Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

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.
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby MeshaVishwas » 22 Apr 2019 12:50

Indian Air Force Strike Power Needs Critical Augmentation – OpEd-Brig Dr.Kapila

https://www.eurasiareview.com/20042019-indian-air-force-strike-power-needs-critical-augmentation-oped/

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52090
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 27 Apr 2019 01:12

X-Post...

Karan M wrote:So, the key takeaways from the Balakot/Feb27th campaign.

IAF positives

- IAF officers led from the front, command crews. This is a big deal even for the western AF who are more and more used to their senior guys flying desks.

- The pilots strike training was excellent, they flew exactly as they were meant to, with zero deviations, with munitions they had only simulated and delivered them exactly as they were meant to. Compare & contrast to Paki use of H4 Raptors and AMRAAMs.

- On Feb 27th, A2A pilots showed equal elan, avoiding multiple AMRAAM launches without panic & continuing to stay in the fight against much higher odds. The PAF in contrast *refused* to take on the IAF strike package headed to Balakot.

- IAF fighter pilots are aggressive, have zero qualms in going for the kill and are the decider. A MiG-21 pilot taking on, let alone shooting down a F-16 would be unheard of, yet WingCo Abhinandan did exactly that. This pysche reflects the IAF pilots skills, self confidence and morale.

- Netra used in wartime mission to lead the opening strike, an incredible vote of confidence for a local made system.

- Quality of intel was excellent, allowing the IAF to make a strike in 3 hrs if similar quality is available in the future

- IAF Spice integration & Crystal Maze worked out at wartime. Only 1 fighter had INS drift, a 35 yr old legacy aircraft means a non upgraded Mirage. Again, a non issue more or less, because the Mirages are being upgraded and the FOC config retains the Crystal Maze and SPICE integration

IAF: Things to improve

-The key thing here is to have HAL and Dassault speed up the Mirage 2000 upgrade, the slow rate of upgrade is literally unacceptable. The MiG-29 Upg is much further along.

-IAF AWACS numbers are an issue. This will particularly be a challenge if IAF takes the fight deep into Pakistan.

- IAF needs more aircraft on QRA, the delay in building hangers etc due to the budget limitations needs to be fixed.

-IAF wants tech asymmetry for A2A and cites AMRAAMs as an issue. Also notes S-400 and Rafales will help. Eitherways, this is a good time to push the GOI to move forward on the Su-30 upgrade, whichever Govt comes in and add new generation missiles to it, and also push the Astra NG project.

-Other low hanging fruit are the Tejas Mk1A orders, SDRs, and EW (accelerate the new RWR and lightweight SPJs for the Su-30s to enable more coverage for strike missions).

- SDR issue is the simplest example of pointless delay.

- BDA being done by Crystal Maze is an amazing example of how rapidly the IAF has moved up the tech. ladder, but at the same time depending on a friendly country for BDA images is not acceptable. Clearly we didn't have enough sats available for round the clock coverage and repositioning one would have meant a loss of sat available life (fuel etc). We need more investments here.

- Additional EW aids like Comjam & ELINT aircraft (IAF business jet plan) needs to be refocused to include jamming of A2A radars as well. This can have disproportionate dividends in a conflict.

- Indian Army AD needs to drastically improve. Its a real issue that the PAF PGMs were able to come close to important formation HQs without being intercepted, the Akash order/deliveries for IA, MRSAM orders need to be accelerate.

- PGMs are the future. Irrespective of how good the Litening & dumb bomb accuracy is, if you use airpower and wish to avoid the propaganda of airframe losses, you need to have a heavy inventory of PGMs. Stuff for the IAF to think about, as it has tended to prioritize airframe numbers & run after *all procurements* like the C-295 instead of focusing first & foremost on the combat heavy elements.

What've learnt about the PAF

- Psyche, the PAF was forced to respond with a haphazard plan on Feb 27th, they have to be seen to respond to the IAF asap. Internal political pressures plus public perception.

- Were able to coordinate a large force strike reasonably well, but let down badly due to risk avoidance of fighter crew, poor BVR tactics and equipment limitations.

- F-16 remains their one stop shop for A2A and strike. The only aircraft thanks to AMRAAM able to face off against IAF jets. Also, explains why despite larger numbers, were not used effectively to close to the IAF planes in merge, because the PAF is simply unwilling to lose these aircraft.

- PAF F-16s were unable to deter the IAF Su-30s despite having larger numbers in play, firing first. This shows the quality of the IAF crew but also the wartime fit of the F-16s could not block the Su-30 WCS. Somewhere, the Russians and all the IAF/DRDO guys who worked on the Su-30 were vindicated. Note, the IAF specifications for the Su-30 WCS were demanding enough that it took till 2012 for the final version to see service.

- PAF's elite picked for a strike, were unable to take down the IAF's squadron standard aircrew despite overwhelming numbers. This is a resounding vote of confidence for the investment in IAF training methodology.

- The much vaunted JF-17s were a complete joke due to their inability to take on even 2 Mirage 2000s despite outnumbering them 4:1 and even more. The PAF didn't even bother deploying the JF-17 against the Su-30.

-JF-17 radars were not up to the task. Refusal of PAF to deploy PRC ZDK-03 over land & order of more Erieyes confirms this issue.

- PAF's haphazard modernization of different fighter classes with different munition types didn't pay off. The F-16 LGBs and Mirage 3/5 Raptors were both man-in-loop systems and hence couldn't be guided in as PAF fighters broke off attacks too quickly

- PAF's BVR & otherwise training has lacunae and is built around risk avoidance. Launching multiple BVR from RMax and expecting success

-They simply wouldn't close in to score kills despite outnumbering the IAF significantly. The IAF took on multiple PAF bogies despite being outnumbered. The PAF on Feb 26th, refused to.

- Implies PAF will now revert to GPS guided bombs from F-16 and JF-17 in the future. We need to invest in GPS jammers. This *is* going to be the PAF response henceforth.

-PAFs investment in Erieyes and own C3I enables it to do more with less. We need to take anti access systems against AEW&C into account, beyond the Meteor. Having Meteor on Rafales, Mirages and RVV-BD on Su-30s (apart from S-400) can be a real dampener for the PAF.

-PAF will seek more and more with China, irrespective of the JF-17 and ZDK-03 flop show. They have no other options, lacking domestic capability. Also expect orders to Turkey, Europe for EW aids and as 2nd line of supply. We need to take this into account.



I see that stand off weapons are the norm now.
We need to look at TSP and understand what should be the mix of ordnance.

IAF has a lot of new generation ordnance.
One thing I would like is to have the SAAW and Litening pod integrated on the LCH/Rudra so that IAF/IA have a stand off bunker busting capability.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52090
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 27 Apr 2019 01:13

A brawl like this is good to get to reality check.

I would really like Matheswaran types to get a healthy kick.

vsunder
BRFite
Posts: 786
Joined: 06 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby vsunder » 27 Apr 2019 08:42

Ha Ha Matheswaran, I had the insufferable experience to be cooped up with him on a 24 hour train journey from CSTM Mumbai to Kanpur. He was Squadron leader then in July 1987. Though he told me about TACDE etc and was on his way to Gorakhpur where he was flying Jaguars, one got the impression then that if a war started he single handedly would demolish TSPAF, since he knew the answers for everything. I almost wanted to ask him so do you know where all the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann Zeta function lie? What an opinionated, pompous guy.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2888
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby fanne » 30 Apr 2019 07:08

Admin, please open the Mig 21 shoots down F-16 thread. Here is you tube video by our own Shiv ji. It is by far the best attempt at constructing what happened. Please post it there. This is for some later time record keeping. Very conclusively proving what happened and where and how and when was F-16 shot down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTFEVcpKShQ

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13271
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Lalmohan » 30 Apr 2019 13:29

^^^ its already on there and has been discussed at length

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby MeshaVishwas » 01 May 2019 22:54

Very interesting read on the RE program for our An-32.
Release date is 18 March,2019.
Stance of SE “PLANT 410 CA” on situation regarding execution of the contract with India in tandem with SFTE “SpetsTechnoExport”
http://spetstechnoexport.com/en/news/123
Execution of the contract for modernization of An-32 aircrafts for the Indian Air Force already in 2011-2018 provides 60% of SE “PLANT 410 CA” net income.

:eek:
And the shady role played by our MSM to the fore.
In December 2017, thanks to tremendous joint efforts by SE “PLANT 410 CA”, SE “Antonov” and SFTE “Spetstechnoexport”, the Ukrainian party has persuaded the Indian customers to substitute Russian components for An-32 to equivalent Western analogues and execute the contract terms and conditions in full.

However, in 2018, the PLANT has faced difficulties again due to delays in signing additional agreements for the contract extension and implementation of import substitution. Reason for the delays was publication of manipulative information in the Indian mass media, with reference to the law enforcement authorities of Ukraine, on putative law violation by the Ukrainian party during the contract execution.

:x

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7269
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 02 May 2019 02:47

India will add 2 more aircraft to strengthen AWACS capabilities
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... eYWWN.html

Armed with deep penetration and long-range radars, AWACS control the battle theatre in times of hostilities by providing advance information about movement of air assets of the adversary.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7269
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 02 May 2019 03:36

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1123560671092908032 ----> Air Marshal Rakesh Kumar Singh Bhadauria takes over as the Vice Chief of Air Staff, Indian Air Force.

Image

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1499
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Khalsa » 02 May 2019 06:30

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1123560671092908032 ----> Air Marshal Rakesh Kumar Singh Bhadauria takes over as the Vice Chief of Air Staff, Indian Air Force.

Oh my God, all these years I thought you were an admiral. ;-)

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7269
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 09 May 2019 20:29

https://twitter.com/shatrujeet009/statu ... 8159864833 --->

Image

https://twitter.com/shatrujeet009/statu ... 1403193344 ----> SPYDER -MR, air defence system in service.

* SPYDER - MR (surface to air Python and Derby), medium range.

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17675
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 09 May 2019 20:35

We bought 3 squadrons of Spyder SR, I think this guy is mixing up that with SIPRI reports.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17675
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 10 May 2019 05:49

A few thoughts - been reading on USAF SEAD/Destr. missions in ODS, Balkans etc. Will just refer to GW-1 as ODS-1 and GW-2 as ODS-2 (for simplicitys sake)

- Akash, QRSAM can be deadly to current gen F-16s, F-15 type wild weasel formations. The Mk1S will be even more lethal. SA-6s despite having their ECM "broken" remained amongst the deadliest threats faced by USAF Wild Weasels
- SA-8s were really feared. Multiple pilot accounts of SA-8s being passive, being the real threat "out there", significant ramifications for our usage of SpyDer
-SEAD never really worked out for HARM equipped F-16s and F-4s with older gen weapons. At best, the HARMs were used for suppression of SAMs to allow strike packages to proceed but missiles continued to be fired en masse. They were fired on quick cues and BDA was next to impossible. Things may improve with newer AARGM etc but explains why USAF moved bigtime to destruction in ODS-2, using LGBs, SOWS and favored weapons were cluster bombs for indiscriminate hits on wider areas
- Chaff & flares are all important. They offer significant coverage (at least against all the older gen threats these guys faced) & are available across the board (consider the angles) as versus forward & aft facing self protection jammers. Having dedicated pods with significant amount of chaff & flares, beyond the standard fit should be explored.
- Escort jammers like SkyShield etc would help more than SPJs in this scenario as the antenna positioning is directed towards ground based targets & stand off fighters can help more than ASPJs on the fighters themselves.
- Towed decoys were "little buddies" which are credited by Wild Weasels to be real life savers. Again, the real effectiveness would be classified, but time & again, pilots would return with their ALE-50 decoys having been shot off/disappeared.
- Again, speaks to how important having MAWS & Towed decoys should be for the IAF
- F16 guys in ODS-1 were iron movers, bombers, period. A2A was to be F-15 territory. Told as much by senior staff. Not a minute on A2A, you are here to blow up stuff on the ground. This should make all those who question why LCA in an era of Su-30s etc think. Its not just about CAP and pulling A2A patrols, but can do a lot of devastation in the A2G role as well.
-Datalinks make life much easier for experienced pilots. Time and again, the Wild Weasels would just datalink their position, strike information to each other using Link 16. Nothing fancy, but would just avoid radio work.
- Radio work using encrypted radios, brings latency, for instance the Have Quick package on the F-16s. Time & again, pilots would just resort to open audibles on unsecured lines for quick decision making. They really didn't care who was listening to them, because the need to do things fast was predominant.
- One seaters have to have the highest skills possible.
- Regular crew in ODS-1 were scared, most were raw and highest skills were limited to the weapons officers who were Nellis/Red Flag/USAF FCL trained or Vietnam war vets. Very frightening for them to even get into combat, let alone face the umpteen missiles that came their way. Iraq had huge inventories of SAMs unfortunately obsolescent (fortunately for USAF). If kit was newer, they would have had significantly more casualties.
- Point is the Iraqis made a strategic mistake by allowing gradual US build up and have the US crews steadily overcome their jitters by deploying in theater and training gradually.
- USAF crews made many mistakes with weapons deliveries, attacks were repeated despite intensive drills. Bombs were pickled wrong, mistakes made, attacks redone. Standard crews but still highly trained, many were squadron/wing top pilots having won fly offs/ flight leaders, not the experienced old hands or Nellis elite, whose mistakes were fewer (they were trained to a higher standard or just held their nerve).
- Also consider elan showed by IAF crews in attacking Balakot with near zero deviation. Speaks well for our training regimen.
- US kit such as TACAN, ILS, AI radar, INS/GPS allowed them to operate round the clock in bad weather, which Iraqis didn't expect. So, has direct parallels to our investment in such kit via MAFI and how we are training up.

Many other lessons, but suffice to say, the number of parallels to what we are doing and how we are proceeding per our plans can be very well understood, both our strengths plus our weaknesses.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7339
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby brar_w » 10 May 2019 06:24

HARM in the 90's was a SEAD and not really a DEAD weapon. Jamming and employment of HARM was meant to degrade ADs for strike packaged to penetrate. Rinse and repeat if targets needed to be re-visited. The SEAD/DEAD and counter shutdown and decoy problem, as a lesson learned, was solved in a multi-pronged approach and much later did ARMs become the preferred DEAD weapon of choice. No one single solution was believed to solve all of the potential issues future conflicts could present. The USAF initiated an extensive HARM upgrade program to make it more effective against counter shut-down tactics and to improve the launch platform and weapon networking capability in order to better coordinate targeting. Similarly, it embarked on a virtual fleet wide targeting and situational awareness upgrade program for the next generation fighters so that advanced ESM, EW and EO/IR and high speed, large pipe data-links were the standard and not the exception. The SA was tackled with the largest fleet wide adoption of AESA radars and advanced targeting pods anywhere in the world (First squadron of F-15's was operational with AESA radars by mid 2000 - just a year or two after the balkan air campaign. As long as they could ID, track, and discriminate against an RF target they could kill it 10 different ways. The problem as always is to get those first parts right. The USAF with its much larger fleet (and stealth assets), tanker support and manned and unmanned aircraft likes to Geo-locate emitters and put bombs or cruise missiles on those targets. The USN with a smaller fleet (5-8 Growlers per CVN cruise or about 10 per squadron when operating from land) prefer to put a longer ranged AARGM on it or jam it to allow strike packages to penetrate. Different approaches given different resources and tactics..

The Navy similarly pursued these things in the Growler and via the AARGM program. Another dimension was the launching of a dedicated USAF Cyber-Electronic Warfare office and capability track (Suter being the most widely mentioned USAF effort but other lesser known efforts can be tracked in the last few budget cycles) aimed at providing the EC-130's and F-16 CJ's with the capability to go after networks underpinning the success of Integrated Air Defense systems. The US Navy likewise followed this with its own efforts on the Prowler and Growler effort. The other major push was to make sure that the Low-Observable (dubbed Passive Electronic Warfare in those days) technology first fielded in the 80's, and 90's proliferated in quantity as opposed to being relegated as a silver bullet capability alone. This is the phase they are currently in and the LO fleet is growing by about 4-5 fighter squadrons a year. With those wheels in motion the one picture which is still WIP is the networking with very large, secure, and self-healing networks required to sustained this on scale. Current technology just does not allow the sort of capability with full-motion-video and very large scale networking to be done in a large force employment in a secure fashion..In OIF for example they basically went commercial and non-encrypted comms to be able to do this but programs like 100 Gb/s RF Backbone are working to get this sort of capability that is secure by mid 2020's or later.That will likely take the next decade if not more to field.

But one lesson that GW1, and the Balkans did teach was that no one approach or capability can assure a successful air campaign and SEAD/DEAD..It needs to be a multi-pronged approach both from a technology side and from the training side which is the most important thing...

In many ways what worked was in a lot of cases, things that had come out of the second offset technology bets in the 70s (Link-16, E-3, JSTARS, GPS etc) while what did not work as well was things that essentially was an extension of capability or tactics employed in Korea or Vietnam. This was one important lessons that many USAF and USN leaders would later recount as assuming that your adversary would not learn from how you employed your forces in prior battles is not always a sound strategy. This is the primary reasons that institutionally there are some that will act as strong barriers to upgrading or buying new of the same like the E-7 as an E-3 replacement or a new and modern JSTARS. In some instances these folks succeed in thwarting going down the path of just doing more of the same (just better) instead of looking how your opponent plans to respond or has responded to stuff you developed many many decades ago and then acting accordingly. The bureaucratic inertia is very hard to stop as I guess is a problem with services the world over...There is a natural tendency to compare and contrast a new piece of kit or new tactics to the one it is replacing or superseding instead of comparing it to the threat system it is indented to defeat or the problem it is trying to solve. Another thing to come out of the GW was the need to go commoditize PGM employment which was again used sparingly then. Now PGM's are the preferred munition of choice as they were during OIF and the efforts has shifted from not having enough to upgrading enough with M-Code enhancements to make them more jam resistant and future proof.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby MeshaVishwas » 10 May 2019 18:09

Government sources to ANI: Indian Air Force fighter jets force an Antonov AN-12 heavy cargo plane coming from Pakistani Air space to land at Jaipur airport. Questioning of pilots on. More details awaited.

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1126823659316895745?s=19
8)

mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby mmasand » 10 May 2019 18:21

MeshaVishwas wrote:
Government sources to ANI: Indian Air Force fighter jets force an Antonov AN-12 heavy cargo plane coming from Pakistani Air space to land at Jaipur airport. Questioning of pilots on. More details awaited.

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1126823659316895745?s=19
8)


rNDTV reporting it was a scheduled flight between Karachi to Delhi and deviated from its flight plan.


sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1031
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby sudhan » 10 May 2019 18:53

Jaipur then must be a bunch of MKIs that intercepted the stray Antonov..

Must've been a short but intense pant browning moment for the An-12 pilots, flanked by a couple of Flankers bristling with missiles

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66136
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Singha » 10 May 2019 19:06

jaipur is a civilian airbase to my limited knowledge.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7269
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Rakesh » 10 May 2019 19:56

The aircraft was forced to land at Jaipur airfield. But that does not mean that Su-30MKIs took off from Jaipur.

Jaipur is deep in Rajasthan and there are air force stations much closer to the border i.e. Jodhpur AFS which hosts a Su-30MKI squadron. However it does not have to be Su-30MKIs either. It could have very well been MiG-21 Bisons that also operate from air bases in Rajasthan. No aircraft can effectively do an interception mission like the MiG-21.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 838
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Deans » 10 May 2019 20:15

Rakesh wrote:The aircraft was forced to land at Jaipur airfield. But that does not mean that Su-30MKIs took off from Jaipur.

Jaipur is deep in Rajasthan and there are air force stations much closer to the border i.e. Jodhpur AFS which hosts a Su-30MKI squadron. However it does not have to be Su-30MKIs either. It could have very well been MiG-21 Bisons that also operate from air bases in Rajasthan. No aircraft can effectively do an interception mission like the MiG-21.


If it was intercepted after crossing in North Gujarat, Mig-21's from Bhuj may have done it. Jaipur would be the airfield closest along the aircraft's planned route to Delhi (particularly after IAF spent time querying it). Also, if it is hostile, IAF may not want to expose AFS Jodhpur to it.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 464
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Haridas » 10 May 2019 21:13

vsunder wrote:Ha Ha Matheswaran, I had the insufferable experience to be cooped up with him on a 24 hour train journey from CSTM Mumbai to Kanpur. He was Squadron leader then in July 1987. Though he told me about TACDE etc and was on his way to Gorakhpur where he was flying Jaguars, one got the impression then that if a war started he single handedly would demolish TSPAF, since he knew the answers for everything. I almost wanted to ask him so do you know where all the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann Zeta function lie? What an opinionated, pompous guy.

I and my brother had a run in with the insufferable xxxx in many sigificant ways, that I can't share.

I met him first at AF Station Bhuj, when he was Chief operations afsar. He shoved a copy of his masters thesis (on OODA) to me, as a 3rd grader will push /showoff his passing grade reportcard to a visitor at home.

He was super excited by roumers of Indian fusion bum with dial a yield possibility; while in reality the fighter jock knew nothing about nuclear physics much less state of Dr. Chidambram's fizzle in desert. And this was no John Doe senior affsar, he has just finished stint with Nuclear Command. :lol:

Patni
BRFite
Posts: 845
Joined: 10 Jun 2008 10:32
Location: Researching sub-humans to our west!

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Patni » 10 May 2019 21:16

IAF jets force Georgian plane to land at Jaipur airport after it violates air route rules

The aircraft did not follow the authorised Air Traffic Services (ATS) route and was not responding to radio calls from Indian agencies. Since ATS routes in the area were closed due to the current geopolitical situation, and the aircraft entered Indian air space from an unscheduled point, the Air Defence interceptor on operational readiness was scrambled and vectored towards the aircraft for investigation. The aircraft was successfully intercepted by highly alert defence IAF jets and forced to land at Jaipur airfield.


The aircraft neither responded on international distress frequency nor to visual signals during interception. However, when challenged, the aircraft responded and informed that it was a non-scheduled An-12 aircraft that had got airborne from Tbilisi (Georgia) for Delhi via Karachi. The plane was flying at twenty-seven thousand feet.


The flight was scheduled but the route was wrong. The pilot is being questioned and the plane scanned. The police officials arrived at the airport and the CISF officials questioned. The plane was escorted by two Sukhoi fighters.



Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 464
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Haridas » 10 May 2019 21:23

Edited:

vsunder wrote:Ha Ha Matheswaran, I had the insufferable experience to be cooped up with him on a 24 hour train journey from CSTM Mumbai to Kanpur. He was Squadron leader then in July 1987. Though he told me about TACDE etc and was on his way to Gorakhpur where he was flying Jaguars, one got the impression then that if a war started he single handedly would demolish TSPAF, since he knew the answers for everything. I almost wanted to ask him so do you know where all the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann Zeta function lie? What an opinionated, pompous guy.

I and my brother had a run in with the insufferable xxxx in many sigificant ways, that I can't share.

I met him first at AF Station Bhuj, a day after paliament attack by packee terrorists, when he was Chief operations afsar. He shoved a copy of his masters thesis (on OODA) to me, as a 3rd grader will push /showoff his passing grade reportcard to a visitor at home.

He was super excited by roumers of Indian fusion bum with dial a yield possibility; while in reality the fighter jock knew nothing about nuclear physics much less state of Dr. Chidambram's fizzle in desert. And this was no John Doe senior affsar, he has just finished stint with Nuclear Command. :lol:
Last edited by Haridas on 10 May 2019 21:24, edited 1 time in total.

Haridas
BRFite
Posts: 464
Joined: 26 Dec 2017 07:53

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Haridas » 10 May 2019 21:24

Karan M wrote:No namecalling please.

Ok.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 515
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Atmavik » 11 May 2019 09:17

looks like IAF is in talks to procure 21 MIG - 29 UPG to make up squadron numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrA3gEOvC9U

LakshmanPST
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 25
Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby LakshmanPST » 11 May 2019 10:02

Atmavik wrote:looks like IAF is in talks to procure 21 MIG - 29 UPG to make up squadron numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrA3gEOvC9U


@13:40 he says that DARIN III upgrade of Jaguars is facing problems.
What is the current status of Jaguar upgrades???

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21018
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Prem » 11 May 2019 10:42

Wondering how much will be $$ and delivery time difference between 21 Mig29 and 18 Rafale ?

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 515
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Atmavik » 11 May 2019 11:08

Prem wrote:Wondering how much will be $$ and delivery time difference between 21 Mig29 and 18 Rafale ?


from the video these Mig - 29 are used but in good shape and up-gradation is much faster. we also have all the weapons they fire and the retiring mig 21 weapons can be repurposed.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2904
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby kit » 11 May 2019 14:38

Prem wrote:Wondering how much will be $$ and delivery time difference between 21 Mig29 and 18 Rafale ?


Sorry couldn't resist...but much like a Toyota and a Porsche!!.. the Toyota might come in a few months but the purpose built Porsche would take a year !! ..let's not talk prices :rotfl:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17675
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 11 May 2019 14:57

LakshmanPST wrote:
Atmavik wrote:looks like IAF is in talks to procure 21 MIG - 29 UPG to make up squadron numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrA3gEOvC9U


@13:40 he says that DARIN III upgrade of Jaguars is facing problems.
What is the current status of Jaguar upgrades???


It was severely delayed, but latest is that its on track.
http://www.aeromag.in/aerospacesingle.php?aero=351

g. Jaguar DARIN III Upgrade: Three aircraft have been inducted for design and development activities. Initial Operation Clearance (IOC) of Jaguar DARIN III was received in February 2017. All the flight trials towards Final Operation Clearance (FOC) of Jaguar DARIN III have been completed in December 2018. Presently, the flight test report is awaited from IAF. Activities are in progress for Certification. Activities for Series Upgrade of Jaguar fleet have been initiated at HAL.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52090
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby ramana » 15 May 2019 22:47

KaranM, Have they completed the M2K upgrade flight issue COI?
I didn't want to post in the Mil Safety thread and cause heart burn for a query.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1812
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Manish_P » 16 May 2019 12:46

Need these ASAP on our C-130Js. Can't forget that awful tragedy.

Behold The MC-130J Spec Ops Transport With Its Badly Needed Terrain Following Radar Installed

Lockheed Martin has released a video showing one of the first MC-130J Commando II special operations transports equipped with the Raytheon AN/APQ-187 Silent Knight terrain-following/terrain avoidance radar. The U.S. Air Force plans to upgrade the entire Commando II fleet to this new configuration in the coming years, giving the planes a nap-of-the-earth flight capability that is essential for performing their special operations missions, but which they have lacked since their introduction nearly a decade ago.



mmasand
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 19 May 2009 23:46

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby mmasand » 17 May 2019 14:16

ACM Dhanoa flies solo in a Mig-21. Pics/vids coming soon.


MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby MeshaVishwas » 18 May 2019 09:31

TIMES NOW EXCLUSIVE: Maps of the Srinagar and Awantipora Air bases have been found in the pockets of terrorists recently neutralised by the security forces in Jammu and Kashmir.

More details by @Srinjoy_C in conversation with @Swatij14.

https://twitter.com/TimesNow/status/1129592698317357056?s=19
Major attack foiled.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10616
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 18 May 2019 11:07

MeshaVishwas wrote:
TIMES NOW EXCLUSIVE: Maps of the Srinagar and Awantipora Air bases have been found in the pockets of terrorists recently neutralised by the security forces in Jammu and Kashmir.

More details by @Srinjoy_C in conversation with @Swatij14.

https://twitter.com/TimesNow/status/1129592698317357056?s=19
Major attack foiled.


Another indication Pakistanis are seething after Balakot and an F-16 going down along with 2 Senior pilots dead, thats why they are again trying to focus on our airbases.

We must try and draw the PAF and get some losses, PAF, Paki nukes and miltary might have been the guarantor of terrorists, they need to be peeled to remove the various levels of the onion.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3434
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby chola » 18 May 2019 14:13

https://twitter.com/neeraj_rajput/status/1128157004919230464

Neeraj Rajput
@neeraj_rajput
'Falcon Slayers' new patch of #Srinagar based MiG21 Bison squadron of
@IAF_MCC
to wich belonged Wg Cdr Abhinandan who shot down Pakistani #F16 in Feb 27 dogfight
'Amraam Dodgers' too part of this batch

Image


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17675
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 19 May 2019 09:00

More than all this we need to know what corrective actions GOI has undertaken post Feb 27th regarding IAF modernization. They are in power till results.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17675
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Postby Karan M » 19 May 2019 10:36

tsarkar wrote:I have been posting since 2006 on how IAF and IN jointly took the Sea Harrier upgrade component of Elta 2032 + Derby and reduced the development time of Tejas by reusing proven components and integration experience. Now that the Sea Harrier is retired (due to Rolls Royce Olympus engine spares no longer being manufactured), the Derby missiles have been moved to Tejas.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D54ndJbWsAIrDTJ.jpg:large

India first got networked BVR firing with the Sea Harrier/Derby. The Pakistanis used this technique in the air battle post Balakot when launching F-16's went home with guidance to AMRAAM provided by Swedish Erieye AEW&C.

We had the capability since 2009!

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/07 ... t-tes.html
As part of the Limited Upgrade Sea Harrier (LUSH), the Indian Navy will shortly conduct its second live firing test of the Israeli Derby beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), a weapon system that has been integrated to the last of the Navy’s Sea Harriers as part of the upgrade programme. While the first live firing of the Derby active-radar seeker missile was conducted using the aircraft’s primary sensor, the next test will be from one of the Navy’s upgraded Sea Harriers with its radar switched off. Guidance will be provided from another platform, either on the ground or in the air.


Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:The Pakistanis used this technique in the air battle post Balakot when launching F-16's went home with guidance to AMRAAM provided by Swedish Erieye AEW&C


Not really. Given the difference in radar precision, S Band on Erieyes vs XBand on F16s and the fact that AMRAAM datalinking is precisely controlled by and requires involvement of, approval of US specialists. As I recall, the radios on the F16s are standard US ones with HaveQuick mods and Link16. Erieyes to F16 is via the same and Erieye to GCS us via Rohde & Schwarz. No indication of any 3rd party targeting by AWACS anywhere.

In fact, even the F16 that Abhi shot down was ordered to go hot on the Mig-21 by the Erieye. He was shot down when he turned into the Bison, as confirmed by both Joshi and ACM rtd Tipnis. If there was any Erieye guidance, this wouldn't have been necessary.

https://www.ausairpower.net/amraam.html

Note, aircraft radar beams datalink information to a receiver on the missile via sidelobes. Given this arrangement, X band receiver on the missile and integrated transmission via the AN/APG-68 V(9), the US isn't going to let you tinker around with the radar either.

In command inertial mode, the AMRAAM goes where the FCR directs it to. Quality of sensor data is crucial. Very doubtful, that a large beam, Band AWACS can achieve anywhere near the precision of an X band system. Beam width of an X band US FCR prior gen is of order of 2 deg. The Erieye is 0.7 deg in azimuth and 9 deg on elevation. Add the band issues and very unlikely it will be sufficient for a small seeker like that on the AMRAAM. Large missiles/SAMs don't have this limitation and can take cue from "coarser" sensors as their scan angles, onboard power available and own seeker performance is much more significant than that on a compact AAM.


tsarkar wrote:Brar_w, from the Sea Harrier Derby test and the more recent MRSAM test, the data from designating platform was not passed to launch platform but directly to the missile. The Erieye too works similarly. Our Phalcon Derby too works similarly.

It is time consuming in a fast changing situation to communicate with the launch platform and its simpler to pass coordinates to the missile. That is how CEC works.

From the PIB link in Navy thread -
wherein the missiles of both ships were controlled by one ship to intercept different aerial targets at extended ranges


brar_w wrote:Again, please read up on how NIFC-CA and IFCN work (USN and US Army). Fighters can take over missile communication on AIM like the AMRAAM under some situations as this is slaved to their radar and the radar is designed for missile communication and is in band. No, the E-2D, nor the F-35 or F/A-18 cannot guide the SM-6 to a ballistic or cruise missile (or aircraft) intercept directly. This is not how what you quoted actually works. They do not have the sensors or the missile communications that can meet the robustness required for AEGIS. They, using the large pipe data-links, pass on sensor data that is used to develop a composite "fire control quality" track of the intended target. The composite track then allows the combat system to generate a solution just like it would if it were itself doing the targeting using its organic fire control sensor. Once that is done, it is communicated to the missile using the established system-specific MC channels.

The organic sensor then does the missile communication, and preserving the same robustness and survivability of the missile communication guides the missile to the kill box or the point where it can activate its onboard seeker (if its an active missile). No one has disparate missiles and disparate sensors linked directly via organic sensors on multiple platforms. Each weapons system and its missile communication architecture is engineered around a certain degree of survivability, fidelity and performance (balanced as per the trade space allotted to it given $$ considerations) and what you can do with one sensor-platform combination may be entirely different than what you can do with a different combination.

The missile communication performance of the illuminators on an AEGIS ship or the antennas of the SPY-3 or SPY-6 are going to be built around very different standards compared to the E-2 (it probably doesn't even have missile communication) or even F-35. Even if you were to add a multi band data-link like Raytheon does for the European Standard missile -2's or Lockheed for the PAC-3 missile you are still not going to get the robustness out of that combination to satisfy AEGIS or PATRIOT requirements. Plus you would not only have to upgrade (potentially) hundreds, if not thousands of radar/sensor and platforms every ime you fielded system upgrades or you brought in a new missile or targeting concept, but you may have to wait years if not decades to allow all of to occur even if it were technically possible (which it is not at the moment, at least given the US's technological abilities..(no one is capable of stuffing AEGIS level missile communication burn through performance into an E-2 or F/A-18)). Instead, the approach they took was to develop high rate large pipe data-links that allow platforms to transmit vast amounts of data very quickly using both high frequency (survivable) and low frequency data-links and for combat systems and C2's on board current and future platforms to be designed around common standards so as to allow the composite track concept to work. Since the composite track and sensor/data-link fidelity is now specified by the concept new sensors or interceptors (like SM6-IB and ESSM blk II) can be added, without messing up the FC level targeting abilities.

See how NIFC-CA under CEC works. US Army's IFCN works in a similar fashion, allowing an integrated fire control level picture to be developed spanning thousands of km's using multiple air defense systems or stand alone sensors all linked up by IFCN allowing "Any Shooter - Any Sensor" like concepts to come to fruition. LINK

Image

As you can see in the graphical description, the SM-6's missile communication is via AEGIS (varies from vessel to vessel, it's different on the DDG-51 compared to the Zumwalt (a non AEGIS vessel) for example). The TTNT "large pipe" data link allows the E-2D or the F/A-18/EA-18G and in the future the F-35 to pipe in large amounts of data at a high rate and allow the sensor to provide targeting data beyond the ship's sensor horizon.

On the A2A missile topic,

The SAAB media release you posted is very vague. Please point me to how it performs missile communication with an AMRAAM and any supplementary material that you have that describes this exact AMRAAM launch mode that Sweden or Pakistan uses to enable this. I have never come across any Sweden ,SAAB or PAF specific AMRAAM modes being funded or developed. Similar data on other missiles would also be interesting to look in terms of the hardware, and the missile communication architectures utilized and how the discrepancy between discrimination abilities (switching from X band to L band for example) and operating modes of the various sensors is addressed and what the performance impact is, for example, to the probability of intercept.


Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote:The RF datalink on a missile is not limited by aircraft onboard X Band or S Band radar and AWACS update is a feature available on Erieye since 2000.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 24%29.html




This is the Meteor, not the AMRAAM. And the Meteor has its own separate datalink setup.

And as of yet, we don't have reports of any AMRAAM guided by the Swedes from any Erieye because it would definitely be advertised (huge marketing +).

The only way this could theoretically work is if the Swedes have an X Band transmitter in the Erieye (a mini-datalink setup) that can transmit coded guidance to the fired AMRAAMs. It has to have the correct waveforms and any modulation that the actual fire control setup on the F-16s have. The F-16 radar/WCS has to provide this information to a transmitter on the F-16 & it has to be able to talk to the Erieye, so that it can talk to the AMRAAMs and take them over in flight. As you can see, the Americans would have to grant an extraordinary level of their privileged access to the Swedes to play around with the F-16 setup. This is easier to do if you own the entire radar avionics set up as on the Gripen, with its PS/05 and WCS and can add/substract what you want, add stuff to its proprietary datalink etc.

Next, the S-Band radar has to provide a very high grade weapons track to the missiles and update them to the point their seekers take over. Ironically, this may be easier to implement than the above, though the accuracy of the seeker acquisition basket would be degraded somewhat and the Pk will hence suffer as a result.

While this was a development feature for Meteor, this capability exists for AMRAAM/Erieye and was published in ppt on the Erieye then being sold to Pakistan. There was specifically a slide of CEC.


I am not sure what you are referring to here, do you mean its been reported publicly? If the capability exists, its most likely for the Gripen and Erieye working together.

Similarly the UHF Band APY-9 radar of E-2D Hawkeye can guide AMRAAMs and SM-6

https://news.usni.org/2014/06/09/u-s-na ... lain-sight



This again, a US NIFC-CA "concept" which they are implementing. It is not available to the Pakistanis.

Also, I think you are misreading what the actual plan is because the above report is not precise enough.

When targets are detected by the F-35C, they would transmit weapons-quality track to the E-2D and pass that information on to Super Hornets or other F-35Cs. The F/A-18E/F fighters would penetrate as far as they could into heavily contested airspace, which is still further than an ordinary fourth-generation jet fighter, then launch stand-off weapons. The UCLASS would use aerial refueling capabilities to extend the range of the strike force and use its own ISR sensors.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperati ... Capability
https://news.usni.org/2014/01/23/navys-next-air-war

“What’s in the F-35C can give us a weapons-quality track that we can push back to the E-2D,” Manazir said.

The E-2D Hawkeye—which coordinates the carrier strike group’s air assets—would then send the data from the F-35C to the air wing’s Super Hornet strike fighters.


Once the Super Hornets launch their standoff weapons, those missiles are guided by a data-stream from the E-2D, Manazir said. Toward the latter stages of the missiles’ flight, the F-35C would take-over guidance of the weapons for the end game. “It can give the weapon an updated location and where to go to that target,” Manazir said.


Net, a weapons quality track from an X Band FCR is far far different than a surveillance track from a UHF radar. You can create one from multiple radar, ESM sensors but not a single UHF radar surveillance track.

The Pakistani F-16s providing top cover immediately scooted back after AMRAAM launch leaving AMRAAMS to receive only datalink updates from Erieye which is why our Su-30 & Mirage-2000 couldnt engage without crossing deep into LOC.


So far all that has been reported on the topic indicates they fired from RMax1 and that was the key issue, not the guidance aspect.

AN/APG-68 V(9) should be able to see the Su-30 fine at the ranges considered, especially since its looking top down, out of bounds, of the jammers on the Su-30 as well.

Of course, once the Su-30 throws up chaff & rapidly changes direction, chances are the aircraft may no longer be in the seeker acquisition basket and it can't easily see through the chaff to see where it went. By the time the chaff cloud dissipates, or the missile sorts itself out, the locks broken and that's where the aircraft escapes.


brar_w wrote:With NIFC-CA, actually the UHF band radar is more than capable of providing the required composite track data without relying on an F-35 or F/A-18 or their radars. The capability requirement for the APY-9 and the processing and the required operating modes were put in place to allow for this when paired with the AEGIS combat system and its interceptors. When protecting the CSG or a particular vessel against a specific threat the E-2D's will be operating quite differently than when it is extending the surveillance range for the CAG for example so I'm sure they've included different modes and interleaving when it comes to the very specific Anti Ship CMD (cooperative) mission. It won't just be developing tracks using its standard surveillance mode. E-2D, along with a US Army elevated sensor, was the baseline sensors/platforms for NIFC-CA using CEC. The capability implementation is incremental (NIFC-CA Increment 1-3 for E-2D for example). The strike fighters and USMC ground based radars (TPS-59, and TPS-80) were added later. I believe the F-35C NIFC-CA demonstrations actually by-passed E-2D's or EA-18G's and the TTNT network and they were able to do this by placing an F-35 MADL terminal onboard the desert ship/vessel for a direct link up between the F-35 and the ship;s combat system.

The APY-9, coupled with CEC and Link 16, fully integrates the E-2D into the joint integrated air and missile defence role. According to the USN the new radar's advanced detection and tracking capability, in conjunction with the Aegis weapon system and SM-6 missile, “will allow strike groups to deploy an organic, theatre-wide air and cruise missile defence capability to protect high-priority areas and US and coalition forces ashore and afloat”, adding, “[The] E-2D is the key enabler to all kill chains of the [NIFC-CA] capability.” ~ Jane's International Defence Review March 2019 (I think I've posted this entire article in the Int. Navy thread)


In land and sea-based NIFC-CA demonstrations, the navy has been able to take sensor data from airborne platforms and relay it to a ship's Aegis Combat System by a system of links, in this case the Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC). Getting the various networks and CEC to work together has been a challenge, said Jim Sheridan, director of Aegis programmes for Lockheed Martin. "CEC has been around for a while but has not been used in this manner ... like an airborne sensor." Although the initial deployment will use the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, programme officials said that any elevated sensor with the means to get that data back to the Aegis baseline 9 ships would be of interest. In NIFC-CA, the Aegis Combat System decides which sensor is providing the best data, so if there are two sensors locked on a particular track, the weapon system can determine which is providing the better solution and fire on that, he added. That could mean unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or the sensor-laden F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Capt Gannon noted. "The other part for us, resourcing the E-2D, it is a two-generation leap in capability with the new APY-9 radar. But we are also investing in getting other data sources into that aircraft so that it is not just reliant on its own organic sensors," Palmieri said....~Jane's International Defence Review 2014



NIFC-CA is enabled by four tactical 'pillars' to provide integrated fire control for theatre air- and anti-ship cruise missile defence: Lockheed Martin's Aegis weapon system; Raytheon's SM-6; Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC); and airborne sensors - mainly Northrop Grumman's E-2D Advanced Hawkeye and its AN/APY-9 radar. ~ Jane's Navy International Dec. 2015 "Taking out the archer: NIFC-CA goes to sea
"


The NIFC-CA program has been making steady progress for several years, and carrier strike groups have deployed with the capability since March 2015. However in those strike groups, the elevated sensor was an E-2D linked back to the ship in a Cooperative Engagement Capability network. In essence, this lethal capability was limited to CSG operations by its reliance on the E-2D.

In this recent test, the elevated “sensor” was the F-35B, which relayed its data back to the test “ship” through the Multi-Function Advanced Data Link (MADL). This test hints at the promise of future Surface Force lethality, in that F-35B configured LHA’s or LHD’s will not only be able to employ those aircraft in traditional ground support roles, but will now be able to sense, target, and destroy low-flying cruise missiles or strike aircraft far beyond the horizon....https://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/09/14 ... e-control/


The E-2D and SPY-1/3/6 are capable of operating with NIFC-CA independently and this capability is operational on the SPY-1 with combat systems at baseline 9 or higher. I would have to go back and count but I think close to half, if not more, of the dozen or so NIFC-CA live and virtual tests were conducted with the E-2D as the sole airborne sensor. The current sensors (airborne) are the E-2D and the F/A-18 using the E-2D's TTNT as a big pipe transmitter for CEC. Block III F/A-18E/Fs would be able to do these transmissions themselves using TTNT. EA-18G's are currently being upgraded to handle this organically as well. A strategy for the F-35 is not yet clear but demonstrations have been done using shipborne (or desert ship) MADL terminals though it is possible that they may just chose to integrate the TTNT waveform on it instead of upgrading the vessels. Or they may not because TTNT does not have the same survivability requirements as MADL.

Even on the fighters the tracks may not be limited to just the fire control sensors (F-35's EODAS has successfully demonstrated tag-teamed 3D tracks of ballistic missiles for example) and the folks doing this have indicated that additional non RF sensors could be coming on board in the future.. They can do it because the SM-6 is a massive active seeker missile that has the power and seeker performance that is likely significantly higher than your average A2A missile. Plus its getting even larger with the 21" coming online in a few years so in the future they can potentially add even more processing, power and even a larger diameter seeker than what it currently has.

On the missile communication side, they purposefully kept the original combat system and missile communication channels in tact for both not having to go in and modify disparate systems but also to avoid putting similar survivability requirements on other platforms putting together the composite track for the organic combat system. Asking a $30 Million USMC sensor or a strike fighter to have as survivable communication uplinks to an SM3 or SM6 as a SPY-1 or SPY-6 would essentially throw those programs into technical and financial death spiral..It is unreasonable, for example, to expect a small transmitter carried by a fighter or another aircraft to deliver the same burnthrough as a SPY-6..This was why AEGIS level targeting was kept on AEGIS or non AEGIS compatible ships and other airborne and ground based sensors became providers of the composite track.. The US Army has a very similar architecture under its IFCN-IBCS efforts. There fire-control level composite tracks are being generated by dispersed pocket radars (sentinels) and USMC (TPS-80) and USAF (3DELRR) sensors, in addition to traditional Air Defense systems attached to a deployed air defense battalion.

I would love to know how an AWACS guides a Meteor, what mode the former's radar operates in while doing so, what it uses as a transmitter and at what distances etc. An AEW aircraft may be hundreds of kms from an air to air engagement, so the transmitter and receiver, in band to the missile communication links, capable of two way communication need to be robust enough to handle all that especially in a contested RF scenario. Beyond this PR release from SAAB, is there any additional information out there on how this alleged capability is fielded? How does the AWACS know where the missile is exactly? Does the launch fighter provide launch information back to the AWACS? Can the Meteor share its precise location with an AWACS potentially 100s of kms away using its two-way data link. If so, how have they managed to acheive these extreme ranges in a missile that small? The way I've seen this implemented elsewhere has been to use the AWACS picture and use the fighter FCR for a very brief amount of time to develop a solution and communicate to the missile. I have never come across any open source data on any missile test (US, Europe or elsewhere) where the capability to organically fire-control and (missile) communicate with an AWACS by itself has been demonstrated. Would love to see and read anything about it and how it is done, and how many times it has been actually demonstrated. It may be that they have demonstrated htis and I am not aware of it so would love if someone could shed more light on it.

On the AMRAAM and Sweden or Pakistan, again there is absolutely no proof of any such capability being developed or demonstrated on the AMRAAM by SAAB, Sweden, PAF etc. I think we may need a bit more proof than just SAAB's PR. Someone would have paid to develop, integrate and test this capability and there is absolutely no proof of that. I think if this is indeed included in SAAB's PR brochures then it doesn't really pass the smell test.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RajSingh and 24 guests