which is equally comparable to the Typhoon isn’t something we get to fight against on a regular basis in the UK. It’s very exciting. It’s an incredibly impressive fighter but the Typhoon is a good match for it.’

Opposing Flt Lt Highmoor on that first sortie was Sqn Ldr Amit Gehani who trained with the RAF in the UK. He said: ‘It’s going well. We’re flying a lot of missions that are proving our air combat missions. We brief on the ground, we go up there, set up the fights and thereafter it’s a free for all! The Typhoon is a good aircraft, a very powerful aircraft. The RAF pilots here are really amazing and flying with the Typhoon we’re learning a lot of new lessons, which we will take back to India. Of course we’re also giving some good points back to the Typhoon pilots.’

Leader of the Indian Contingent was Grp Capt Ashu Srivastav, a previous ‘Flanker’ squadron commander responsible for bringing the jets into IAF service and holding over 2,200hrs on the type. ‘Comparing the two fighters I have to be politically correct; both have got their plus and minus points, but I am going to say that the ‘Flanker’ probably has more plus points due to its super-manoeuvrability and BVR system is very good’ he said. ‘We are highly manoeuvrable in close combat and we employ the vectoring whenever we need to depending on the combat situation – generally speaking, we use it when we feel that the opponent is in a position where it cannot manoeuvre but we can, and so we can use TVC to still get the shot. We have had no restriction on IRS-T or the radar usage’. But Grp Capt Srivastav was keen to sing the Typhoon’s praises, saying ‘Typhoon is extremely good in high rates of turn and that has been great to see…’ before adding with a wry grin ‘But we have a counter for that…!’

‘Before the exercise started the RAF and IAF decided the parameters of the BVR missile launch ranges in order to operate in commonality’, Grp Capt Srivastav explained. ‘That has been the way we worked. We are here to share experience and fine-tune the way we operate, not engage in live combat, hence we used a common figure.

‘Of the 190 personnel we brought over, 20 were aircrew as a mix of 15 pilots and five WSOs with a cross-section of flight experience (pilots can fly as WSO but not vice-versa), which is representative of the way we work back home. Reliability has been very good, which is why we only needed to bring four aircraft this time round and, as of late last year and after a decade of development, HAL now has a full thrust-vectoring maintenance facility so we no longer need to send them to Russia for overhaul. In terms of the future, we have an upgrade planned for a better radar (possibly Zhuk AESA) and weapons systems (potentially including full integration of the Novator KS-172 AAM and BrahMos cruise missile), and are looking forward to welcoming the RAF back to India next year.

[Philip]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 44466.html

IAF Sukhois lick Typhoons "12-0"