Indian Air Force News & Discussion - 15 Dec 2016

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 25 Nov 2019 13:38

What is this?
https://goo.gl/maps/91NQKYFt2aJ4dXdt7
An32? With missing bits?

And this?
https://goo.gl/maps/tvEescRah1spweop8

chiru · Post by **chiru** » 25 Nov 2019 15:30

Cybaru wrote:What is this?
https://goo.gl/maps/91NQKYFt2aJ4dXdt7
An32? With missing bits?
Looks like a pair of avros

And this?
https://goo.gl/maps/tvEescRah1spweop8

might be a dc-3

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Nov 2019 02:10

Question/comment for Karan, IR, JayS and other knowledgeable folk. Do you think IAF (as well as ADA) don't pay enough attention to having adequate ECM capability on their fighters? Here's why I have this perception (which might be 400% wrong I admit but still..) -

The only IAF aircraft which has a good ECM capability (internal/external) available right now is the upgraded M2k-I, and we have only a few available. This may be one reason no missiles were fired on the 2 defending Mirage-2000's from the paki JF-17's. We know now that the pakis were under no restrictions on firing BVRAAMs across the border. They fired several AMRAAMs posible at max range against he MKI's but no PL-12 (or whatevr missiles the JF-17 carries) against the M2k's despite heavily outnumbering them. My guess is their jammers were on and the pakis did not get a firing solution. Granted they were Bandars not F-16's but still.

Aside from them we only have the new D-29 available for the Mig-29UPG but it is not yet available on too many aircraft. It was an add-on after the upgrade not a part of it.

The MKI should have had an internal SPJ ideally, looking at the size of the aircraft. It is tough to accept that there is no space inside one of the biggest fighter jets in the world. Still it took up so long to integrate the EL-8222 pod on them and then figure out it has interoperability issues with our RWR and is practically useless. Only now are we seeing the SAP-518 being adopted, and I expect that is also not an optimal solution (otherwise why did we even look at the 8222 if the 518 was available).

Now on Feb-27 if the paki F-16's could fire on the MKI's at very long ranges (leaving aside that that is not a wise thing to do). My understanding is that if your jammer is working as it should it should decrease the distance at which your opponent is able to lock you and get a shoot cue. So either the Avenger flight wasn't carrying any SAP-518's or it doesn't work all that well against the F-16's radar. The MKI is our primary air-superiority fighter. Fighters have been using jammers (internal/external) since the 70's. Why, in 2019 was our huge MKI fleet allowed to be in this state?

ADA does not seem to be any better. I cannot for the life of me understand why they are taking so long to integrate an ECM pod on the LCA Mk1. It should have been part of FoC. You can't field a new fighter in 2019 which does not have any ECM capability whatsoever. And we need this on the Mk1A as well since the LCA won't be getting an internal SPJ till the Mk2 comes along. And we have to bear in mind that the LCA will already have a weakness in BVR due to the shorter range of the Derby missile (at least till we get the Astra integrated on it).

From having unquestioned superiority in BVR vs the pakis during Kargil, we have reached this state where (Acc. to IAF personnel themselves) the R-77 (at least the version we have) is inadequate against the AIM-120C5, and both our primary air-superiority fighter as well as the new entrant have weaknesses in ECM.

nam · Post by **nam** » 26 Nov 2019 02:58

We know now that the pakis were under no restrictions on firing BVRAAMs across the border. They fired several AMRAAMs posible at max range against he MKI's but no PL-12 (or whatevr missiles the JF-17 carries) against the M2k's despite heavily outnumbering them. My guess is their jammers were on and the pakis did not get a firing solution. Granted they were Bandars not F-16's but still.

The Joker Fighter has a 80KM search radar, which means it's BVR must be around 50KM. PROVIDED JF17 is able to fire BVR.

There is no public evidence that it can fire a BVR. There is zero video of a JF17 ever firing a BVR. One reason they did not fire, is may be that they cannot fire a BVR!

Su30 carries SAP518 as a escort jammer. Will not be employed when it is on CAP. There were reports that the GC kept the Su30 at the edge of DMax, to allow the Su30 an escape route, should the F16 fire Aim120.. which they did.

Air Marshal Nambiar in on record, Su30 carries no internal jammers. They use escort jammers!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Nov 2019 03:14

nam wrote: Su30 carries SAP518 as a escort jammer. Will not be employed when it is on CAP.

What exactly precludes it from being used as an SPJ? The SAP-518 is very much an SPJ. The Su-34 carries it. Su-34's are not being used for escort jamming duties.

nam · Post by **nam** » 26 Nov 2019 03:16

nachiket wrote:
nam wrote: Su30 carries SAP518 as a escort jammer. Will not be employed when it is on CAP.
What exactly precludes it from being used as an SPJ?

Weight. It is a very powerful jammer, DRDO is developing an desi version with reduced weight. AESA based.

Along with one for LCA. SPJ pod.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 26 Nov 2019 03:19

If weight was an issue, how does the Su-30 carry it on its wingtip stations? And regardless of weight, it is better to have it than have nothing at all right? Especially when facing an opponent which has AIM-120C's plus an integrated EW suite.

nam · Post by **nam** » 26 Nov 2019 03:25

Apparently when deployed on wingtip( and i think it can only be deployed on wingtip), Su30 fly like brick. That is what i read.

Regarding counter against BVR, there are many ways to escape a BVR. It is ofcourse great to have ECM, however non-ECM methods are effective as well.

A simple way to counter BVR, is to fly higher than your adversary.

One of the drawbacks of SPJ jammers is they can jam your own radar and badly, since you are the closest to it! Again Air Marshal Nambiar said this during the Rafale court hearing. "You switch off your radar, when using jammers"

And there is the element of cost as well. They must be costing similar to a radar, as both do emitting..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Nov 2019 11:27

The maneuverability is affected when heavily loaded. One of the configurations IAF checked was a Brahmos, a bunch of iron bombs, 6 AAMs. And then two SPJs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Nov 2019 11:29

nam wrote: Su30 carries SAP518 as a escort jammer. Will not be employed when it is on CAP. There were reports that the GC kept the Su30 at the edge of DMax, to allow the Su30 an escape route, should the F16 fire Aim120.. which they did.

Air Marshal Nambiar in on record, Su30 carries no internal jammers. They use escort jammers!

The SAP518 is a Self Protection Jammer *not* an escort jammer, though it can be used as one given it's high power provided the targets it is facing remain with its scan angles. It operates from 5-18 GHz. The Su-30s can carry the SAP-518 on CAP if the IAF so chooses.

The escort jammer the Su30s carry is the SAP-14 under the centerline.

The Su30s routinely went far beyond (into danger) beyond DMax1 when fighting the F16s.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 26 Nov 2019 11:33

nam wrote: One of the drawbacks of SPJ jammers is they can jam your own radar and badly, since you are the closest to it! Again Air Marshal Nambiar said this during the Rafale court hearing. "You switch off your radar, when using jammers"

He was simplifying things for his audience. You can use automated methods to time your receivers for your radar and EW suites.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Nov 2019 11:48

Karan M wrote:The maneuverability is affected when heavily loaded. One of the configurations IAF checked was a Brahmos, a bunch of iron bombs, 6 AAMs. And then two SPJs.

Woah!!! Details please!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Nov 2019 01:13

Karan M wrote:
The Su30s routinely went far beyond (into danger) beyond DMax1 when fighting the F16s.

From what I understood in the all the discussions, reports and tweets after the engagement the F-16's fired on the MKI's at max range, pretty much as soon as they got the shoot cue. This put the Su-30's on the defensive since they could not shoot themselves at that range (due to height disadvantage and R-77 limitations). But the long range shots meant that it was possible to energy-kill all the missiles which they did. However, it kept the MKI's out of the fight while they were evading them. Plus I'm guessing they must have lost altitude while evading as well which they'd need to regain before re-joining the fight.

Now if they had been carrying the SAP-518's and the jammers were on, the F-16's shouldn't have been able to lock them from so far out. They would have to close further to burn through. Or is my understanding wrong? The F-16's have the AIDEWS too so that may be another reason the MKI's couldn't fire at that range.

Karan M wrote: He was simplifying things for his audience. You can use automated methods to time your receivers for your radar and EW suites.

I remember you or someone else mentioning that this is why the EL-8222 did not work out for the MKI. It also had trouble with interference with the Tarang RWR. I hope the SAP-518 works better.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Nov 2019 01:42

nachiket wrote:Now if they had been carrying the SAP-518's and the jammers were on, the F-16's shouldn't have been able to lock them from so far out. They would have to close further to burn through. Or is my understanding wrong? The F-16's have the AIDEWS too so that may be another reason the MKI's couldn't fire at that range.

Jammers are useful if you are nose-on or 180 degrees receding, given the fact jammers are nothing but lower powered "versions" of a radar type set-up. If you are maneuvering, your jammers will lose the target aircraft so its radar would work again. So unless you have a towed decoy to seduce incoming missiles, really there is no 360 degree SPJ in the true sense (think sphere not angles), which is why chaff remains so popular.

That apart, the issue was the F-16s were not in missile range. To get that range, the MKIs, especially Avenger 1, were on burner and closed in to the F-16s despite the risk of oncoming missiles, not theoretical but real as they had already launched. This occurred repeatedly. Avenger1's ultra-aggressiveness was what frustrated the Pakistanis, and they retreated to form a BARCAP. They were not able to shoot down the Su-30s, were losing rounds, running out of fuel, being locked in place, remember the clock was ticking and more Indian reinforcements were rushing to theater. And meanwhile, Avenger 1 was racing in to the fight at burner, maneuvering into danger to get his own WCS solution and then getting out - on that day, that crew took the game to the line and beyond. This is the reason many feel that even the Avenger 1 crew deserved an award. Just imagine the situation for a moment, AMRAAMs on the way, RWR is buzzing with a F-16 tone, instead of staying defensive, the Avenger 1 crew went in nonetheless and to the point they would start getting the F-16s within their dynamic launch envelope, and racing out only when it became clear the threat was all but unbeatable. To do it once, is nuts enough, apparently they did it repeatedly. Abhinandan was not the only ultra-aggressive person in theater that day.

If anything justified the IAFs investment in its pilots, its efforts in choosing them, training them to pair their aggression with skill, the choice of the heavy duty Flanker platform, it was this. They stayed in the fight and took the fight to the Vipers who were attacking from was a classic advantageous position and hence expected the Flankers to stay wholly defensive.

And these were our standard squadron pilots, not a hand-picked crew from CCS executing a prepared ambush. The same situation, on Feb 26th, the PAF pilots *ran*. They saw a large formation of Mirage 2000s headed their way, refused to engage. In our case, outnumbered the Su-30s stayed in theater, stayed in the fight, and did not screw up tactically, kept moving into offense, frustrating the Pakis, till the AEW&C called it off, and then they retreated to form the BARCAP. And then came Abhi.

I remember you or someone else mentioning that this is why the EL-8222 did not work out for the MKI. It also had trouble with interference with the Tarang RWR. I hope the SAP-518 works better.

Yes, the issue persists with the R-118 and SAP-518, but typically what you can do is decouple the RWR from the SPJ and set latter to auto. It has its own ESM receiver and will jam accordingly as and when it sees a threat, without being triggered by the RWR and then manually allocated to specific threats. Not perfect, but still functional.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 27 Nov 2019 06:38

nachiket wrote:
ADA does not seem to be any better. I cannot for the life of me understand why they are taking so long to integrate an ECM pod on the LCA Mk1. It should have been part of FoC. You can't field a new fighter in 2019 which does not have any ECM capability whatsoever. And we need this on the Mk1A as well since the LCA won't be getting an internal SPJ till the Mk2 comes along. And we have to bear in mind that the LCA will already have a weakness in BVR due to the shorter range of the Derby missile (at least till we get the Astra integrated on it).

This issue will be addressed soon on the Tejas Mk1 fleet. I believe this has a lot to do with the number of stations on the Mk1 and Mk1A design. A dedicated station for a SPJ may have been considered a waste of one station. Instead, a dual pylon that allows the fighter to carry a SPJ and a BVRAAM will allow the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A to address the SPJ need while not reducing the number of missiles carried.

Exclusive updates from HAL Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A programmes

Meanwhile, the design of dual carriage pylons for carrying missiles as well as a jammer pod on a single underwing station is complete.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Nov 2019 23:21

I asked ADA this. Their answer, sir we are waiting for the IAF to decide.

IAF deposition to Parliament: "we are yet to make up our mind on which jammer, anyways there are so many available".

Can't make it up.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 27 Nov 2019 23:44

^^From what I hear, the current standard practice for the designer when it comes to integrating armaments and other equipment in to a new platform is to consider what is available in IAF/IN inventory. So unless IAF/IN comes out and says officially & definitely that these are the items needed to be considered for integration, the designer need not do zilch. Apparently, many times it not unusual for the services to take months (not usually years) before specs are finalized or clarified...hence ADA's view point is understandable.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Nov 2019 00:04

Kartik wrote:Exclusive updates from HAL Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A programmes

Meanwhile, the design of dual carriage pylons for carrying missiles as well as a jammer pod on a single underwing station is complete.

The solution chosen of ELTA 8222 pod on one outboard station and dual CCAAM carriage on the other outboard station is the same solution developed for Sea Harrier in 2005 whose FOC configuration including MAR was rigourously flown in Indo US Malabar 2007 exercises. Full 14 years ago.

The dual rack is shown here

I wish the Tejas program recognise the effort reused from the LUSH program - specifically the Elta 2032 radar, Derby BVRAAM, Datalink and Elta 8222 that were brought in by Mao and Cmde Balaji and significantly shortened development time. The LUSH was among India’s finest yet unappreciated programs.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2019 01:15

Apparently the LUSH lacked a radar to missile datalink, which limited the range of the missile and prevented it from being exploited fully.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Nov 2019 01:28

Kartik wrote: This issue will be addressed soon on the Tejas Mk1 fleet. I believe this has a lot to do with the number of stations on the Mk1 and Mk1A design. A dedicated station for a SPJ may have been considered a waste of one station. Instead, a dual pylon that allows the fighter to carry a SPJ and a BVRAAM will allow the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A to address the SPJ need while not reducing the number of missiles carried.

Meanwhile, the design of dual carriage pylons for carrying missiles as well as a jammer pod on a single underwing station is complete.

Well the lack of the dual carriage pylon by itself, should not have stopped integration and operationalization of the pod itself. I'm guessing that will be a more difficult undertaking than designing the pylon which can be done later. The pod has to work seamlessly with the LCA's radar and and RWR. We don't want a Su-30 like situation again. Not having a dual pylon can't be an excuse for not doing that part.

It is more likely to be what Karan said. ADA doesn't know which pod the IAF wants integrated, and neither does the IAF it seems. With a part Israeli radar and Derby missile already on the LCA I don't know why the ADA could not go ahead and decide on the EL-8222 themselves. This has already been done on the SHAR as TSarkar pointed out above and which other pod is easily available to us? SAP-518 is too big for the LCA. Then they can present that as an existing capability on the LCA to the IAF along with a dual pylon once it arrives.

We leave out important bits like this which can enhance capability of our existing fleet and complain about not being able to buy 100 Rafales and how that is affecting IAF's operational capability.

Unless of course they know something I don't and don't think having a jammer is important in the modern BVR battlefield.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 28 Nov 2019 01:48

Karan M wrote:I asked ADA this. Their answer, sir we are waiting for the IAF to decide.
IAF deposition to Parliament: "we are yet to make up our mind on which jammer, anyways there are so many available".

Can't make it up.

This is the level of lethargy on the part of the IAF?

nam · Post by **nam** » 28 Nov 2019 01:54

Well, all we have to do is see the amount of funding and work DARE receives. It should have been heavily funded and be dabbling in all sort of ECM projects, jammers and other tech. They might have had failures, but it it is key.

But it hardly gets funding's it deserves, despite being such an important asset. IAF does outright import, instead of using DARE.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 Nov 2019 02:17

x posted from the political thread

Yeh kaise anpadh Pakistani hain? Surgical Strike hui thi yeh maan rahe hain aur uske liye aur koi lafz bhi nahin hai inke paas. Document mein bhi likh diya: Surgical Strike. Ab kitne dehshatgard mare yeh bhi bata do.

Shireen Mazari Verified account @ShireenMazari1

For those who think we are not in a state of undeclared war with India, facts on ground show otherwise as I have been saying for some time now - ever since the Balakot surgical strike by India & moving on to annex & siege of IOJK(excerpts from my multiple talks on the issue)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2019 02:25

Kartik wrote:
Karan M wrote:I asked ADA this. Their answer, sir we are waiting for the IAF to decide.
IAF deposition to Parliament: "we are yet to make up our mind on which jammer, anyways there are so many available".

Can't make it up.
This is the level of lethargy on the part of the IAF?

Yes. I had one simple question for the ADA guys I interacted with. I said, keep twiddling your thumbs, waiting for the IAF to decide, don't even qualify an interim fit and tomorrow when a crisis erupts and those MK1s are rushed into combat, guess who will be blamed if they don't have SPJs? I wonder if they even understood the message.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2019 02:27

nachiket wrote:
Kartik wrote: This issue will be addressed soon on the Tejas Mk1 fleet. I believe this has a lot to do with the number of stations on the Mk1 and Mk1A design. A dedicated station for a SPJ may have been considered a waste of one station. Instead, a dual pylon that allows the fighter to carry a SPJ and a BVRAAM will allow the Tejas Mk1 and Mk1A to address the SPJ need while not reducing the number of missiles carried.
Well the lack of the dual carriage pylon by itself, should not have stopped integration and operationalization of the pod itself. I'm guessing that will be a more difficult undertaking than designing the pylon which can be done later. The pod has to work seamlessly with the LCA's radar and and RWR. We don't want a Su-30 like situation again. Not having a dual pylon can't be an excuse for not doing that part.

It is more likely to be what Karan said. ADA doesn't know which pod the IAF wants integrated, and neither does the IAF it seems. With a part Israeli radar and Derby missile already on the LCA I don't know why the ADA could not go ahead and decide on the EL-8222 themselves. This has already been done on the SHAR as TSarkar pointed out above and which other pod is easily available to us? SAP-518 is too big for the LCA. Then they can present that as an existing capability on the LCA to the IAF along with a dual pylon once it arrives.

We leave out important bits like this which can enhance capability of our existing fleet and complain about not being able to buy 100 Rafales and how that is affecting IAF's operational capability.

Unless of course they know something I don't and don't think having a jammer is important in the modern BVR battlefield.

You said it. 40 MiG-27s are retiring. So are 120 Bisons. Between the two of them, you will have enough EL/L-8222s for each of those 40 Tejas Mk1s. What prevents the ADA and IAF from qualifying those pods to begin with?

The SPJ is very useful in getting to the merge or nose-on in BVR. You reduce your opponents radar range, whilst retaining yours.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2019 02:30

nam wrote:Well, all we have to do is see the amount of funding and work DARE receives. It should have been heavily funded and be dabbling in all sort of ECM projects, jammers and other tech. They might have had failures, but it it is key.

But it hardly gets funding's it deserves, despite being such an important asset. IAF does outright import, instead of using DARE.

In recent years, DARE has "picked up". They did screw up/have half successful programs because of lack of funding, inexperience, infra issues. Still a problem for the IAF. But they are fixing things:

Mission avionics - Su-30 upgrade, Tejas Mk2
RWRs - Tejas Mk1, Mk2, Su-30 upgrade, MiG-29 Upgrade, Jaguar upgrade - DARIN 3
SPJs - Su-30 upgrade, MiG-29 upgrade, Jaguar upgrade
MAWS - Su-30 upgrade

So, they do have several programs in their line-up and one has been delivered, MiG-29 SPJ, whereas rest are in development.

srai · Post by **srai** » 28 Nov 2019 02:49

Looks like EL/L 8222 to me.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Nov 2019 06:05

How is the M2K upgrade programme doing, at $50M a pop? Last news was that only 7 out of the 54 had been upgraded and then came the crash of a two- seater.HAL and the IAF have also been at loggerheads over labour payments.The DM should resolve any issues asap if it is holding up the upgrades.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Nov 2019 08:56

Karan M wrote:Apparently the LUSH lacked a radar to missile datalink, which limited the range of the missile and prevented it from being exploited fully.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/07 ... t-tes.html

EXCLUSIVE: Navy to network-target test Derby AAM from upgraded Sea Harrier

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.

Both Sea Harrier and Derby were datalink capable.

There was a PIB Link of the successful test in 2009 that I'm not able to find right now. Another Sea Harrier guided the Derby launched from the first aircraft.

Both used datalink.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 28 Nov 2019 09:01

Karan M wrote:I asked ADA this. Their answer, sir we are waiting for the IAF to decide.
IAF deposition to Parliament: "we are yet to make up our mind on which jammer, anyways there are so many available".

Can't make it up.

Do you have any source on this? DARE was to make a pod that didnt materialize and Elta 8222 was thereafter chosen.

There are no other pods. French Remora is too old. US pods are unavailable. Russian pods are heavy even for the Su-30. US pods will also have integration issues with Israeli radar.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2019 11:54

tsarkar wrote:
Karan M wrote:Apparently the LUSH lacked a radar to missile datalink, which limited the range of the missile and prevented it from being exploited fully.
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/07 ... t-tes.html

EXCLUSIVE: Navy to network-target test Derby AAM from upgraded Sea Harrier

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.
Both Sea Harrier and Derby were datalink capable.

There was a PIB Link of the successful test in 2009 that I'm not able to find right now. Another Sea Harrier guided the Derby launched from the first aircraft.

Both used datalink.

That's the aircraft to aircraft datalink, not the aircraft to missile datalink. What they are referring to is Shar 1 provided data to Shar 2 to fire the Derby, even though the reportage makes it appear as if the first aircraft didnt use its radar at all. The Derby though could only be fired in inertial, LOAL mode not with guidance. News is confirmed from an impeccable source. Even I was surprised when I first heard it, but it is what it is.

Interestingly:
https://www.defenseworld.net/interview/ ... ef_of_Navy

The combat Manoeuvre Monitor and Flight Recorder (CMMFR) System which essentially is a datalink between aircraft has been added to the Sea Harrier. This capability of datalink was not there on the earlier aircraft and will greatly improve the situational awareness of a group of aircraft when they operate together.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Nov 2019 11:57

tsarkar wrote:
Karan M wrote:I asked ADA this. Their answer, sir we are waiting for the IAF to decide.
IAF deposition to Parliament: "we are yet to make up our mind on which jammer, anyways there are so many available".

Can't make it up.
Do you have any source on this? DARE was to make a pod that didnt materialize and Elta 8222 was thereafter chosen.

There are no other pods. French Remora is too old. US pods are unavailable. Russian pods are heavy even for the Su-30. US pods will also have integration issues with Israeli radar.

The pods you are mentioning are for Mk1A. The DARE project may not have been cancelled and may likely be going on in parallel like Uttam.

The EL/L-8222 hasnt been chosen, reports of the same were incorrect apparently, Elisra was chosen. The EL/L- 8222 is from Elta which is Elisras competitor.

My prior posts on the topic have the links, will dig them out later if I get some time.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 28 Nov 2019 12:47

Poof!!

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 28 Nov 2019 12:48

chiru wrote:
Cybaru wrote:What is this?
https://goo.gl/maps/91NQKYFt2aJ4dXdt7
An32? With missing bits?
Looks like a pair of avros

And this?
https://goo.gl/maps/tvEescRah1spweop8

might be a dc-3

Correct. This is 5BRD Sulur. They service Avros. The Avros in the pic are 'in service' . The DC-3 is a display piece.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 29 Nov 2019 02:24

Karan M wrote:
tsarkar wrote: Do you have any source on this? DARE was to make a pod that didnt materialize and Elta 8222 was thereafter chosen.

There are no other pods. French Remora is too old. US pods are unavailable. Russian pods are heavy even for the Su-30. US pods will also have integration issues with Israeli radar.
The pods you are mentioning are for Mk1A. The DARE project may not have been cancelled and may likely be going on in parallel like Uttam.

The EL/L-8222 hasnt been chosen, reports of the same were incorrect apparently, Elisra was chosen. The EL/L- 8222 is from Elta which is Elisras competitor.

My prior posts on the topic have the links, will dig them out later if I get some time.

According to this article by Ajay Shukla D-29 was ignored by IAF and MOD for LCA Mk1A. It was co developed with Elisra and Elletronica (AESA transmitters for jammer). Any idea why ?

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/12/ ... s.html?m=1

Also which Elisra EW system has been selected ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 29 Nov 2019 04:06

D-29 cannot be fit into the LCA. It is a much more powerful system designed specifically for the MiG29. No idea which specific Elisra system has been selected but it is likely to be a podded variant of the RWJ on their website.

Vidur · Post by **Vidur** » 29 Nov 2019 11:19

Karan M wrote:
nachiket wrote:Now if they had been carrying the SAP-518's and the jammers were on, the F-16's shouldn't have been able to lock them from so far out. They would have to close further to burn through. Or is my understanding wrong? The F-16's have the AIDEWS too so that may be another reason the MKI's couldn't fire at that range.
Jammers are useful if you are nose-on or 180 degrees receding, given the fact jammers are nothing but lower powered "versions" of a radar type set-up. If you are maneuvering, your jammers will lose the target aircraft so its radar would work again. So unless you have a towed decoy to seduce incoming missiles, really there is no 360 degree SPJ in the true sense (think sphere not angles), which is why chaff remains so popular.

That apart, the issue was the F-16s were not in missile range. To get that range, the MKIs, especially Avenger 1, were on burner and closed in to the F-16s despite the risk of oncoming missiles, not theoretical but real as they had already launched. This occurred repeatedly. Avenger1's ultra-aggressiveness was what frustrated the Pakistanis, and they retreated to form a BARCAP. They were not able to shoot down the Su-30s, were losing rounds, running out of fuel, being locked in place, remember the clock was ticking and more Indian reinforcements were rushing to theater. And meanwhile, Avenger 1 was racing in to the fight at burner, maneuvering into danger to get his own WCS solution and then getting out - on that day, that crew took the game to the line and beyond. This is the reason many feel that even the Avenger 1 crew deserved an award. Just imagine the situation for a moment, AMRAAMs on the way, RWR is buzzing with a F-16 tone, instead of staying defensive, the Avenger 1 crew went in nonetheless and to the point they would start getting the F-16s within their dynamic launch envelope, and racing out only when it became clear the threat was all but unbeatable. To do it once, is nuts enough, apparently they did it repeatedly. Abhinandan was not the only ultra-aggressive person in theater that day.

If anything justified the IAFs investment in its pilots, its efforts in choosing them, training them to pair their aggression with skill, the choice of the heavy duty Flanker platform, it was this. They stayed in the fight and took the fight to the Vipers who were attacking from was a classic advantageous position and hence expected the Flankers to stay wholly defensive.

And these were our standard squadron pilots, not a hand-picked crew from CCS executing a prepared ambush. The same situation, on Feb 26th, the PAF pilots *ran*. They saw a large formation of Mirage 2000s headed their way, refused to engage. In our case, outnumbered the Su-30s stayed in theater, stayed in the fight, and did not screw up tactically, kept moving into offense, frustrating the Pakis, till the AEW&C called it off, and then they retreated to form the BARCAP. And then came Abhi.

I remember you or someone else mentioning that this is why the EL-8222 did not work out for the MKI. It also had trouble with interference with the Tarang RWR. I hope the SAP-518 works better.
Yes, the issue persists with the R-118 and SAP-518, but typically what you can do is decouple the RWR from the SPJ and set latter to auto. It has its own ESM receiver and will jam accordingly as and when it sees a threat, without being triggered by the RWR and then manually allocated to specific threats. Not perfect, but still functional.

Very informative post on air battle on 27/02. @Deejay do you endorse ?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 29 Nov 2019 13:38

Karan M wrote:
nachiket wrote:Now if they had been carrying the SAP-518's and the jammers were on, the F-16's shouldn't have been able to lock them from so far out. They would have to close further to burn through. Or is my understanding wrong? The F-16's have the AIDEWS too so that may be another reason the MKI's couldn't fire at that range.
Jammers are useful if you are nose-on or 180 degrees receding, given the fact jammers are nothing but lower powered "versions" of a radar type set-up. If you are maneuvering, your jammers will lose the target aircraft so its radar would work again. So unless you have a towed decoy to seduce incoming missiles, really there is no 360 degree SPJ in the true sense (think sphere not angles), which is why chaff remains so popular.

That apart, the issue was the F-16s were not in missile range. To get that range, the MKIs, especially Avenger 1, were on burner and closed in to the F-16s despite the risk of oncoming missiles, not theoretical but real as they had already launched. This occurred repeatedly. Avenger1's ultra-aggressiveness was what frustrated the Pakistanis, and they retreated to form a BARCAP. They were not able to shoot down the Su-30s, were losing rounds, running out of fuel, being locked in place, remember the clock was ticking and more Indian reinforcements were rushing to theater. And meanwhile, Avenger 1 was racing in to the fight at burner, maneuvering into danger to get his own WCS solution and then getting out - on that day, that crew took the game to the line and beyond. This is the reason many feel that even the Avenger 1 crew deserved an award. Just imagine the situation for a moment, AMRAAMs on the way, RWR is buzzing with a F-16 tone, instead of staying defensive, the Avenger 1 crew went in nonetheless and to the point they would start getting the F-16s within their dynamic launch envelope, and racing out only when it became clear the threat was all but unbeatable. To do it once, is nuts enough, apparently they did it repeatedly. Abhinandan was not the only ultra-aggressive person in theater that day.

If anything justified the IAFs investment in its pilots, its efforts in choosing them, training them to pair their aggression with skill, the choice of the heavy duty Flanker platform, it was this. They stayed in the fight and took the fight to the Vipers who were attacking from was a classic advantageous position and hence expected the Flankers to stay wholly defensive.

And these were our standard squadron pilots, not a hand-picked crew from CCS executing a prepared ambush. The same situation, on Feb 26th, the PAF pilots *ran*. They saw a large formation of Mirage 2000s headed their way, refused to engage. In our case, outnumbered the Su-30s stayed in theater, stayed in the fight, and did not screw up tactically, kept moving into offense, frustrating the Pakis, till the AEW&C called it off, and then they retreated to form the BARCAP. And then came Abhi.

One thing that did surprise me on that fateful day is that the MKIs did not use Sarh homers and the Bars to counterattack at longer ranges and ruin a few salwars. IIRC they have more reach than the R77s and probly the aim120C. Perhaps there just wasn't enough time

Haridas · Post by **Haridas** » 29 Nov 2019 13:41

Dileep wrote:
chiru wrote:
Correct. This is 5BRD Sulur. They service Avros. The Avros in the pic are 'in service' . The DC-3 is a display piece.

The last few IAF DC3 Dakotas kept flying due to dedicated efforts of my father. He was recommended to AVSM award for that effort and also for his stellar professional performance ending with being an AEB examiner for 8 years.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 29 Nov 2019 15:10

Cain Marko wrote: One thing that did surprise me on that fateful day is that the MKIs did not use Sarh homers and the Bars to counterattack at longer ranges and ruin a few salwars. IIRC they have more reach than the R77s and probly the aim120C. Perhaps there just wasn't enough time

The IAF was probably tied up by ROE's since the Political leadership probably did not want things to escalate further, Also it was the PAF which picked the time and place of choosing, unlike in an open war IAF could not predict what exactly they were willing to do?