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

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.
Lohit
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 28 Feb 2019 01:03

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

Postby Lohit » 18 Aug 2020 02:35

Rakesh wrote:....

Thanks again san! Much obliged.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8090
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 18 Aug 2020 02:43

Rakesh wrote:Simple Question (Think about this) ---> When the PAF launched their AMRAAMs...why did they not hit their mark? 4 - 5 missiles were launched at individual IAF planes. Why do we not have 4 - 5 wreckages?

There were only 2 Su-30's. So they actually launched multiple missiles at each aircraft and still did not hit anything. Another thing to remember is that the F-16's had an altitude advantage as well which meant they would get a firing solution earlier than the MKI's because of simple physics even without any range advantage that the AMRAAM might enjoy.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 18 Aug 2020 02:54

Were they turning tail to run away - did they lob the AAMRAAMs to delay the MKIs from launching. The MKIs had to deal with the AAMRAAMs and while they were thus engaged, the F16s turned tail and ran. Abhi followed them in and sent a missile up their tail pipe. If instead of 2 there had been 6 MKIs, IAF would have downed a larger number of F16s. The next time, need to down 5 PAF aircraft. Probably some of the bandars too while we're at it.

The larger message - If puki terrorists hit India, there will be retaliation. Balakote will serve as a grim reminder. Since then JeM operations in J&K seem to have taken a deep hit. Success? That is the larger message and story. Just like after 71, Pakistan was reduced to half its territorial size pukis still claim victory. :rotfl:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9746
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 18 Aug 2020 03:14

nachiket wrote:There were only 2 Su-30's. So they actually launched multiple missiles at each aircraft and still did not hit anything. Another thing to remember is that the F-16's had an altitude advantage as well which meant they would get a firing solution earlier than the MKI's because of simple physics even without any range advantage that the AMRAAM might enjoy.

You are correct Saar. I am wrong.

Lohit, please see nachiket's post. This is even more shame on PAF.

AMRAAM after AMRAAM and still they could not register a kill on Su-30MKI. No wonder they had to fake it :lol:

SidSoma
BRFite
Posts: 144
Joined: 16 Feb 2018 15:09

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

Postby SidSoma » 18 Aug 2020 06:18

k prasad wrote:Its like in The Imitation Game. You keep as much of your capabilities hidden until absolutely necessary. IAF would hate to give up its operational secrets and radar and weapons signatures on a relatively small operation if it could jeopardize survivability in a large-scale conflict? We have to assume that any intel collected by Pak will be airmailed to China before its mule-shipped to Rawalpindi.

This is quite a deadly game! One must admire our pilots for their discipline - they were literally in a life-or-death situation, and still managed to not dhoti-shibber and reveal system secrets by breaking RoE. Unlike PAF, by all accounts.


I suspect that (through exercises with Singapore AF) and may be Khan AF, we have known about the system secrets of the PAF F16s for a very long time. Hence the tactics and the air maneuvering used to beat AMRAAM. I think the PAF also know about our system and ROE and they are fairly certain that IAF would not fire if not within a certain distance. They stayed out of that range. I am just saddened that no SAMs and other non aerial systems got any kills that day. It would have been great to blood the akash that day.... well for some other day.

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 66
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

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

Postby gpurewal » 18 Aug 2020 06:43

SidSoma wrote: I am just saddened that no SAMs and other non aerial systems got any kills that day. It would have been great to blood the akash that day.... well for some other day.


Civilian air traffic negated their use. The UIA 752 flight shoot down proves that SAM systems cannot be used with civilian traffic around. Imagine the Pro-Paki bias and media circus.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8090
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 18 Aug 2020 07:34

Guys lets move this discussion to the Feb 27 shootdown thread. It is getting OT here.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 19 Aug 2020 12:57

https://www.newindianexpress.com/states ... 85422.html
Defence sources said anti-air multi-target MICA missile fired from Sukhoi-30 MKI for the first time successfully destroyed expendable aerial targets (EATs), demonstrating its stealth capabilities.

Rather weird news - does not mention if it was IR MICA or RF MICA (may just be a DDM).

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8090
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 19 Aug 2020 13:11

Weird for sure. I'm guessing it is more likely to be IR MICA. Not sure what the RF MICA brings to the table with the Astra already integrated and ordered. Now if they manage a miracle and integrate the Meteor, that would be a game changer. But it will never happen. I am not sure even RF MICA can be integrated at all on the MKI. We would need OEM help and the French and Russians won't agree to it.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4038
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

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

Postby nam » 19 Aug 2020 13:23

Longer range IR weapon, with modern IR seeker, compared to R73. Wonder if we have already integrated Python 5.

IAF should have integrated Derby with Su30. Hope they have done it.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 19 Aug 2020 13:44

abhik wrote:https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2020/aug/19/iaf-test-fires-air-to-air-missiles-ahead-of-rafale-integration-2185422.html
Defence sources said anti-air multi-target MICA missile fired from Sukhoi-30 MKI for the first time successfully destroyed expendable aerial targets (EATs), demonstrating its stealth capabilities.

Rather weird news - does not mention if it was IR MICA or RF MICA (may just be a DDM).


Report also mentions R-77's fired from SU-30 MKI last week, could it be that the fresh batch are RVV-SD or R-77-1 instead of RVV-AE's?

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 19 Aug 2020 15:28

Brilliant news. complicates planning for the enemy.
Facing the bird was already a challenge due to the multiple R-27 types, R-77, R-73, Astra, ASRAAM and now the MICA!
In a interview a former Rafale M pilot mentioned that the Meteor is better used with a "Active Antenna" so I think the Radar upgrade may be heading towards an AESA to field LRAAMs like the SFDRs.
Edit: The move from the RBE2 towards the RBE2-AA for Katrina resulted in ranges going up significantly.(50% Iirc)

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Postby Kartik » 19 Aug 2020 16:09

The only question is that with limited stocks of MICA-IR and MICA-EM missiles, and with Rafale and Mirage-2000I fighters already using those, will the IAF's MKI's carry the MICA-IR regularly?

AFAIR, 450 MICA missiles of both types were ordered with the Mirage-2000I upgrade. Not sure how many new MICAs were ordered with the Rafale purchase.

But nevertheless, it increases the flexibility of the Su-30MKIs and with a 60km IR missile, even J-20s that are detected via the IRST can be taken on at BVR ranges even if their RCS does not permit engagement with an active seeker missile.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4616
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 19 Aug 2020 21:46

Lohit wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Yes for ROE set in place :)


Thanks Rakesh san!

If the ROE was otherwise and MKIs were allowed to initiate, rest assured they would've gotten off the first shots.

What their evasion of amraams showed is that bvr has a lot more going than merely firing from far away. In particular the MKIs endurance gives it the ability to engage/disengage at will with a bird like the f16. Not to mention their EW capability. Rest assured, other than the rafale with meteor, this is the IAF's true air dominance fighter. Once it gets the sfdr/r37, I'll venture it'll take the pole position once again.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4616
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 19 Aug 2020 21:50

abhik wrote:https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2020/aug/19/iaf-test-fires-air-to-air-missiles-ahead-of-rafale-integration-2185422.html
Defence sources said anti-air multi-target MICA missile fired from Sukhoi-30 MKI for the first time successfully destroyed expendable aerial targets (EATs), demonstrating its stealth capabilities.

Rather weird news - does not mention if it was IR MICA or RF MICA (may just be a DDM).

Based on what Dhanoa sir had said, this could be a confirmation. J20 can be engaged by MKI.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8090
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 19 Aug 2020 22:10

Cain Marko wrote:Once it gets the sfdr/r37, I'll venture it'll take the pole position once again.

And hopefully an AESA radar. An upscaled Uttam, if possible would be sone pe suhaga.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4616
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 20 Aug 2020 00:40

nachiket wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:Once it gets the sfdr/r37, I'll venture it'll take the pole position once again.

And hopefully an AESA radar. An upscaled Uttam, if possible would be sone pe suhaga.

A radar upgrade is a given IMHO although they are willing to wait simply because of how capable the bars is and how much they've invested into making, upgrading and maintaining it. Definitely on par with first gen aesas at least wrt a2a modes.

A very simple upgrade to it might be using a higher powered dual twt setup, which was the original constraint in it's capability. The Russians didn't perfect that until the irbis, but the bars was the first candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if the bars easily achieved irbis like performance with this mod. Iirc Igorr had posted some links ages ago suggesting that this was one upgrade path that was being offered.

Frankly I'd rather see an engine swap out first. Along with changes to plumbing allowing for EFTs. And a weapons upgrade for vlraams.

IOWs they can wait until the uttam matures to where they want it. No point in going for irbis or byelka. And definitely not the el2052.
Last edited by Cain Marko on 20 Aug 2020 00:43, edited 1 time in total.

parshuram
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 28 Feb 2006 09:52

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

Postby parshuram » 20 Aug 2020 00:42

k prasad wrote:. IAF would hate to give up its operational secrets and radar and weapons signatures on a relatively small operation if it could jeopardize survivability in a large-scale conflict? .


Sorry, There were 25+ contacts Over Indian Air defence , would not call it small scale. Even if 1 pair of viper wwas able to sneak through it could have caused significant damage (if not materialistic ,Physic effect would have been enormous ). So hard to assume MKIs over CAP were flying under some restricted mode. There was a level of ROE at PAF end as well . There initial denial of Vipers involvement proves that aka under no condition PAF Vipers were to cross border else PAF using vipers was a naked truth had even 1 was shot down in our area . They were painted and hence launched 4-5 AAMRAM’s in pure desperation hoping for a kill and scooted

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 800
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

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

Postby k prasad » 20 Aug 2020 01:08

I don't mean small in the sense you're thinking, Parshuram.... 25+ contacts is incredibly large, but fact remains, we were not in, or anticipating any large scale kinetic action in the mould of '65, '71, or even Kargil.

Maintaining operational secrets for future large-scale tri-service conflicts with either Pakistan and/or China is important. If we lose secrecy of sensitive information, such as radar waveforms, missile deployment, or ACM strategies, the fallout won't be limited to a few birds shot down... it could jeopardize the success of any future deep strike missions into enemy territory, or the support of ground troops involved in large scale combat.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8090
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 20 Aug 2020 02:52

k prasad wrote:Its like in The Imitation Game. You keep as much of your capabilities hidden until absolutely necessary. IAF would hate to give up its operational secrets and radar and weapons signatures on a relatively small operation if it could jeopardize survivability in a large-scale conflict? We have to assume that any intel collected by Pak will be airmailed to China before its mule-shipped to Rawalpindi.

This is quite a deadly game! One must admire our pilots for their discipline - they were literally in a life-or-death situation, and still managed to not dhoti-shibber and reveal system secrets by breaking RoE. Unlike PAF, by all accounts.

Prasad sir protecting capabilities is all fine but as far as IAF knew the pakis were trying to bomb our facilities on our side of the LoC (and one bomb actually came close to hitting the target) and had to be stopped. I am pretty sure if the RoE's were different, R-77's would have been fired. Main issue was that RoE's prohibited firing BVR missiles across the LoC. It is clear that the pakis don't have any issue with it. I hope we have modified the RoE's now especially considering that with PGM's they don't really need to cross the LoC to conduct a strike.

Besides, what info would not firing an R-77 actually protect? The Chinese have had access to R-77's for as long as we have. And we have the oldest versions of them. The missiles aren't even close to being cutting edge. As for radar data, I am sure the F-16 RWR's along with any ELINT aircraft must have picked up Bars emissions anyway, even without any missiles fired since the MKI's were tracking them.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 20 Aug 2020 03:06

Kartik wrote:The only question is that with limited stocks of MICA-IR and MICA-EM missiles, and with Rafale and Mirage-2000I fighters already using those, will the IAF's MKI's carry the MICA-IR regularly?

AFAIR, 450 MICA missiles of both types were ordered with the Mirage-2000I upgrade. Not sure how many new MICAs were ordered with the Rafale purchase.

But nevertheless, it increases the flexibility of the Su-30MKIs and with a 60km IR missile, even J-20s that are detected via the IRST can be taken on at BVR ranges even if their RCS does not permit engagement with an active seeker missile.


The emergency purchase recently apparently included additional Micas specifically for the Rafales.

Re: last point and the J-20, this is exactly what I am happy about.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 800
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

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

Postby k prasad » 20 Aug 2020 03:12

nachiket wrote:Prasad sir protecting capabilities is all fine but as far as IAF knew the pakis were trying to bomb our facilities on our side of the LoC (and one bomb actually came close to hitting the target) and had to be stopped. I am pretty sure if the RoE's were different, R-77's would have been fired. Main issue was that RoE's prohibited firing BVR missiles across the LoC. It is clear that the pakis don't have any issue with it. I hope we have modified the RoE's now especially considering that with PGM's they don't really need to cross the LoC to conduct a strike.

Besides, what info would not firing an R-77 actually protect? The Chinese have had access to R-77's for as long as we have. And we have the oldest versions of them. The missiles aren't even close to being cutting edge. As for radar data, I am sure the F-16 RWR's along with any ELINT aircraft must have picked up Bars emissions anyway, even without any missiles fired since the MKI's were tracking them.


True enough, Saar... But I'd imagine there's LPI waveform customisations for BVR combat that we'd like to keep secret for as long as possible. I'm not sure how much intel their ELINT might've gotten from Bars, but it's good to have some things remain close to our chest. Hopefully they've removed the cross-LoC missile firing restriction.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 20 Aug 2020 03:18

OT:
You can protect only so much when the equipment is foreign.
Remember the Aussie paper that leaked DCNS Scorpene details early in the decade?
(Although Nausena did assuage concerns but IMO damage was done)
Not bringing politics here but SS saying the Triumf is compromised and being on the parliamentary stg com on defence is another red flag in my head.
Atmanirbhar is the only way ahead.
I support Adminullah's Uttam + Rambha plan, Atyuttam Rambha (Super Sukhoi) till AMCA!

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 20 Aug 2020 03:30

Karan M wrote:
Kartik wrote:The only question is that with limited stocks of MICA-IR and MICA-EM missiles, and with Rafale and Mirage-2000I fighters already using those, will the IAF's MKI's carry the MICA-IR regularly?

AFAIR, 450 MICA missiles of both types were ordered with the Mirage-2000I upgrade. Not sure how many new MICAs were ordered with the Rafale purchase.

But nevertheless, it increases the flexibility of the Su-30MKIs and with a 60km IR missile, even J-20s that are detected via the IRST can be taken on at BVR ranges even if their RCS does not permit engagement with an active seeker missile.


The emergency purchase recently apparently included additional Micas specifically for the Rafales.

Re: last point and the J-20, this is exactly what I am happy about.

Can the Litening pods also be used for detecting aerial targets?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

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

Postby Vivek K » 20 Aug 2020 03:35

k prasad wrote:....
True enough, Saar... But I'd imagine there's LPI waveform customisations for BVR combat that we'd like to keep secret for as long as possible. I'm not sure how much intel their ELINT might've gotten from Bars, but it's good to have some things remain close to our chest. Hopefully they've removed the cross-LoC missile firing restriction.

That is quite illogical - you're saying that to hide tech, IAF did not launch R-77s when it could have? I guess best way to accomplish that other than the Klingon cloaking device would be to not take off and hide the tech in the hangar.

Some have stated that the MKIs jammed the area making their own missiles ineffective others say the MKIs were not carrying escort jammers. But what is known is that the IAF used one missile and shot down a F16 while PAF fired 4-5 missiles that did no damage and they turned tail and ran away from the engagement site.

k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 800
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

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

Postby k prasad » 20 Aug 2020 03:40

MeshaVishwas wrote:Remember the Aussie paper that leaked DCNS Scorpene details early in the decade?
(Although Nausena did assuage concerns but IMO damage was done)


What else could they have done other than assuaging concerns? I mean, if the information was indeed damaging, the IN wouldn't come out and admit so, would they? I really hope the leak wasnt too damning, and any major disclosures have been compensated and fixed.

MeshaVishwas wrote:Not bringing politics here but SS saying the Triumf is compromised and being on the parliamentary stg com on defence is another red flag in my head.
Atmanirbhar is the only way ahead.
I support Adminullah's Uttam + Rambha plan, Atyuttam Rambha (Super Sukhoi) till AMCA!


Hear hear! Only way forward.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 20 Aug 2020 09:33

MeshaVishwas wrote:Can the Litening pods also be used for detecting aerial targets?

Yes. The IAF has been using Litening as a FLIR for over two decades. It works better than the Su-30MKI or MiG-29 IRST.

A big hint is the Su-30MKI in Red Flag Exercises carrying ACMI pods for Air to Air combat and Litening pod on the inlet hardpoint. One doesn't carry a draggy ground target designation pod in air to air combat unless it gives a significant combat advantage. The rest of the aircraft is squeaky clean.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Red ... i.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Red ... r.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Red ... i.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Red ... i.jpg.html

This was Red Flag 2008
Last edited by tsarkar on 20 Aug 2020 10:41, edited 1 time in total.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 20 Aug 2020 09:43

Mica has the best maneuverability among all BVRAAM. It sacrifices range for maneuverability.

Good design thinking as simple range advantage isnt effective given how Su-30MKI evaded the AMRAAMs.

I am guessing IAF is giving two hoots to the French tantrum that no French missile with non French radar.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8090
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

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

Postby nachiket » 20 Aug 2020 11:11

tsarkar wrote:Mica has the best maneuverability among all BVRAAM. It sacrifices range for maneuverability.

Good design thinking as simple range advantage isnt effective given how Su-30MKI evaded the AMRAAMs.

Isn't that something that used to be said about the R-77 too? Those cruciform wings with grid fins at the back were supposed to give it a very high turn rate.

MICA's tvc will help in making quick turns after initial launch when the motor is still burning but is useless in terminal phase. Not sure if the terminal maneuverability of the MICA will be a whole lot better than an AMRAAM etc.

I am guessing IAF is giving two hoots to the French tantrum that no French missile with non French radar.

Won't we need their help in integrating the missile with the radar? The RF variant at least.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 20 Aug 2020 12:21

MKIs carried Litening in Red Flag as they did A2G work too. They were not used merely in air to air.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -time.html

Exercise Red Flag provides a realistic war situation in which the Blue Force pilots will have all possible odds ‘thrown’ at them. Availability of a large air to air range with threat replication contributes to the tremendous training value of the exercise. The replication of the air war would see the IAF's Su-30 aircraft participating in suppression of enemy air defence (SEAD) air to air & air to ground missions. The IL-78 tankers and USAF AWACS would be in active support role. The IL-76 would undertake tactical transport operations & large force engagements operations.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19835
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 20 Aug 2020 12:24

nachiket wrote:Won't we need their help in integrating the missile with the radar? The RF variant at least.


We need the data format in how it communicates and receives data while on the pylon from the mission computer. Rest is all manageable.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 561
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

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

Postby MeshaVishwas » 20 Aug 2020 13:28

Brilliant, thanks all.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 20 Aug 2020 13:57

nachiket wrote:MICA's tvc will help in making quick turns after initial launch when the motor is still burning but is useless in terminal phase. Not sure if the terminal maneuverability of the MICA will be a whole lot better than an AMRAAM etc.

MICA has both bank to turn and skid to turn capabilities. The motor is mounted centrally close to CG improving its maneuverability.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/vlmica/
A butalite solid propellant booster and sustainer motor, supplied by Protac, is located in the mid-section of the missile. Four slotted vanes on a circular plate over the rear exhaust are efflux deflection vanes which provide thrust vector control. The movable L-shaped guidance fins and the efflux deflection vanes give the missile manoeuvrability up to 50g.


nachiket wrote:Won't we need their help in integrating the missile with the radar? The RF variant at least.


Image

Nope. HAL has designed the Mirage 2000 Mission Computer and has the necessary codes and experience for the MICA integration.

The Su-30MKI Mission Computer is also Indian :wink:

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

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

Postby tsarkar » 20 Aug 2020 14:02

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Tcu ... de&f=false

This is a more comprehensive description of the Air to Air Mode of Litening Pod manufactured under license by NG in US and deployed in A-10.

It clearly explains the A2A mode, automatic tracking and cueing of AIM-9M seeker.

Note the ability to cue the older AIM-9M missile seeker.

The superlative capabilities of the Litening Pod is also the reason why IAF never wanted IRST on Tejas.

The superlative capabilities of the Litening Pod is also the reason why IAF is paying Dassault extra for its integration under ISE. It is superior to the French Damocles and the newer pod offered with Rafale.

I also hope people realise how IAF keeps integrating the best of breed capabilities. The most maneuverable AAM and the most capable designation pod.

People on the Tejas thread would argue IAF sets unrealistic integration requirements. Hope they realise that IAF does these kind of integration in-house.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12405
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 20 Aug 2020 17:40



Cross postign from Artillery thread- how accurate is this- it mentions MICA-IR discussed and that the R-77's fired were the new R-77-1 variant and not the older 27-Feb-19 R-77 AE's

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3472
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

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

Postby Aditya G » 20 Aug 2020 22:14

Sir any news on the ASW-SWC and any new projects in pipeline. Zero news on CTS and OPV plans now that Project-21 and ABG CTS are cancelled.

(i know this is off track.. please reply in navy thread - thank you :-) )

tsarkar wrote:https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TcuaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=Litening+pod+air+to+air+mode&source=bl&ots=hV6qzYOpVQ&sig=ACfU3U18LJEV81SguZtJ5w15IUg6bZKjPw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAidf5o6nrAhWLkHIEHYYoBZ8Q6AEwHXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Litening%20pod%20air%20to%20air%20mode&f=false

This is a more comprehensive description of the Air to Air Mode of Litening Pod manufactured under license by NG in US and deployed in A-10.

It clearly explains the A2A mode, automatic tracking and cueing of AIM-9M seeker.

Note the ability to cue the older AIM-9M missile seeker.

The superlative capabilities of the Litening Pod is also the reason why IAF never wanted IRST on Tejas.

The superlative capabilities of the Litening Pod is also the reason why IAF is paying Dassault extra for its integration under ISE. It is superior to the French Damocles and the newer pod offered with Rafale.

I also hope people realise how IAF keeps integrating the best of breed capabilities. The most maneuverable AAM and the most capable designation pod.

People on the Tejas thread would argue IAF sets unrealistic integration requirements. Hope they realise that IAF does these kind of integration in-house.

titash
BRFite
Posts: 397
Joined: 26 Aug 2011 18:44

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

Postby titash » 20 Aug 2020 22:46

tsarkar wrote:https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TcuaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=Litening+pod+air+to+air+mode&source=bl&ots=hV6qzYOpVQ&sig=ACfU3U18LJEV81SguZtJ5w15IUg6bZKjPw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAidf5o6nrAhWLkHIEHYYoBZ8Q6AEwHXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Litening%20pod%20air%20to%20air%20mode&f=false

This is a more comprehensive description of the Air to Air Mode of Litening Pod manufactured under license by NG in US and deployed in A-10.

It clearly explains the A2A mode, automatic tracking and cueing of AIM-9M seeker.

Note the ability to cue the older AIM-9M missile seeker.

The superlative capabilities of the Litening Pod is also the reason why IAF never wanted IRST on Tejas.

The superlative capabilities of the Litening Pod is also the reason why IAF is paying Dassault extra for its integration under ISE. It is superior to the French Damocles and the newer pod offered with Rafale.

I also hope people realise how IAF keeps integrating the best of breed capabilities. The most maneuverable AAM and the most capable designation pod.

People on the Tejas thread would argue IAF sets unrealistic integration requirements. Hope they realise that IAF does these kind of integration in-house.


tsarkar-ji,

If the Lightening pod can replace a nose mounted IRST, why does the Tejas Mk-2 / MWF need to be designed with an inbuilt IRST. There must be some tradeoffs because the MWF will be carrying both - a nose mounted IRST and a Lightening Pod.

Based on geometry, the nose mounted IRST should have less blind spots/better lookup capability than an underslung pod. Likewise the underslung pod has better FoV for ground attack.

If you're in an air-air mode, the inbuilt IRST should offer less drag AND have a better FoV for high flying targets. The Tejas service ceiling or operating altitude should be lower than contemporary twin-engine (Eurofighter) / larger-engine fighters (F-16/J-10), and may be better off with nose mounted IRST?

JMT...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9231
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 20 Aug 2020 23:10

Dedicated IRSTs can be optimized for air to air detection and tracking. LWIR is often chosen for this purpose with some next gen systems considering a VLWIR sensor as well. Most targeting pods are focused on either operating in MWIR or also add a SWIR channel. A select few add MWIR and LWIR both.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3543
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 20 Aug 2020 23:15

if indeed we have our own MC in M2000I then we would have the ability to interact with MiCA RF as well (MICA IR should be easy). Now the missing piece will be converting contact data from M2KI (RDM2) radar, feeding that to MC and then beaming that to inflight MICA RF. I would assume all of that signal processing would be done by the Indian MC. The hardware to beam that data back to MICA could be French (and if that is the case, we cannot then port it to SU30MKI) - Either the radar itself or separate antenna. If M2kI uses RDM2 to provide mid course guidance, then we would not have all the pieces to integrate it with SU30MKI.

The IR version is a easier one to integrate. The missiles own seeker will guide it in the right direction (IR are good with directions and bad with range). The proximity fuse on the missile will make sure it detonates at the right distance. End of story. As long as we have an ejector and code to release the missile we should be good (and since our own MC does that we have it).

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2777
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

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

Postby JTull » 21 Aug 2020 03:23

tsarkar wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote:Can the Litening pods also be used for detecting aerial targets?

Yes. The IAF has been using Litening as a FLIR for over two decades. It works better than the Su-30MKI or MiG-29 IRST.

A big hint is the Su-30MKI in Red Flag Exercises carrying ACMI pods for Air to Air combat and Litening pod on the inlet hardpoint. One doesn't carry a draggy ground target designation pod in air to air combat unless it gives a significant combat advantage. The rest of the aircraft is squeaky clean.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Red ... i.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Red ... r.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Red ... i.jpg.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Red ... i.jpg.html

This was Red Flag 2008


USAF first stated getting deliveries of Litening G4 in 2008. I believe our Litening 4 I, ordered in 2014-16, were the first ones with A2A FLIR capability. Previous ones only had A2G capability.

And I agree with above comment, why would they attempt to fit a dedicated FLIR in MWF when the podded version is so good?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aldonkar, anupamd, kvraghav, Majestic-12 [Bot], Rakesh, Vamsee, VickyAvinash and 81 guests