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

[brar_w]

here is the article refering to lerx. seems they could improve its subsonic turn rate by 15%....which presently is lagging the non-delta wings...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ht-400762/

Singhaji, lets move this topic (Typh) to the Int. thread..

[Singha]

seems the french made the right call long back by forking out their own rafale and emphasizing its payload , range, sensors, maritime version and strike potential over the pure play raptorski that ended up being the typhoon- a plane without much of a real role in colonial wars going forward.

UK is going to enter its next major conflict with JSFs on QE2 is what I feel. by the time they are done integrating all tornado weapons on tiffy, the JSFs will be operational in RN.

[brar_w]

seems the french made the right call long back by forking out their own rafale and emphasizing its payload , range, sensors, maritime version and strike potential over the pure play raptorski that ended up being the typhoon- a plane without much of a real role in colonial wars going forward.

UK is going to enter its next major conflict with JSFs on QE2 is what I feel. by the time they are done integrating all tornado weapons on tiffy, the JSFs will be operational in RN.

Replied here -

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1883494#p1883494

[deejay]

Mummy suckling her babes after they whupped ass

That is a keeper Sir! (Along with the comment )

[Picklu]

Like their much vaunted stiff upper lips, the brits have stiff lower lips as well (on dark nether area) from where most of utterances about India emanates.

[arthuro]

Being neither indian or british, I understand that the sukhoi has better slow speed maneuvrability than the typhoon which is a clear asset in a dogfight. Slow speed maneuvring is a known weakness for the typhoon and is being adressed with upgraded aerodynamics (lerx). It is an upgrade option for typhoon operators.

For the record, the typhoon already known such important defeat against the rafale in dogfights during an exercise in corsica in 2009. The high alpha vs high rate debate was the same at that time.

However during the large force engagement in BVR, the RAF claims the typhoon was superior which is the most important point IMO.

In a real war situation dogfight will be a russian rullet due to all aspect HOBS missile + HMS.

Nopey dopey. see here:

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-a ... eststories

NEW DELHI: In some of the most intense international air combat exercises ever featuring the Indian Air Force, IAF pilots flying Sukhoi 30 MKI fighters had a resounding 12-0 scoreline in their favour against Royal Air Force Typhoon jets in Within Visual Range (WVR) dogfighting operations.

In subsequent Large Force Exercises (LFE) which featured combined Typhoon and Su-30 formations, the IAF jets were somewhat less successful but consistently held an edge over the Typhoon.
.

Give the pilots their due. May be the RAFs yorkshire puddings werent upto the task this time. The RAF lost a home match. Bow and move on. No amount of spinning changes the fact that in nothing, zilch, nada did the typhoon do better than the communist sdre metal.

The more you try to eggs-plain away the failings, the more we go heeehaaw -- 12-0.

I was referring to this part in red:

RAF Challenge Indian Air Force 'Whitewash' Claims

Indian media organisations are carrying reports of the Indian Air Force (IAF) "dominating" the Royal Air Force during a recent bilateral air combat exercise.

A resounding score of "12-0" was conceded to the IAF Su-30's during the initial dogfighting stages of Within Visual Range (WVR) encounters.

Sources from the RAF state, however, that Indian planes were being 'bedded in' to new terrain and effectively shown the ropes. The RAF were "introducing them to the airspace", putting the Typhoons up against the Sukhois in something more akin to a pigeon-shooting exercise, rather than a combat exercise, so the Indian pilots could get their bearings.

Once the IAF were comfortable flying in foreign air space the Large Force Exercises (LFEs) began and subsequently the RAF Typhoons proved more than a match for the Indian SU-30's.

Speaking to Forces TV an RAF spokesman offered a polite rebuttal to the claims in the Indian press, saying:

"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 nations learnt a great deal from the exercise and the RAF look forward to the next opportunity to train alongside the IAF."

The Large Force Engagements saw 4 v 4 engagements at beyond visual range and graduated to a massive 8 v 8 engagement featuring 16 aircraft in the skies near Coningsby.

Asked about the performance of IAF pilots in these Large Force Engagements, Group Captain Srivastav told NDTV his pilots performed "fairly well" though "quantifying [the results] is difficult".

http://forces.tv/00317417

Disclaimer : I am not Indian nor British.

My opinion is that the 12-0 dogfight for the SU30 is not representative of a true combat situation.

It only tells the SU 30 has better slow speed and high alpha maneuverability and that Indian pilots know how to take advantage of it in an exercise with precise ROEs.

The fact that the typhoon has issues at slow speeds is known from quite some time and the SU30 is not the first jet fighter to discover it in a dogfight (rafale and F18 to name a few...).

It is worth mentioning that Typhoon operators have an option to go with an enhance aerodynamic package which mean that the issue is not new. If I can understand Indian pride which is perfectly legitimate, I also see the limitations of such encounters.

In a real combat situation, IR missiles would be shot before the crossing and even if the tactical situation is different : HMS and HOBS missiles are great equalizers. Most probably SU-30 and Typhoon would die at the same rate. RAF Asram missile being a mach 4 near BVR missile, I would even give the typhoon an edge...And better have a mica IR to stay far away from the russian rullet game of dogfighting with HOBS+HMS missiles...

The real question is BVR. But here we have less information and obviously IAF and RAF disagree. So from my more neutral point of view I can't say anything about it. In the end I cannot tell which aircraft or "system" would be more appropriate is superior.


*******************************
*******************************

Now to draw a parallel, in 2009 the rafale also dominated the typhoon in dogfights for the very same reasons : the typhoon does not like slow speeds and its high momentum makes it trajectories highly predictable as it can't alter it flight path significantly to surprise its oponent.

From rafale's HUD:




From 2009:

On paper, the Typhoon has some undeniable advantages: more powerful than M88, its two reactors give it a better weight/thrust than the Rafale. According to the Eurofighter pilots, this additional power would be particularly appreciable during simulated combat below 20,000 ft, where the density of air allows the engines to be fully expressed. In the battle beyond visual range (BVR), the Typhoon also has an greater "extension" than the Rafale. This is because of the the physical characteristics of the radar, which antenna "sees" futher than the RBE2-PESA, but also because of the dynamic performance of the American missile AIM-120 AMRAAM . Designed exclusively for medium-range interception, it certainly does not have the versatility of the Mica, but it is superior in terms of range. Facing a Rafale, these theoretical advantages, however, must be nuanced.

In BVR combat, although the lengthening of the radar and missiles of the Typhoon are superior, the french Rafale fighter's radar signature is, according to many pilots, much less important than the Eurofighter's one. It is therefore an asset. Even better: the sensors fusion which enjoys the Rafale is also a crucial advantage in BVR combat, because it offers the pilots a much better understanding of the tactical situation during combat, and this, 360 degrees around the aircraft.

Once the "merge" is reached (when BVR combat turns into short-range), the Rafale has still strong chances of victory against the Typhoon. In the opinion of French pilots who have confronted the European aircraft, it's above all the quality of the electric flight controls [FBW] of the French fighter who makes the difference. In dogfight, Rafale can quickly point its nose to the threat, while less degrading its energy than the Eurofighter does. And this partly because the maximum angle of attack of the Rafale is "clamped" around 30, which allows it to evolve in a controlled manner even at low speed.

This difference in terms of maneuverability is also illustrated by the position of the canard on the two planes: placed well in front of the fuselage on the Typhoon, they play the role of an additional control surface used to "steer" more quickly the nose of the plane to take the incidence.

Conversely, the Rafale ducks are located very near the delta wing and are used primarily to pick up the airflow to slow up the loss of lift on the wing, thus giving the pilot a full control of the aircraft at low speeds.

A first indisputable skirmish

The Armée de l' Air has been able to experience this superiority in dogfight in September 2009, during an exercise organized by the French and British headquarters, during a deployment on the Solenzara airbase in Corsica .

Few days , the EC-1/7 stands next with the Royal Air Force transformation squadron on typhoons. The English have thought of everything, and introduce to the French pilots the simulated engagement patterns they wish to practice facing the Rafale. The French pilots push back a smile: the conditions of the exercice are, on paper, custom-made for the Typhoons , they plan within visual range fights , 1 vs 1, under 20,000 ft and at 350 knots.

Whatever. The 'Provence' squadron takes up the gauntlet ... The 2 planes take off, then meet up at 18 000 ft to start the exercise. The aircraft are flying on the same trajectory with about 2 km of lateral separation. "Turn Away" with this announcement, the pilots turn 45 ° outward, to move away from each other. A few seconds later, the "turn in" and the planes turn toward each other to meet face-to-face in the sky. Once both aircraft is within visual range , its the ultimate ad: "Fight's on!". The first skirmish is indisputable. It need less than 40 seconds and only 3 crossing for the Rafale pilot to have its gun in firing position. However, the pilots flying the two planes are far from beginners. While the English is considered a Typhoon specialist in air-to-air, the "Provence" pilot has also a solid experience in within visual range combat.

Nine wins, one defeat

This initial result is not a fluke: the two next passes end also to the advantage of the Rafale. In total, 4 different engagements will take place in Corsica, for a total of 9 wins against 1 defeat for the french fighter. A nice demonstration of force that inspires the pilots the following moral: without mastery, power is nothing ... It is however an area where the Typhoon is victorious: the one of exports. While the Rafale is still looking for a first client, the Typhoon has already been sold to Saudi Arabia and Austria, and remains opposed to the Rafale in Switzerland and India.

Also thoughts on the question from Rafale father :

Like many other aircraft makers, Dassault has selected a delta-canard configuration for its latest design. “As we were working with the other Europeans, we started to diverge significantly on the design” explains Bruno Revellin-Falcoz [Director of Dassault’s Technical Department]. “Ultimately, we made some radically different choices. They wanted fuselage-mounted canards while we preferred to locate the canards almost above the wing-root. The key advantage of this configuration was that it would channel the air flow over the wing apex, which is where lift-generating vortices are formed. The Eurofighter Typhoon uses its canards as simple control surfaces. Although this creates a significant lever effect, it loses the positive impact on lift and therefore aerodynamic efficiency. That’s why we are certain that the Rafale can handle much better than the Typhoon at high angles of attack, such as during the crucial phases of dogfighting and low-speed flight. While they were groping around in the dark, we benefited from the know-how accumulated through the Mirage III Milan, Mirage III NG and Mirage 4000 programmes.

[arthuro]

Have you read latest british parlementary report on the typhoon on unleashing its true potential ? Because EW and sensor fusion were pointed as weak areas.

You're thinking of the recent RUSI report not a parliamentary committee report. And it identified the active component of the EW system as requiring an upgrade. The passive component i.e. the ESM system was considered good enough to geolocate AESA emitters, after the DASS upgrade. Newer sensor fusion software and ECM components are included in the P4E upgrade that is scheduled for 2020 (likely involving GaN TRMs).

Yes I was talking about this one.

I am not convinced by sensor fusion for the typhoon in the near future (P4E). It is not just a software patch but rethinking and redesigning the whole system. True sensor fusion that you can find on the F35 or the rafale is very different from mere sensor corelation and it takes years to achieve.

"what the other guy call sensor fusion"

[Viv S]

I am not convinced by sensor fusion for the typhoon in the near future (P4E). It is not just a software patch but rethinking and redesigning the whole system. True sensor fusion that you can find on the F35 or the rafale is very different from mere sensor corelation and it takes years to achieve.

A single track fusing radar, ESM and PIRATE is exactly what will be delivered with the P4E upgrade. And yes it does consist of a software upgrade. BTW the Rafale doesn't fuse the IR feeds either (of course the new F3s omit the IRST altogether so its not even an option there). The F-35 of course is on a entirely different level, being the only one to deliver effective multi-ship fusion (absent even on the F-22) albeit at Blk 3F (2017).

Edit: Cross-posted on Rafale thread.

[NRao]

The F-35 of course is on a entirely different level, being the only one to deliver effective multi-ship fusion (absent even on the F-22) albeit at Blk 3F (2017).

Is that right?

I thought the 35B faced issues that they were correcting. It occurred in more than 3/4 ships. No?

[Viv S]

The F-35 of course is on a entirely different level, being the only one to deliver effective multi-ship fusion (absent even on the F-22) albeit at Blk 3F (2017).

Is that right?

I thought the 35B faced issues that they were correcting. It occurred in more than 3/4 ships. No?

Yes, it was working on 3-4 ship formations but became buggy when that number was increased further. The fixes will be implemented along with the Block 3F software (in 2017) as I said in my previous post.

[brar_w]

Yes, it was working on 3-4 ship formations but became buggy when that number was increased further. The fixes will be implemented along with the Block 3F software (in 2017) as I said in my previous post.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&p=1883645#p1883645

[TSJones]

Oh, you guys aren't talking about that silly stubby airplane are you?

The one the Marines will never be able to afford in adequate numbers?

Just imagine what a disaster it would be for the stubby to fly against the IAF's magnificent SU-30's in a Red Flag exercise.

The Marines would cry. Cry, cry, cry. All the way to Congress. For another upgrade.

[Gyan]

My estimate:-

Cost Su-30MKI USD 50 Million

Cost Rafale USD 100 Million

Per annum Spare part Cost Su-30MKI USD 1 Million

Per annum Spare part Cost Rafale USD 5 Million

Per annum extra Fuel, pilot and Manpower cost Su-30MKI USD 1 Million

Per annum extra nterst Cost @ 5% on USD 50 Million cost Rafale USD 2.5 Million

Hence all included 3-4 Su-30MKIs = One Rafale

[SidSom]

My Koyal Aunty told me .....

She refused to give numbers to the kill ratio, but said this. The key learning from this exercise was...

1. IAF has a lot of similarities wrt RAF in terms of culture, same is not true of USAF.
2. IAF has evolved tactics and ops to a higher degree in most areas.
3. IAF usage/knowledge of platforms is better than RAF in most areas.
4. Su 30 in Significantly better than Typhoon in WVR. And holds an edge in BVR.
5. Reason for Rafale: Not cost, Not better platform. In fact most pilots believe Rafale no match for Su 30 in most cases. Rafale is to address servicability issues and to remove dependence on single supplier/single platform/ counter China.
6. A400M is very impressive in terms of cockpit automation and as a platform but it needs a couple of years to become more flexible and to get rid of teething problems. Would be a great plane after 5 years.
7. Rafale and Typhoon only marginally different in terms of performance. Rafale won on cost basis only not technical prowess.

Please take with a sack of salt as these are opionions of a small set of ppl.

[Singha]

^ 5. there is no way financially to import and build massive numbers of two different lines of foreign a/c each with their own sets of weapons and zero commonality in anything else. not at todays prices. not at tomorrows prices. 36 rafale will not make any impact on overall serviceability...its better the root cause of the problem be tackled with adequate resources and the Su30 service rates improved to peacetime 75%.

if it was a 'special' platform like the B2 or F22 to be used for day1 ops i would understand 36 special order but not for a a.c that is similar to the su30 which we can build 100 more if we want anytime.

[Philip]

Tx Gyan for the "maths".It's what I've been saying for aeons with all def. acquisitions.Money matters all other parameters being almost equal.

Russian aircraft and milware generally comes in at significantly lower cost than equiv western eqpt. In the past we did experience problems with spares support,etc.experienced after the fall of the USSR,which is decreasing rapidly now with OEM support JV entities being established in India. In the case of the MKIs and MIG-29s ,both outstanding dogfighters apart from BVR capability with the latest variants,they come at a fraction the price of the 2 Eurocanards. This exercise sis a shot in the arm for the DM who prefers the MKIs to the Rafale. The DM/MOD should take a good hard look at the entire acquisition plans of the IAF and the money available for it.The goal should be "more bang and numbers for the buck".

[Austin]

MKI built in India by HAL cost ~ $60 Million as per MOD figures

[Karan M]

1. V Som
In all dog fighting exercises, IAF Sukhois were able to turn sharply into the extremely agile Typhoons using their thrust-vectored engines to keep the RAF jets locked in their sights

When you can fire behind yourself, the entire concept of 'in your sights' is meaningless.

edit: to clarify, I'm not saying the Typhoons have that capability now, just talking about the direction air combat is headed, and soon

LOL, sure. Why stop there, when you have a Death Star planets are meaningless.

Of course, rear firing missiles don't have a huge aero and range penalty NVM other prosaic concerns that these efforts are yet to be demonstrated practically.

In the meanwhile, TVC equipped Flankers and FGFAs will conduct 12:0 turkey shoots with F-15s, Typhoons etc.

[Cain Marko]

It is indeed for.diversification of supplier base and of course, curbing the free fall in numbers that the western mrca type was being looked at in the first place ....and now this need has become even more acute...cheapest non russki type is Gripen, which can have large commonality with tejas mk2, hence the recent dekko with saab. We are looking to address a shortfall of about 10 sqds by 2022-23, what is the answer? Can HAL produce enough mk1s? And when will these be available? This is a massive opportunity for Tejas...but HAL simply doesn't seem to have the ability nor the willingness to do this. if SAAB sweetens the pot, it could be end of the road for Tejas mk1. On the flipside, perhaps IAF will order 40 more mk1s after foc and also go for gripens.

[Karan M]

Vishnu Som makes a report and stands by it. A few people laugh and cheer and some people do not want them to cheer. This sounds so much like my grandmother who used to warn us when we were kids if she found us laughing by telling us that excessive laughter inevitably leads to tears in due course. How weird is that.

I think Vishnu Som's report is something to cheer and gloat about precisely because it causes discomfort and distress to others. That simply adds to the fun. Lectures and moralizing ain't gonna stop the gloating. It may stop if we have our asses kicked - but why not wait till that happens? After all at least a few people other than my grandmother have predicted that? Why poop on the party?

Beyond all this, I don't know how many people are keeping track of the IAFs experiences vs other frontline AFs. I certainly am.

1. Garuda1 vs FAF: We "won" in WVR, lost in BVR. French advantage, better radars, better missiles simulated & better tactics (they called Fox faster repeatedly in BVR). IAF learnt. Note, it was Mirage vs Mirage

2. CopeIndia 1 vs USAF: IAF won, with a 9:1 ratio. Key points: IAF flexibility, greater numbers skill, use of active missiles simulated, inability of USAF to anticipate high skill levels & tactics plus airframes they were facing (which is where greater numbers counted, USAF wanted those numbers because the F-15s train to a lower tech threat in greater numbers). Afterwards, USAF went and changed their concept of Red Air to "all up fighters training with all tactics", mirroring the IAFs concept. Key takeaway "IAF doesn't do red air, they send their best guys up doing all they can to win against the trainees", paraphrased.

3. Cope India 2 w/USAF: Intermixed packages of F-16s with Su-30Ks, Bisons and MiG-27s, possibly MiG-29s (going by memory) with USAF AWACs. Bison hard to track on radar (low RCS w/small size, bodes well for LCA as it has both attributes) and IAF fighters responded faster to AWAC calls despite no datalinking
USAF quote on a website : we trained against the IAF MiG-29s, they lost one, we lost one, this was scary, we weren't used to this. Possibly quote from Cope1
USAF pilots on net: Praise for IAF professionalism and high flight hours and tactics. "Their senior guy flew the Su-30s backseat as a mission commander"..

4. RSAF vs Su30MKIs, Mirages and Bisons. Su-30MKIs do very well against F-16s, Bisons about average and Mirages are at parity. IAF concerned about former & looking at tactics, tech (since RSAF F-16s are better than those in Cope2 where Bisons did well) and Mirage upgrade needs to be progressed.

5. Indradhanush-1 vs RAF: Su-30MKIs vs Tornado ADVs, ADVs leverage AWACs and do stage ambushes (RAF/ADV combination is very experienced) but overall Su-30MKIs come out on tops. The key thing, IAF's first reported use of "radar with only some modes" which still held up well.

6. Red Flag: IAF tops in WVR in Mountain Home, does very well in Red Flag (gets called to the podium for a special appreciation) in BVR, LFE, A2G. Uses Litening, has restrictions on chaff/flare, datalink employment and uses radar in training mode, range reduction and mode limitation. Former causes higher attrition figures but overall everything holds up well, especially radar in jamming.

7.Garuda-2: IAF vs French AF Mirage 2000s and Rafales. Points to note from press comments, Su-30 agility and radar/weapons performance called out for long range. Radar in training mode, no EW from Indian side (no pods shown). French state their Rafales are more discreet, Su-30 has to be handled in the initial merge otherwise its performance will "tell" against their Mirages etc.

8.SAF deployment: Mirage deployment - notable as was Red Flag for a huge long distance deployment. Very good learning for IAF apart from the minor mishap when a Mirage prangs on the runway (subsequently repaired)

9.Indradhanush2: Not really that useful as RAF deployment of ELINT aircraft makes IAF wary and not use radars. TVC not used in WVR. Mostly joint ops familiarization and long distance deployment.

10.Indradhanush-3: RAF with Typhoons. RAF claims victory via publicized leaks and then media reports. Point to note: This is while MMRCA negotiations are ongoing. Possibly PR tactics.

11.Indradhanush-4: RAF with Typhoons. Su-30s dominate in WVR & do well/equivalent in BVR. IAF confirmation that an upgrade package is also in the works for Su-30MKI.

Now I am sure I missed a bunch of exercises in between since these are now formalized engagements and little is revealed to press. Above are what came to mind. Predominantly, there is a clear pattern, the Su-30s are really capable in WVR, BVR and A2G and across the IAF pilots, tactics are skilled and A/C is equivalent to the best out there. With MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 upgrades, thats another plus.

Per se, I am not bothered by the wailing by the furren fanboi's shilling the Rafale etc about how the SDRE indoo's can't be as great as their TFTA counterparts or their vaunted bhesthern equipment is bhest. That's my take, apart from the exercise "victory" or whatever which doesn't matter but for the extreme denial and prejudice some of these chaps display.

From the above exercise results, and accounts which we have over the years, I can fairly tell the IAF is a mature AF, with first class equipment which is being proven in complex exercises with other worldclass AF.

Add further reports of new GOI now supporting IAF efforts to raise Su-30 serviceability upto required 70%, reports from NIIP about radar upgrade in progress (current radar itself), new SAP jammers replacing earlier Elta plus new DARE RWRs in testing to replace earlier Tarang, and the Su-30 fleet seems well placed to be our frontline platform.

Now for progress on the LCA & other upgrades.

[Karan M]

My Koyal Aunty told me .....

She refused to give numbers to the kill ratio, but said this. The key learning from this exercise was...

1. IAF has a lot of similarities wrt RAF in terms of culture, same is not true of USAF.
2. IAF has evolved tactics and ops to a higher degree in most areas.
3. IAF usage/knowledge of platforms is better than RAF in most areas.
4. Su 30 in Significantly better than Typhoon in WVR. And holds an edge in BVR.
5. Reason for Rafale: Not cost, Not better platform. In fact most pilots believe Rafale no match for Su 30 in most cases. Rafale is to address servicability issues and to remove dependence on single supplier/single platform/ counter China.
6. A400M is very impressive in terms of cockpit automation and as a platform but it needs a couple of years to become more flexible and to get rid of teething problems. Would be a great plane after 5 years.
7. Rafale and Typhoon only marginally different in terms of performance. Rafale won on cost basis only not technical prowess.

Please take with a sack of salt as these are opionions of a small set of ppl.

SidSom, is koyal aunty from Vayu sena and is this accurate info? Not third hand, fourth hand?
Latter point of 4. is very heartening.

5. is the exact point I had come to and was posting on BR - Su30 integration/serviceability issues combined with Russian delays in fixing these in earlier years must have concerned IAF. Now, the key issues are being addressed.

[Austin]

My Koyal Aunty told me .....

She refused to give numbers to the kill ratio, but said this. The key learning from this exercise was...

1. IAF has a lot of similarities wrt RAF in terms of culture, same is not true of USAF.
2. IAF has evolved tactics and ops to a higher degree in most areas.
3. IAF usage/knowledge of platforms is better than RAF in most areas.
4. Su 30 in Significantly better than Typhoon in WVR. And holds an edge in BVR.
5. Reason for Rafale: Not cost, Not better platform. In fact most pilots believe Rafale no match for Su 30 in most cases. Rafale is to address servicability issues and to remove dependence on single supplier/single platform/ counter China.
6. A400M is very impressive in terms of cockpit automation and as a platform but it needs a couple of years to become more flexible and to get rid of teething problems. Would be a great plane after 5 years.
7. Rafale and Typhoon only marginally different in terms of performance. Rafale won on cost basis only not technical prowess.

Please take with a sack of salt as these are opionions of a small set of ppl.

Thanks for the titbit

Point 5 always been the case , we bought Jags and M2ks paying premium forex at that time even though the SU was giving us generous loans and barter , I think Canberra , Toofani/Ouragan ,MD.454 Mystère IV just to name a few

[Austin]

Vishnu Som makes a report and stands by it. A few people laugh and cheer and some people do not want them to cheer. This sounds so much like my grandmother who used to warn us when we were kids if she found us laughing by telling us that excessive laughter inevitably leads to tears in due course. How weird is that.

I think Vishnu Som's report is something to cheer and gloat about precisely because it causes discomfort and distress to others. That simply adds to the fun. Lectures and moralizing ain't gonna stop the gloating. It may stop if we have our asses kicked - but why not wait till that happens? After all at least a few people other than my grandmother have predicted that? Why poop on the party?

Beyond all this, I don't know how many people are keeping track of the IAFs experiences vs other frontline AFs. I certainly am.

1. Garuda1 vs FAF: We "won" in WVR, lost in BVR. French advantage, better radars, better missiles simulated & better tactics (they called Fox faster repeatedly in BVR). IAF learnt. Note, it was Mirage vs Mirage

2. CopeIndia 1 vs USAF: IAF won, with a 9:1 ratio. Key points: IAF flexibility, greater numbers skill, use of active missiles simulated, inability of USAF to anticipate high skill levels & tactics plus airframes they were facing (which is where greater numbers counted, USAF wanted those numbers because the F-15s train to a lower tech threat in greater numbers). Afterwards, USAF went and changed their concept of Red Air to "all up fighters training with all tactics", mirroring the IAFs concept. Key takeaway "IAF doesn't do red air, they send their best guys up doing all they can to win against the trainees", paraphrased.

3. Cope India 2 w/USAF: Intermixed packages of F-16s with Su-30Ks, Bisons and MiG-27s, possibly MiG-29s (going by memory) with USAF AWACs. Bison hard to track on radar (low RCS w/small size, bodes well for LCA as it has both attributes) and IAF fighters responded faster to AWAC calls despite no datalinking
USAF quote on a website : we trained against the IAF MiG-29s, they lost one, we lost one, this was scary, we weren't used to this. Possibly quote from Cope1
USAF pilots on net: Praise for IAF professionalism and high flight hours and tactics. "Their senior guy flew the Su-30s backseat as a mission commander"..

4. RSAF vs Su30MKIs, Mirages and Bisons. Su-30MKIs do very well against F-16s, Bisons about average and Mirages are at parity. IAF concerned about former & looking at tactics, tech (since RSAF F-16s are better than those in Cope2 where Bisons did well) and Mirage upgrade needs to be progressed.

5. Indradhanush-1 vs RAF: Su-30MKIs vs Tornado ADVs, ADVs leverage AWACs and do stage ambushes (RAF/ADV combination is very experienced) but overall Su-30MKIs come out on tops. The key thing, IAF's first reported use of "radar with only some modes" which still held up well.

6. Red Flag: IAF tops in WVR in Mountain Home, does very well in Red Flag (gets called to the podium for a special appreciation) in BVR, LFE, A2G. Uses Litening, has restrictions on chaff/flare, datalink employment and uses radar in training mode, range reduction and mode limitation. Former causes higher attrition figures but overall everything holds up well, especially radar in jamming.

7.Garuda-2: IAF vs French AF Mirage 2000s and Rafales. Points to note from press comments, Su-30 agility and radar/weapons performance called out for long range. Radar in training mode, no EW from Indian side (no pods shown). French state their Rafales are more discreet, Su-30 has to be handled in the initial merge otherwise its performance will "tell" against their Mirages etc.

8.SAF deployment: Mirage deployment - notable as was Red Flag for a huge long distance deployment. Very good learning for IAF apart from the minor mishap when a Mirage prangs on the runway (subsequently repaired)

9.Indradhanush2: Not really that useful as RAF deployment of ELINT aircraft makes IAF wary and not use radars. TVC not used in WVR. Mostly joint ops familiarization and long distance deployment.

10.Indradhanush-3: RAF with Typhoons. RAF claims victory via publicized leaks and then media reports. Point to note: This is while MMRCA negotiations are ongoing. Possibly PR tactics.

11.Indradhanush-4: RAF with Typhoons. Su-30s dominate in WVR & do well/equivalent in BVR. IAF confirmation that an upgrade package is also in the works for Su-30MKI.

Now I am sure I missed a bunch of exercises in between since these are now formalized engagements and little is revealed to press. Above are what came to mind. Predominantly, there is a clear pattern, the Su-30s are really capable in WVR, BVR and A2G and across the IAF pilots, tactics are skilled and A/C is equivalent to the best out there. With MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 upgrades, thats another plus.

Per se, I am not bothered by the wailing by the furren fanboi's shilling the Rafale etc about how the SDRE indoo's can't be as great as their TFTA counterparts or their vaunted bhesthern equipment is bhest. That's my take, apart from the exercise "victory" or whatever which doesn't matter but for the extreme denial and prejudice some of these chaps display.

From the above exercise results, and accounts which we have over the years, I can fairly tell the IAF is a mature AF, with first class equipment which is being proven in complex exercises with other worldclass AF.

Add further reports of new GOI now supporting IAF efforts to raise Su-30 serviceability upto required 70%, reports from NIIP about radar upgrade in progress (current radar itself), new SAP jammers replacing earlier Elta plus new DARE RWRs in testing to replace earlier Tarang, and the Su-30 fleet seems well placed to be our frontline platform.

Now for progress on the LCA & other upgrades.

+ 1

I hope they get a good MAWS on MKI and indeed ROF as thats one thing badly needed

[member_27581]

Vishnu Som makes a report and stands by it. A few people laugh and cheer and some people do not want them to cheer. This sounds so much like my grandmother who used to warn us when we were kids if she found us laughing by telling us that excessive laughter inevitably leads to tears in due course. How weird is that.
..............

Gem of a post!! Thanks Karan Sir,
Is there anyway it can be saved in the forum itself? Pardon my ignorance.

[srai]

Vishnu Som makes a report and stands by it. A few people laugh and cheer and some people do not want them to cheer. This sounds so much like my grandmother who used to warn us when we were kids if she found us laughing by telling us that excessive laughter inevitably leads to tears in due course. How weird is that.

I think Vishnu Som's report is something to cheer and gloat about precisely because it causes discomfort and distress to others. That simply adds to the fun. Lectures and moralizing ain't gonna stop the gloating. It may stop if we have our asses kicked - but why not wait till that happens? After all at least a few people other than my grandmother have predicted that? Why poop on the party?

Beyond all this, I don't know how many people are keeping track of the IAFs experiences vs other frontline AFs. I certainly am.

1. Garuda1 vs FAF: We "won" in WVR, lost in BVR. French advantage, better radars, better missiles simulated & better tactics (they called Fox faster repeatedly in BVR). IAF learnt. Note, it was Mirage vs Mirage

2. CopeIndia 1 vs USAF: IAF won, with a 9:1 ratio. Key points: IAF flexibility, greater numbers skill, use of active missiles simulated, inability of USAF to anticipate high skill levels & tactics plus airframes they were facing (which is where greater numbers counted, USAF wanted those numbers because the F-15s train to a lower tech threat in greater numbers). Afterwards, USAF went and changed their concept of Red Air to "all up fighters training with all tactics", mirroring the IAFs concept. Key takeaway "IAF doesn't do red air, they send their best guys up doing all they can to win against the trainees", paraphrased.

3. Cope India 2 w/USAF: Intermixed packages of F-16s with Su-30Ks, Bisons and MiG-27s, possibly MiG-29s (going by memory) with USAF AWACs. Bison hard to track on radar (low RCS w/small size, bodes well for LCA as it has both attributes) and IAF fighters responded faster to AWAC calls despite no datalinking
USAF quote on a website : we trained against the IAF MiG-29s, they lost one, we lost one, this was scary, we weren't used to this. Possibly quote from Cope1
USAF pilots on net: Praise for IAF professionalism and high flight hours and tactics. "Their senior guy flew the Su-30s backseat as a mission commander"..

4. RSAF vs Su30MKIs, Mirages and Bisons. Su-30MKIs do very well against F-16s, Bisons about average and Mirages are at parity. IAF concerned about former & looking at tactics, tech (since RSAF F-16s are better than those in Cope2 where Bisons did well) and Mirage upgrade needs to be progressed.

5. Indradhanush-1 vs RAF: Su-30MKIs vs Tornado ADVs, ADVs leverage AWACs and do stage ambushes (RAF/ADV combination is very experienced) but overall Su-30MKIs come out on tops. The key thing, IAF's first reported use of "radar with only some modes" which still held up well.

6. Red Flag: IAF tops in WVR in Mountain Home, does very well in Red Flag (gets called to the podium for a special appreciation) in BVR, LFE, A2G. Uses Litening, has restrictions on chaff/flare, datalink employment and uses radar in training mode, range reduction and mode limitation. Former causes higher attrition figures but overall everything holds up well, especially radar in jamming.

7.Garuda-2: IAF vs French AF Mirage 2000s and Rafales. Points to note from press comments, Su-30 agility and radar/weapons performance called out for long range. Radar in training mode, no EW from Indian side (no pods shown). French state their Rafales are more discreet, Su-30 has to be handled in the initial merge otherwise its performance will "tell" against their Mirages etc.

8.SAF deployment: Mirage deployment - notable as was Red Flag for a huge long distance deployment. Very good learning for IAF apart from the minor mishap when a Mirage prangs on the runway (subsequently repaired)

9.Indradhanush2: Not really that useful as RAF deployment of ELINT aircraft makes IAF wary and not use radars. TVC not used in WVR. Mostly joint ops familiarization and long distance deployment.

10.Indradhanush-3: RAF with Typhoons. RAF claims victory via publicized leaks and then media reports. Point to note: This is while MMRCA negotiations are ongoing. Possibly PR tactics.

11.Indradhanush-4: RAF with Typhoons. Su-30s dominate in WVR & do well/equivalent in BVR. IAF confirmation that an upgrade package is also in the works for Su-30MKI.

Now I am sure I missed a bunch of exercises in between since these are now formalized engagements and little is revealed to press. Above are what came to mind. Predominantly, there is a clear pattern, the Su-30s are really capable in WVR, BVR and A2G and across the IAF pilots, tactics are skilled and A/C is equivalent to the best out there. With MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 upgrades, thats another plus.

Per se, I am not bothered by the wailing by the furren fanboi's shilling the Rafale etc about how the SDRE indoo's can't be as great as their TFTA counterparts or their vaunted bhesthern equipment is bhest. That's my take, apart from the exercise "victory" or whatever which doesn't matter but for the extreme denial and prejudice some of these chaps display.

From the above exercise results, and accounts which we have over the years, I can fairly tell the IAF is a mature AF, with first class equipment which is being proven in complex exercises with other worldclass AF.

Add further reports of new GOI now supporting IAF efforts to raise Su-30 serviceability upto required 70%, reports from NIIP about radar upgrade in progress (current radar itself), new SAP jammers replacing earlier Elta plus new DARE RWRs in testing to replace earlier Tarang, and the Su-30 fleet seems well placed to be our frontline platform.

Now for progress on the LCA & other upgrades.

Good post!

One thing to note on the BVR is that both countries decide on a max engagement zone to even the playing field. Going by the exercise alone, it will be hard to tell in real-life what performance BVR AAM of Russian or Western equivalents actually provide to its host aircraft. It is anyone's guess as to what percentage kills at what ranges under ECM environment (since no one is divluging full capabilities) will be achieved.

[Austin]

They do BVR evading tactics even if BVR kill is fixed for x ranges for both sides.

[Philip]

With the MKI and future SS avatar in the wings,a GripenNG acquisition would be both cheaper and available in larger number for the Price of 36 Raffys,if an objective is to place some eggs in a western basket.Its smaller size would also give it a Bison/LCA-like capability and accelerate LCA dev. of the MK-2.

[srai]

With the MKI and future SS avatar in the wings,a GripenNG acquisition would be both cheaper and available in larger number for the Price of 36 Raffys,if an objective is to place some eggs in a western basket.Its smaller size would also give it a Bison/LCA-like capability and accelerate LCA dev. of the MK-2.

Philip, the IAF is hung on import mentality. Instead of thinking let's put eggs mostly in an Indian basket, they are thinking of Western and Russian baskets That type of thinking would have been ok back when indigenous option(s) weren't available. Now more and more Indian options are becoming available.

[Philip]

Read my last post in the Raffy td. Your views are echoed.

[shiv]

IAF says, with deadpan expression (from LiveFist)

[Austin]

Thats the SOP for IAF to put out Official Press Release , You dont expect it to say we got a 12-0 something.

Generally the spicy stuff is off hand and is got by Media people like Vishnu got it or trade mag like AFM/AI etc

[Singha]

what are the good COTS MAWS in the world market right now? towed decoys?

[nachiket]

Didn't the malaysian Su-30 come with a MAWS?

[brar_w]

Depends what sort of MAWS. To the best of my knowledge the only IR MAWS that's available for export and is not platform specific is the Elbit PAWS 1 and 2. The industry in this has now moved to much better staring sensors with higher resolution and extremely capable sensor processing but I guess that involves an architectural approach to sensor-fusion design. The EODAS is as much a MAWS as it is a short range staring IRST and the latter capability is a result of processing power within the sensor and how it reacts to the organic computer processors and sensors (such as EOTS). DDM-NG has a similar design approach although it has fewer sensor and therefore must compensate for that. The Gripen NG is going to be using the PAWS 2. Not sure if the Russians have an IR MAWS on the Su-35 but I do remember them exporting some Flanker with UV MAWS

Didn't the malaysian Su-30 come with a MAWS?

I believe it is equipped with a UV MAWS.

[Austin]

MAWS couple of them in the market

Israel EL/M-2160(V1) Radar Based http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/9/36119.pdf
http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/9/36119.pdf

Malaysian Su-30MKM uses UV Based from SAAB
http://defence-guide.com/airforce/milit ... em-maw-300

French DDM-NG IR Based
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagaller ... asures.pdf

Thales ELix IR
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... asheet.pdf

Another one from thales https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... ne2001.pdf


So lot of option available from IR , UV to Radar based , Best would be if we could develop an indiginous one like DARE based ESM used on MKI

[brar_w]

With MAWS, IR is the way to go...RF and UV based systems are long past their shelf life for fighter applications. The only drawback of IR MAWS was the false alarm rate and that was taken care of (through processing) in the 90's for Missile warning functions and this decade for aircraft detection purposes. All modern aircraft be it the Rafale, F-22, F-35, Gripen NG, PAKFA have or are expected to have an IR MAWS solution. Even the J-20 has an IR MAWS.

[Austin]

MAWS couple of them in the market

Israel EL/M-2160(V1) Radar Based http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/9/36119.pdf
http://www.iai.co.il/Sip_Storage//FILES/9/36119.pdf

Malaysian Su-30MKM uses UV Based from SAAB
http://defence-guide.com/airforce/milit ... em-maw-300

French DDM-NG IR Based
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagaller ... asures.pdf

Thales ELix IR
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... asheet.pdf

Another one from thales https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... ne2001.pdf


So lot of option available from IR , UV to Radar based , Best would be if we could develop an indiginous one like DARE based ESM used on MKI

To add to the list is the one they use on PAK-FA with IR & EO/Video channel

http://www.npk-spp.ru/deyatelnost/avion ... edka-.html

[Rakesh]

I got caught up in the emotion of things and I let it get the better of me. I was wrong, you guys were right. My apologies for derailing this thread.

[shiv]

Vijender Thakur's view on Indradhanush makes an interesting read
http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/08/su-3 ... truth.html

[Karan M]

Thakur is also resorting to speculation TBH. I would caution that his viewpoints are driven by opinion and not data alone. After Cope India, he went on record to state that it was not possible that the IAF could have defeated the US in the exercise because the USAF was so more advanced etc etc. Of course, then we had the Av Week interviews with USAF and a Mirage 2000 pilots comments on the net. Just a point noting that his interviews/data directly from sources when cited as such is great, but his opinion pieces, well, they are opinion pieces based on publicly available data which may/may not be accurate.

He's not also accurate with some of the nitty gritty of some of the systems he publishes in the IDP blog as well. Some have been fixed on feedback. Some remain as is, with the details not matching the actual items.

He notes in this case:

Its Captor M radar emissions are more difficult to detect, track and spoof than those of the Su-30MKIs BARS radar.

This is pure conjecture. One, the Bars has held up very well in EW environments eg Red Flag, in training mode itself.
Actually, the PESA radar has inherently more LPI ability by dint of its architecture, very fast moving beams. He seems to have confused the Captor M as an AESA.

A lot of the actual radar capability is also driven by the software & algorithms. In this sense its worth remarking the Bars is the 3rd gen evolution of the NIIP radar experience moving from the N001 to the Zaslon radar family to the N011 prototype then to the N011M. Sufficient experience of the type (Zaslon was the first mass manufactured ESA for a frontline fighter and remains in service with significant upgrades as the original design was compromised by espionage IIRC). Bars and now the Irbis-E build on it further.

Its Attack and Identification System (AIS) provides better situational awareness and threat handling.

Has to be balanced against the fact the MKI has a dedicated Wizzo and no matter how great the AIS, its not AI aka its own brain doing everything for the pilot and informing him about what needs to be done, as versus the Wizzo who does exactly that and handles the long range combat management and also, A2G, with a very important second pair of eyes. He doesn't address the above doctrinal issue at all.

Thakur states:

Typhoon's AIS includes sensor fusion wherein data from multiple sensors - the fighter's Captor radar, PIRATE Infrared Search and Track System (IRST) and EW suite, as well as off-board radars (AWACS, ASTOR, JSTARS, even other Typhoons) over datalink - is displayed on a single MFD, reducing pilot workload and confusion.

Actually, the DARE Eagle Eye ESM works in the same fashion combining tracks.

AIS automatically exercises Captor radar emissions control (EMCON) based on the composite threat scenario.

The Su-30MKI has a mode wherein the radar detects a target and then maintains EMCON till optimal weapons employment zone.

It has a significantly smaller radar signature than the Su-30MKI.

Has to be balanced against the fact the Su-30 MKI has a huge EW fit, known as the SAP-518 which Thakur ignores completely.

etc.

Point is his "views" seem to be informed from a smattering of PR magazines on the Typhoon but are not really upto date on several MKI details especially the avionics.