Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Su-30: 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.
Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14104
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 01 Jun 2017 07:03

shiv wrote:Could people please stop speculating on causes. Let the vayusena do its job and conduct a court if enquiry. "cyberweapon", "missile" only indicate an absence of knowledge of a score of other causes of accidents and a deep seated fear of China.


In my digging so far, I rate a cyber weapon compromise as very unlikely.. IAF does not even use datalinks in exercises & these are IFDL datalinks. I have found no evidence so far of IAF Su-30 MKIs having any G2A datalink, to raise the remote possibility of it being hacked, jammed etc. Prosaic reasons are more likely, in a dangerous to fly region as the NE, with valleys everywhere, heavy jungle, rain/fog/lighting issues for low flying aircraft. I suspect IAF is doing a lot of valley hugging low flying in the NE as the Su-30s will serve as the long arm for strike and AD both, not just AD.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jun 2017 07:05

Karan M wrote:IAF is doing a lot of valley hugging low flying in the NE as the Su-30s will serve as the long arm for strike and AD both, not just AD.

Sometimes without instrumentation to simulate wartime conditions..

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10317
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 01 Jun 2017 07:08

India needs a few high altitude AESA in the north east.
The weather is often times very bad, and so an Aerostat won't be in the air always, so a few big radars on high hill tops are needed. A covered dome to protect the radar from the elements should be done.

There have been far too many crashes, and near crashes in that area, and the radar coverage is always patchy with the current set of radars, as the airfields are all in very narrow valleys.

If all aircraft have satellite transponders, say IRNSS or GAGAN, can those be tracked by the enemy?

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14104
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 01 Jun 2017 07:26

shiv wrote:
Karan M wrote:IAF is doing a lot of valley hugging low flying in the NE as the Su-30s will serve as the long arm for strike and AD both, not just AD.

Sometimes without instrumentation to simulate wartime conditions..


When you say without instrumentation saar, is it chaiwallah info.. you mean fancy pods and stuff or onboard instrumentation? IIRC MKI radar does not have a TFR mode, so it will be all pilot skill at that height. Not that TFR wagehra brochure stuff will work over unmapped terrain, with frequent breaks/ravines/valleys/foliage..
Really dangerous & hats off to the pilots.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 59315
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

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

Postby Singha » 01 Jun 2017 07:27

Iaf radar in upper shillong has dome on it
Visible in google earth

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14104
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 01 Jun 2017 07:28

Gagan wrote:India needs a few high altitude AESA in the north east.
The weather is often times very bad, and so an Aerostat won't be in the air always, so a few big radars on high hill tops are needed. A covered dome to protect the radar from the elements should be done.

There have been far too many crashes, and near crashes in that area, and the radar coverage is always patchy with the current set of radars, as the airfields are all in very narrow valleys.

If all aircraft have satellite transponders, say IRNSS or GAGAN, can those be tracked by the enemy?


A stationary AESA will have a very low radius of coverage i suspect and many blind spots. IAF will keep mast radars only for specific vectors to protect key points & vital areas. At wartime, AWACS will be used, but even there leakers will get through..

No easy answers, because we lack the funds to ring the area with radars etc.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jun 2017 07:30

The weather is not often bad - it is bad every single day in some areas - but flights have to take place even at such times. No matter what equipment the aircraft have - training for wartime conditions requires flying in hazardous conditions without instrumentation whose radiation can be tracked, or to simulate battle damage/equipment failure.

One reason why pilots take to combat with no sweat is that flying in such areas and conditions itself is risky and combat sorties are short and sweet compared to day and day out flying risks.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10317
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 01 Jun 2017 07:37

Some valleys abruptly end in very high walls all of a sudden, some valleys become very narrow.
One can only wonder, what happens to the winds with such sudden changes in geography.

If one looks at the area in a 3D mode on say google earth, one can't help but be overawed at the sheer difficulty of the terrain.

And the IAF guys fly day in and out, in all sorts of weather, in crazy crosswinds, through those valleys, in thunderstorms...
Hats off to these guys!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jun 2017 07:38

Karan M wrote:
When you say without instrumentation saar, is it chaiwallah info.. you mean fancy pods and stuff or onboard instrumentation?.

No chaiwalla info. Pilot accounts exist of training flying low level in poor visibility with no radio, radar or navigation equipment depending on the most basic instruments - altimeter, airspeed, compass. I have read pilot accounts of flying (in the west, not North east) at 50 feet in absolute darkness and navigating their way back to base.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1391
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby vasu raya » 01 Jun 2017 09:06

There is TFR with a picture of MKI flying low over the ocean, maybe something they could do over Tibet plateau, and that existing capability isn't meant for mountain terrain; here even thats not used because of the need to maintain radio silence

They might be using GPS and its backup INS since both are passive, however if say the GPS glitches for a human pilot to realize that and rely on INS, he may not have enough time to react when flying low level, they have to be sensor fuzed

Civil aviation uses waypoints, why not such a grid overlayed in that region? except perhaps with a million of them and not all are referenced by radio beacons but only exist in the digital realm identified from the GIS maps.

Regarding weather if radar coverage isn't 100% in that terrain it will be an issue with weather radars also even if such a ground network were to be setup. Maybe it can be done cheaper with a dedicated sat network like those 104 nano sats if built for tracking wind speed and direction giving realtime updates.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10317
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

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

Postby Gagan » 01 Jun 2017 11:00

Singha wrote:Iaf radar in upper shillong has dome on it
Visible in google earth

Shinga ji
That is the Cherrapunji Doppler Weather Radar?
ISRO-BEL radar
Not an IAF radar.

Indigenously developed Polarimetric Doppler Weather Radar at Cherrapunjee dedicated to Nation by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1490
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 01 Jun 2017 19:06

Why does the IAF not have a policy of always flying at least 2 aircraft together whether for a training or patrol sortie? Mechanical problems are very unlikely to hit both aircraft at the same time and in the event both go down at the same time, the chances are very high that it is enemy action. At the very least one aircraft will be in close proximity to the other to find out what caused the downing. This is specially applicable for the Chinese/Pakistani border areas.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46906
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 01 Jun 2017 19:42

There were two Su-30 aircraft flying together this time.
Exactly what you say happened.
Problems occurred with one plane leading to this mishap.
Other plane returned safely.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3101
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

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

Postby Karthik S » 01 Jun 2017 19:44

May not be in a close formation as the other plane in the pair would have seen if the pilots ejected or not and also the exact location of the crash would have been known immediately.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jun 2017 19:50

Karthik S wrote:May not be in a close formation as the other plane in the pair would have seen if the pilots ejected or not and also the exact location of the crash would have been known immediately.

Not if they were in clouds

Those who have not read this true (and gripping and very well written) story before should do so. It gives one an idea of what the weather is like in the North east - written by a helicopter pilot trying to rescue a downed MiG 21 pilot

Kempy's Nose

ldev
BRFite
Posts: 1490
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 01 Jun 2017 20:39

shiv wrote: It gives one an idea of what the weather is like in the North east

Very true. Many, many years ago flying from Dibrugarh to Kolkatta, a friend who was piloting the then IA flight invited me to the cockpit. We got into cloud 2 minutes after takeoff from Dibrugarh and there was zero visibility all way to the flight altitude of 30,000 feet. Zero visibility all through the 1 hour 30-40 minute flight at that altitude and only broke cloud cover on descent into Kolkatta. Not to mention the worst turbulence ever encountered. Hats off to the IAF for having to fight in those zero visibility conditions.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3101
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

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

Postby Karthik S » 01 Jun 2017 20:45

shiv wrote:
Karthik S wrote:May not be in a close formation as the other plane in the pair would have seen if the pilots ejected or not and also the exact location of the crash would have been known immediately.

Not if they were in clouds

Those who have not read this true (and gripping and very well written) story before should do so. It gives one an idea of what the weather is like in the North east - written by a helicopter pilot trying to rescue a downed MiG 21 pilot

Kempy's Nose


Thanks Shiv ji. Just had a thought, if both planes turn on their radar, wouldn't the other pilot know that his wingman is losing altitude or disappears from his screen suddenly.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 01 Jun 2017 21:20

Karthik S wrote:Thanks Shiv ji. Just had a thought, if both planes turn on their radar, wouldn't the other pilot know that his wingman is losing altitude or disappears from his screen suddenly.

This is the issue. Training for real war conditions demands that they may have to keep radars off and fly low. You have seen how, from one minute after the news of the accident broke people have been saying that the Chinese shot it down. Don't you think the IAF would know that two planes radiating the air around them with their radars would also be detectable easily by the Chinese in wartime and would therefore keep the radars off? These men are our warfighters. They are training for war. In realistic, dangerous conditions. Either you stay low and keep radars off or advertise your position and get shot down.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3101
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

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

Postby Karthik S » 01 Jun 2017 21:33

shiv wrote:
Karthik S wrote:Thanks Shiv ji. Just had a thought, if both planes turn on their radar, wouldn't the other pilot know that his wingman is losing altitude or disappears from his screen suddenly.

This is the issue. Training for real war conditions demands that they may have to keep radars off and fly low. You have seen how, from one minute after the news of the accident broke people have been saying that the Chinese shot it down. Don't you think the IAF would know that two planes radiating the air around them with their radars would also be detectable easily by the Chinese in wartime and would therefore keep the radars off? These men are our warfighters. They are training for war. In realistic, dangerous conditions. Either you stay low and keep radars off or advertise your position and get shot down.


Thanks Shiv ji.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 02 Jun 2017 10:00

army trekked down the terrain for several hours, creating a path several hundred feet downward from the crash site and found the bodies. The teams were challenged by incessant rain and poor light.

idrw.org . Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website http://idrw.org/hours-of-trekking-led-t ... ore-136988 .


Looks like the pilots did eject but it was too late. :cry:

DrRatnadip
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 31 Dec 2016 00:40

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

Postby DrRatnadip » 02 Jun 2017 15:23

shiv wrote:
army trekked down the terrain for several hours, creating a path several hundred feet downward from the crash site and found the bodies. The teams were challenged by incessant rain and poor light.

idrw.org . Read more at India No 1 Defence News Website http://idrw.org/hours-of-trekking-led-t ... ore-136988 .


Looks like the pilots did eject but it was too late. :cry:


I was egerly waiting for news of their safe recovery.. Loss of two brave pilots is heartbraking ..RIP :(

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1655
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

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

Postby eklavya » 02 Jun 2017 20:47

Very sad news.

When you go Home, tell them of us and say,
For your Tomorrow, we gave our Today

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 933
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

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

Postby Khalsa » 03 Jun 2017 13:26

Rest in Peace

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16160
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 03 Jun 2017 13:40

Karthik S wrote:
Thanks Shiv ji. Just had a thought, if both planes turn on their radar, wouldn't the other pilot know that his wingman is losing altitude or disappears from his screen suddenly.

radars arent omniscient devices. they have a limited angle of 'visibility' in the forward direction. wingmen would be side by side to each other, may be somewhat staggered, one flying a forward of the other.

then again, in an exercise simulating operational conditions they would most likely exercise EMCON with radars off and no communications.

so no, on-board radars arent the perfect device to keep track of your wingmen.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16160
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

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

Postby Rahul M » 03 Jun 2017 13:41

trully saddened. brave sons of mother India, we wont forget you.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1806
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

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

Postby PratikDas » 03 Jun 2017 14:30

Is this a tragedy that zero-zero ejections seats could've averted?

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1150
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 03 Jun 2017 14:44

Su-30 carries zero-zero K36DM ejection seats. In fact, the K-36 is one of the best ejection seats in the world. In this particular instant, we do not why pilots were unable to initiate ejection. Perhaps it was too late when they realised that they were in trouble.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Jun 2017 17:28

They were neither at zero altitude or zero speed so this has nothing to do with zero-zero ejection seats

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1391
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby vasu raya » 03 Jun 2017 21:39

Continuing on passive navigation and bad weather theme, if one sees cross wind landings, the commercial aircraft slightly turn into the direction of the wind still maintaining the narrow runway alignment where big wings and slower speeds help. Fighters are acrobatic and perhaps can do those maneuvers if given sufficient reaction time which is why wind vector information if made available ahead of time, for convenience sake say it is around a waypoint, navigating that waypoint becomes easier.

Even in the case of a downdraft, unlike commercial airplanes, fighters can fly at angles minimizing the pushdown effect on its wings. Not an option for aircraft like An-32 which would have to fly around such weather or waypoint and choose a different series of waypoints

Obtaining the wind vectors in realtime around the waypoints perhaps can be done, typically sats look at the ocean surface to derive the surface wind speeds which are relevant for low level flights. For the Arunachal hills, maybe the way vegetation is swaying due to the surface winds can be used, so is the case with snow laden hills, in case of cloud cover hanging low on the hills, even their movement can help in knowing local wind vectors.

The void zones are places where the hills are rocky and barren, and remote measurement of surface winds isn't possible, they may need ground based weather radars.

Other than that, there is a small fleet of C-130s that fly in bad weather to study it, they may have the advantage of being shifted around by the wind and not encounter any terrain by flying at medium altitude. In Arunachal they could use Nirbhay derived UAVs to study the weather, since it can fly low, risk is minimal, substitute its GPS/IRNSS/INS derived navigation system with that used in the MKI, the Jaguar, maybe even the An-32 etc., and generate a high sortie rate perhaps 10 times the manned aircraft rate in that region. Ultimately one might have a weather model created aiding safe navigation.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1806
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

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

Postby PratikDas » 04 Jun 2017 13:07

shiv wrote:They were neither at zero altitude or zero speed so this has nothing to do with zero-zero ejection seats

May not have been zero altitude but the understanding is that the ejection was left till the last moment to avoid crashing into populated areas, so the altitude above ground at the time of ejection could've been very low, near zero. Am I missing something?

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 682
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Postby Manish_P » 04 Jun 2017 13:14

^ "populated areas" ? :shock:

Sir. I think you are missing quite a lot of things. Geography for one.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1806
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

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

Postby PratikDas » 04 Jun 2017 13:44

Manish_P wrote:^ "populated areas" ? :shock:

Sir. I think you are missing quite a lot of things. Geography for one.

My memory has failed me. I thought I had read of populated areas in one of the many news reports and tweets about this incident and now I can't find any of them. Clearly, I misremember. Also, the geography doesn't really tell me much. An area with a hut can be considered populated. Apologies for the misunderstanding nevertheless.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15295
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 04 Jun 2017 14:48

Manish_P wrote:^ "populated areas" ? :shock:

Sir. I think you are missing quite a lot of things. Geography for one.


and also the basic understanding of a Zero Zero ejection seat. :wink:

especially a seat like the zero-zero NPP Zvezda K-36DM ejection seat.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15295
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 04 Jun 2017 14:56

Concerns deepen about cyber attack on Su 30, IAF starts inquiry




Concerns deepen about cyber attack on Su 30, IAF starts inquiry

By ABHINANDAN MISHRA | New Delhi | 4 June, 2017


Indian Air Force has started a court of inquiry to investigate the crashing of one of its Sukhoi 30 fighters in Assam, amidst concerns that the aircraft’s flying was “interfered with from outside” while it was still airborne, and that this may have led to the pilots suffering “spatial disorientation”. The aircraft went down last week near the India-China border after taking off from the Tezpur airbase in Assam.

The Sukhoi-30 crashed on 23 May, but its wreckage was discovered three days later and the analysis of the aircraft’s equipment suggested that the two IAF officers, Squadron Leader D. Pankaj and Flight Lieutenant S. Achudev, who were flying the aircraft, were unable to “initiate the ejection process” when the aircraft was about to crash—a “lack of action” that hardly happens with trained fighter pilots.


This newspaper carried a report last week (Sukhoi likely downed by cyber weapons, 28 May) in which it pointed out that the crash may be the result of “cyber-interference with the onboard computers” in the cockpit. The report also said that it could be due to this interference that the pilots may have found it difficult to activate safety ejection mechanisms, once it became obvious that the aircraft was in serious trouble, as such mechanisms too could have been crippled by computer malfunctions induced from an outside source.

Even though India’s traditional defence establishment, including old school security analysts, has been wary of accepting the possibility of a cyber attack downing a combat aircraft, the issue has been and is being discussed seriously in the Western fronts for the last 8-9 years, with experts and CEOs of defence companies themselves raising concerns over cyber threats on military hardware.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States in 2008, in its report, had stated that the Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner passenger jet may have had serious security vulnerabilities in its onboard computer networks that could allow passengers to access the plane’s control systems and make these vulnerable to hackers. Later, Boeing had stated that it had fixed the problem.

Similarly, in December 2013, Jeff Kohler, vice president of international business development for Boeing’s defence arm, stated that he was “very concerned” about the threats to flying software and the said aircraft were now in need of cyber protection. “From our commercial aircraft side we’re very concerned about it. As commercial aeroplanes become more and more digital and electronic, we have actually started to put cyber protection into the software of our aeroplanes,” Kohler had stated.

In 2013, a Spanish hacker, who is also a commercial flying pilot licence holder, had made a presentation in front of European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), in which he proved beyond doubt that one did not need a computer to hijack a plane remotely and even a smart-phone equipped with an app could be enough to take over a plane’s steering system, causing the plane to crash.

In 2011, Pascal Andrei, chief product security officer at Airbus, while speaking at an event on cyber security organised by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), stated that “conventional security threats, such as bombs, disruptive passengers, smuggled baggage, and cargo are already being managed effectively, although these are constantly evolving. Now airlines must learn to manage cyber threats.”

Andrei, while giving the example of a scene that took place in a Hollywood movie, Die Hard 2—where the aircraft’s systems were fooled by cyber hackers into believing that it was flying 200 feet higher than it actually was, by interfering with the instrument landing system—stated that this was not a just a fictional scenario: “It is not just a matter of ensuring that the channels of data transmission are secure, but also of ensuring that the information transmitted through those channels is correct. Aircraft have to rely on external data coming into the aircraft. If that information is not correct, it could jeopardise the safety of the flight.”

Experts say that some Indian experts’ dismissal of the possibility of the Sukhoi-30 being brought down by a cyber attack was not unique, as even in the West it took some time for the traditional old school experts to start believing in such sabotage. Initially, they just could not understand how quickly cyber threats had evolved.

Raytheon, a major US based defence manufacturer and the largest producer of guided missiles, announced last year that it was working on a billion-dollars-project to provide commercial and military pilots with a cyber attack warning system. The two products it was working on included a software-only technology and a hardware-deployable module. The software was being developed with the objective to provide a quick and easy fix, while the hardware product was being designed to give operators a hard-wired solution capable of protecting critical aircraft systems from cyber attacks, in a situation where an attacker simulates the aircraft malfunctions so that a pilot loses trust in the functionality of the airplane.

According to experts, something similar probably took place with the Indian pilots, Squadron leader D. Pankaj and flight lieutenant S. Achudev, who were flying the ill fated Sukhoi-30.

In March 2014, a cyber attack on Russian communication systems had compromised India’s defence dealings with Russia, after it was revealed that most of the leaked documents were related to India’s dealings with Russia in relation to Sukhoi-30 MKI and the MiG-29. The documents that were stolen included correspondence between Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), which makes the SU-30 and the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which manufactures the aircraft under licence in India.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14104
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 04 Jun 2017 15:08

There could be so many reasnons why the pilots could not initiate the ejection process especially if they flew into terrain and they simply couldn't..

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2017 16:36

PratikDas wrote:
shiv wrote:They were neither at zero altitude or zero speed so this has nothing to do with zero-zero ejection seats

May not have been zero altitude but the understanding is that the ejection was left till the last moment to avoid crashing into populated areas, so the altitude above ground at the time of ejection could've been very low, near zero. Am I missing something?


I think you are missing a lot. The plane crashed into an uninhabited mountainside with impenetrable jungle with constant poor weather where rescue teams were hampered by "thick jungle. constant rain and poor light" (quoting reports) Technically an aircraft can be at 1000 or 2000 meters (or even 5000 meters in the Himalayas) one moment and milliseconds later it can hit a mountainside and be termed "zero altitude".

Whatever the altitude, the ejection sequence takes some time after the pilot initiates it - Google mentions up to 4 seconds. Even if it is 1 second that is an awfully long time for a plane approaching a mountainside at 1000 kmph - assuming they could see it. If they did see it (despite clouds) and tried to eject - that delay ("up to 4 seconds") is what would explain the statement "Inability to initiate the ejection sequence in time"

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32836
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Jun 2017 16:46

I was arguing on Twitter with one guy who suggested that Chinese electronic warfare caused the accident and in a rush of internet adrenaline I challenged him to name 10 causes of aircraft accidents other than cyberweapon/electronic warfare and why those causes were not more likely. Of course he could not answer - he did a quick Google and came up with auto-ejection. That left me with the burden of putting my typing fingers where my big mouth was and I had to quickly come up with a list to prove that I have a big dick. I did - and here it is typos, spelling mistakes and all...
Image

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2490
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Postby fanne » 04 Jun 2017 17:23

Bird strike

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12737
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

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

Postby negi » 04 Jun 2017 18:07

Even to this day highest probable causes of an air crash are human error; due to the nature of the topic and sentiments involved around military stuff news papers will never to get to know of all the details so they will speculate .

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5024
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

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

Postby Surya » 04 Jun 2017 18:08

chetak wrote:Concerns deepen about cyber attack on Su 30, IAF starts inquiry




Concerns deepen about cyber attack on Su 30, IAF starts inquiry

By ABHINANDAN MISHRA | New Delhi | 4 June, 2017


Indian Air Force has started a court of inquiry to investigate the crashing of one of its Sukhoi 30 fighters in Assam, amidst concerns that the aircraft’s flying was “interfered with from outside” while it was still airborne, and that this may have led to the pilots suffering “spatial disorientation”. The aircraft went down last week near the India-China border after taking off from the Tezpur airbase in Assam.

The Sukhoi-30 crashed on 23 May, but its wreckage was discovered three days later and the analysis of the aircraft’s equipment suggested that the two IAF officers, Squadron Leader D. Pankaj and Flight Lieutenant S. Achudev, who were flying the aircraft, were unable to “initiate the ejection process” when the aircraft was about to crash—a “lack of action” that hardly happens with trained fighter pilots.


This newspaper carried a report last week (Sukhoi likely downed by cyber weapons, 28 May) in which it pointed out that the crash may be the result of “cyber-interference with the onboard computers” in the cockpit. The report also said that it could be due to this interference that the pilots may have found it difficult to activate safety ejection mechanisms, once it became obvious that the aircraft was in serious trouble, as such mechanisms too could have been crippled by computer malfunctions induced from an outside source.
.


Seriously writer make some spectacular unfounded speculation and then quotes his own speculation for another article???? :roll:
seriouly


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot], yensoy and 49 guests