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.
srin
BRFite
Posts: 1956
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 04 Jun 2020 15:50

manjgu wrote:i am of the considered opinion that naval budget should be reduced... and pumped into army & AF. wars in the coming time will be short sharp with AF and Army calling the shots... we are pumping too much money into an area with no commensurate returns on the battleground.

There is a tendency to fight the last war. We see action in Balakot and post-Balakot and now on the LAC, the impulse is to strengthen IAF and IA.

But the real achilles heel of PRC is in the sea. They depend upon Indian ocean shipping for their oil. They also rely on shipping in Pacific to drive their export economy. Unless we start threatening them, we'll always be on the defensive. We need to take advantage of what we have - Andamans and Lakshadweep - and make strategic use of them.

So, IMO, we should *strengthen* the IN, not reduce it. More submarines, more submarine hunters (choppers and ships), more guided missile corvettes ...

mody
BRFite
Posts: 685
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

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

Postby mody » 04 Jun 2020 18:27

The S400 if available would have helped. But right now, for an emergency procurement, I would much rather prefer additional units of the SpyDer systems and perhaps Barak-8 as the MRSAM is not available as yet. The MRSAM (same as barak-8), should have had all its issues sorted out by now and production should have started.

The worst criminal negligence is delay in placing orders for the additional 7 squadrons of Akash missiles. The order should have been placed in 2015-16. Instead it has been placed a few months ago (has the final order been placed or just approval given?).

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8423
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

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

Postby Mort Walker » 04 Jun 2020 20:27

Karan M wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:I would wait until the initial units are delivered later this year as promised and see what reports are. The S-400 radar has been made out to have all sorts of capabilities, and I'm sure if it is successful, then it will get some good press. There is no reason why Rajendra could not have been evolved. When the IAF and DRDO have the ability to make a multi-mission AWACS radar, they could have made an indigenous one more capable than the S-400.

Time. DRDO has a lot on its plate and a new LRSAM program was going to take several years of development and then testing, time which we simply don't have.

The government-government deal was agreed upon in Oct. 2016 for $5.4 billion for 5 regiments/squadrons (and in this context it is not clear how many launchers, missiles and radars are in each regiment; however one unit is around $300+ million). The first regiment of S-400 was supposed to arrive end of 2020, but reports now indicate end of 2021. India has already paid $800 million for these.

If the the LRSAM program was infused with $1 billion more between 2016-2018, would it not have yielded results by the end of 2021? Would the IAF be better off this way logistically and with operational readiness?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19531
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 04 Jun 2020 21:07

*Some* of the current DRDO programs, apart from XRSAM.

http://nitmeghalaya.in/convo2019/profile_cg.html
Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme ‐ Provided necessary thrust to the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme and successfully demonstrated the Exo (PDV) and Endo (AAD) atmospheric Interception capabilities. Interceptor Missions achieved a major milestone by directly hitting the targets and paved the way for induction.
ICBM Agni 5 and Long Range Agni 4 ‐ Successfully flight tested the road mobile 5000km range ICBM Agni‐V and 4000km range Agni‐IV strengthening the country’s strategic deterrence capabilities.
BVRAAM Astra ‐ Successfully demonstrated Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Astra Missile for its complete launch envelope with indigenous Seeker.
LRSAM (IN) and MRSAM (AF) ‐ Steered the programme and overseen the successful flight tests of the advanced Surface to Air Missiles further boosting the Air Defence capabilities.
BrahMos (Air Version) ‐ Vital role in demonstration of precision strike capabilities of BrahMos Air Version and extended range combat effectiveness with state‐of‐the‐art Onboard Avionics.
Prithvi, Dhanush, Agni 1, Agni 2 and Agni 3 ‐ Gave necessary thrust for post induction flight tests thereby demonstrating the efficacy and reliability of the weapon systems and boosting the confidence of the Users.
Guided Bombs ‐ Successfully completed the development trials of country’s first 1000kg class guided Bomb Garuthma (100km range) and Garuda (35km range) from Su‐30MKI paving the way for Long Range Guided Bombs (LRGBs).
Smart Anti Airfield Weapon (SAAW) ‐ Steered the conceptualization, design, development and successful flight test of 125kg SAAW smart guided weapon system.
Guided Pinaka ‐ Led the design and development of Guided Pinaka and successfully demonstrated the range and precision strike capability of the weapon system.
Nag and Helina ‐ Anti Tank Missile Nag and Helicopter launched HELINA missile with state of the art technologies are undergoing extensive trials in their final operational configuration. Production, Upgradation and maintenance ‐ Facilitated ToT, established production lines, steering the limited series production, continuous upgradation and maintenance of Agni, Prithvi, Dhanush, Akash and other weapon systems.

Development of New Weapon systems

Analysed the current and futuristic requirements of Missiles & Guided Weapon Systems with all stake holders, new projects have been taken up and being executed to further strengthen the arsenal of Armed Forces ‐

QRSAM ‐ Quick Reaction Surface to Air Missile flight tests are being conducted
Akash1S ‐ Surface to Air Missile with indigenous seeker has been successfully flight tested
Rudram II ‐ Air to Surface Missile with a range of upto 330km
Rudram III ‐ Air to Surface Missile with a range of upto 550km
SLCM ‐ Submarine launched Cruise Missile
Pralay ‐ Surface to Surface tactical Missile
High Power Electromagnetic Weapon for tactical applications
Liquid Fuel Ramjet (LFRJ) based supersonic target
Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet (SFDR) based Missile for long range Air to Air application
MRSAM (Army) ‐ Medium Range Surface to Air Missile for Indian Army
Akash NG ‐ New Generation Surface to Air Missile with state‐of‐the‐art Seeker system
NGARM ‐ New Generation Air to Surface Anti Radiation Missile
Short and Medium range Naval Anti Ship Missiles
SANT ‐ Stand‐off Anti Tank Missile with MMW Seeker
VSHORAD ‐ Very Short Range Air Defence System
MPATGM ‐ Man Portable Anti Tank Guided Missile
LRSAM IAC ‐ Long Range Surface to Air Missile for Indigenous Aircraft Carrier

Developing a mobile combination of a BMD + ABT system in the timeframe envisaged, plus production would mean some of the above would need to be dropped.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4384
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 04 Jun 2020 23:50

abhik wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:If price is a problem, which it is, why not lease a few sqd of su30sm/35 or rafale? Or even m2k?

Outright purchase of cheaper mig29smt or k (since the kuze is out of commission) can also be considered.

Only the US has the kind and numbers of weapons that can affect the outcome, and whose interest it is in actually helping us - I hope we can all agree to that at least.

And being mostly dependent on foreign arms and then making bombastic claims about not needing any foreign power's help in a war is plain stupid.

Iirc gripens have been leased before. Leasing as an alternative to slow/expensive purchases was recently pushed by the mod. It is definitely possible. As far as the last line in your post goes, not exactly sure to whom it applies.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 05 Jun 2020 00:04

Cain Marko wrote:
abhik wrote:Iirc gripens have been leased before. Leasing as an alternative to slow/expensive purchases was recently pushed by the mod. It is definitely possible. As far as the last line in your post goes, not exactly sure to whom it applies.

So Saab AWACS vs Saab Gripen scenario is worth wondering about? ;)

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2838
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 05 Jun 2020 02:45

Rakesh wrote:
abhik wrote:+1. Anyways I think S-400 was bought more for geopolitical reasons (i.e. hafta) rather than an actual requirement form the IAF. By Indian standards the deal was signed almost overnight with no global tenders, no trials, no ToT, no offset, and while the armed forces go horse asking for for more basic equipment year over year (of course the armed forces will not look a gift horse in the mouth, they did not when they got C-17s etc). 5B+ dollars signed to prop up pootin's MIC while domestic industry is starved of orders.

What is the geopolitical reason for the GOI to purchase a system it has zero clue about? Who in the GOI knows anything about this system, that they don't think twice and just go out & buy it? GOI does not go shopping for military equipment without the services listing their requirements. Please understand how the procurement system works.


Which procurement system are you talking about? DPP/the snakes and ladders decision flowchart? TIFWIW having watched this space over the years, things move fast only where there are geopolitical (I'm including Natash here), internal political reasons, or palm grease involved. Else you will have continuous cycles of re-tendering, trials and price negotiation.

Just because tenders were not public, no trials were conducted, no offset were given...that does not mean it did not occur. Like the Akula deal, negotiations were done & finalized and then publicly announced. Much of the deal is under wraps. We will never know and neither should we.

Thats' just speculation no? We have bought other stellar gear like tin cans in the same fashion and we know how those turned out.

Why does the GOI need to go out its way to antagonize GOTUS, unless there is a valid reason from the IAF for this purchase? Why go through the CAATSA headache? What is the plus in that? If the IAF did not want this system, I can think of a plethora of items that the services could have gotten from the US;

* Additional MH-60R ASW helos
* Sea Guardian UAS
* Additional CH-47s
* Additional C-130s (or perhaps even the KC-130)
* Additional P-8Is
* Screwdrivergiri of GE F404/F414 turbofans (or at least a MRO facility for them)

One can go on and on....

Why did GOI antagonize GOTUS? I don't know - maybe they simply miscalculated (lets not think our leaders are infallible)? I do feel they have vastly overestimated the utility of keeping Russia happy and underestimated the need not to rub US the wrong way.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2838
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

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

Postby abhik » 05 Jun 2020 02:55

I don't get it, how come there was a sudden need for long range SAMs (which IAF has never had before), so much so that that it chose to spend money on it rather than on new fighters (Tejas Mk1A) to shore up its declining numbers?

Mort Walker wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Time. DRDO has a lot on its plate and a new LRSAM program was going to take several years of development and then testing, time which we simply don't have.


The government-government deal was agreed upon in Oct. 2016 for $5.4 billion for 5 regiments/squadrons (and in this context it is not clear how many launchers, missiles and radars are in each regiment; however one unit is around $300+ million). The first regiment of S-400 was supposed to arrive end of 2020, but reports now indicate end of 2021. India has already paid $800 million for these.

If the the LRSAM program was infused with $1 billion more between 2016-2018, would it not have yielded results by the end of 2021? Would the IAF be better off this way logistically and with operational readiness?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9062
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Jun 2020 05:19

abhik wrote:Which procurement system are you talking about? DPP/the snakes and ladders decision flowchart? TIFWIW having watched this space over the years, things move fast only where there are geopolitical (I'm including Natash here), internal political reasons, or palm grease involved. Else you will have continuous cycles of re-tendering, trials and price negotiation.

The procurement system that did the following;

*Selected the C-17 over the IL-76 which was a competition
*Selected the AH-64 over the Mi-28 which was a competition
*Selected the MH-60R over the NH-90 which was a competition
*Selected the P-8I over the Airbus variant which was a competition

These are just a few of the many examples of the procurement system. The DPP is not perfect and has been revised numerous times over the years. And neither does the DPP always achieve the desired result i.e. the tanker contest is one good example. But that is the system or as you so aptly put it - snakes and ladders decision flowchart :)

In the case of the S-400, there is no comparable platform to it. So there is no contest to run. But that does not mean, that no homework was done by the IAF on the system. It is not like the GOI went to Russia on arms shopping spree, got arm twisted by Putin and bought the system without zero consultation from the IAF. It does not work that way at all. Any arms purchase made comes out of the services' annual CAPEX budget. And the services watch that CAPEX budget very carefully, because it is very limited. With the S-400, the IAF has made sure that it got the capability it wanted. But they are not going to advertise that need or capability in detail, because that would be counter productive.

It is not the GOI who will be operating the S-400, it is the IAF. They are the user and they know what they want. The IAF wants the S-400 and they will get it, warts and all. The only obstacle to that is the budget. Even possible sanctions from Unkil is not deterring the IAF. Any sanctions imposed affects the IAF too. It is not just the GOI that has to bear the burden alone.

Since you mentioned internal political reasons and palm greasing over the S-400 deal, please provide examples of such. Do you have any?

abhik wrote:Thats' just speculation no? We have bought other stellar gear like tin cans in the same fashion and we know how those turned out.

Speculation? Are you aware of how the 83 MWe pressure water reactor - onboard the Arihant - came into existence? Did DAE just fabricate that reactor out of thin air? If you do not know, please look it up.

The Russians have offered three used Kilos for the IN. Did the GOI eagerly lap it up without consulting the Indian Navy? Admiral Karambir Singh has confirmed that Naval HQ is looking into the proposal. But just because it is offered, that does not mean it is going to happen.

Naval Group of France has offered three Scorpenes for the IN to keep the line going at MDL. Will the GOI make this purchase without consulting the Indian Navy?

Rosoboronexport has offered 21 MiG-29s to the GOI to shore up squadron strength. That proposal is at Air HQ now, but not sitting at the PM's desk.

NaMo is not spending sleepless nights thinking --> "I am confident 21 MiG-29s will help the IAF. Perhaps they can add a squadron at an airbase in WAC and retire a MiG-21 squadron!" That is not NaMo's job, not the PMO's job, not Rajnath Singh's job or the MoD Babu's job. That proposal is not moving because there is no money due to the current crisis. Once funds are available, the proposal will move ahead. But a technical assessment of those 21 airframes has to be conducted by the IAF and only then can the proposal move to the next stage.

abhik wrote:Why did GOI antagonize GOTUS? I don't know - maybe they simply miscalculated (lets not think our leaders are infallible)? I do feel they have vastly overestimated the utility of keeping Russia happy and underestimated the need not to rub US the wrong way.

On a deal of this magnitude, miscalculation is not an option. Every possible outcome is considered.

If you do not know, then you should not guess.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9062
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 05 Jun 2020 05:26

abhik wrote:I don't get it, how come there was a sudden need for long range SAMs (which IAF has never had before), so much so that that it chose to spend money on it rather than on new fighters (Tejas Mk1A) to shore up its declining numbers?

Research this term ----> Full-spectrum dominance. Read up about it.

The IAF is not just about air combat, 42 fighter squadrons and shooting missiles from the hip. Even with a full strength of 42 fighter squadrons, the IAF still needs capability in other areas i.e. long range SAMs is just one - but critical - aspect.

Air bases have to be defended from enemy attack and kindly look into why the IAF has multiple layers of missile defence in the S-125 Pechora, the 9K33 Osa-AK, the 9K38 Igla-1, the Akash and the SPYDER. One missile system should be enough no? Why add S-400 into the mix? Why even have surface to air missiles? Just use Tejas to protect the air base 24/7. Will that work? Why do you think the IAF is investing so heavily in the Akash SAM program? Just to simply light up the sky during Diwali? But the Akash represents just one layer of SAM protection and the S-400 will play a key role in the layer.

To protect from ballistic missile defence (which will be manned by the IAF and Army), again there are multiple layers involved ---> Anti-ballistic missile programs in the exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric spheres are being run and managed by DRDO. Again, the S-400 will play a role as well.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 05 Jun 2020 10:01

abhik wrote:
I don't get it, how come there was a sudden need for long range SAMs (which IAF has never had before)...

It’s a wrong way to phrase a question. Just because one doesn’t have something in the past doesn’t mean they won’t have it forever! Technology evolves; capability increases; aspirations grow; new requirements emerge; and so on ...

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4384
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 05 Jun 2020 10:24

All this RnD about the S400 purchase is ridiculous. There is simply no other AD/Sam system that handles such a variety of targets. IAF procured it under MP as a game changer esp. considering the falling number of sqd/point defence fighters. As far as proven record goes, this is a system that the Russians have perfected since the 90s and has it deployed across all of Russia in dozens of units. Not to mention other countries. This is not your one off russki system that India alone will operate (MKI, 29K, Vikad), and even those have served the services quite well.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19531
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 05 Jun 2020 15:55

abhik wrote:I don't get it, how come there was a sudden need for long range SAMs (which IAF has never had before), so much so that that it chose to spend money on it rather than on new fighters (Tejas Mk1A) to shore up its declining numbers?

Mort Walker wrote:
The government-government deal was agreed upon in Oct. 2016 for $5.4 billion for 5 regiments/squadrons (and in this context it is not clear how many launchers, missiles and radars are in each regiment; however one unit is around $300+ million). The first regiment of S-400 was supposed to arrive end of 2020, but reports now indicate end of 2021. India has already paid $800 million for these.

If the the LRSAM program was infused with $1 billion more between 2016-2018, would it not have yielded results by the end of 2021? Would the IAF be better off this way logistically and with operational readiness?


The IAF asked for SAMs with dual BMD/ABT role. All this has been posted before. Please research more than diverting the topic of this thread.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 05 Jun 2020 20:47

Karan M wrote:
First of all, the N001 is advertised as having 100km class performance against a 3 sq mtr target. The Gripen claims to be even lower than that, at 1.5 -2 mtr square. That a N001VE detected and targeted it at ranges greater than the advertised range actually speaks volumes for Russian gear and implies the N001VE was significantly upgraded over the original N001!

Second, the JAS-39 C/Ds radar is a generation ahead. It was developed in the late 2000s, and then upgraded significantly thereafter. It is now seeking to detect and target a target which is multiples ahead in RCS, the Su-27 vs the Gripen. That it achieved a 40km range differential only, as versus more, speaks to the fact that a small nosed radar set has to do so much more to achieve a far better response.

In fact, for 2 sq mtr, which the N001VE was able to detect or rather target, at 120km per your own claim above, a 160km radar which was able to do so for a 12 sq mtr target can only target it at 102km! So which radar is "better" in terms of max range? Should we now claim the Swedes engaged in brochuritis, after all the N001VE has a 20km range advantage over it?

Third, both the sets are pulse doppler sets. Both are capable of multi-targeting with ARHs - the quote above is wrong. The N001VE as I recall could dual target with the R-77. It can single target only if a SARH missile is involved. If the PRC brought only SARH simulation to the exercise, they were automatically at a severe disadvantage.

Fourth, in effect both sets performed exactly the way they were meant to, with the Russian radar set actually performing quite well, given the fact its merely an upgrade of the original N001 developed for the Su-27 in the late 70's and early 80s.

Fifth, the Russians even then knew they would combine active EW to "mask" the Flankers greater RCS. That would automatically address any marginal advantage lower powered opponent radar sets enjoyed in picking up the Flankers earlier. The above quote does not show the PRC took those EW sets with them for the exercise, or it doesn't mention they did anyhow. Why is that? Do think.

The EW carried by the Flankers whether SAP 18 or ELTA 8222 protect the Flankers from AAMs where the RVV-AE is outranged, but it does not address the shortcomings either in the terms of the NIIP N001 detection range nor the range of the RVV-AE. That is exactly what happened the day after Balakot, the IAF SU-30s were able to evade the F-16 AMRAAMs, but could get off their own AAMs. Also the Flanker is a large aircraft, probably the largest fighter with the largest RCS now operational. Therefore every single adversary it comes across will have a smaller RCS and that is something which the Flanker's radar has to be optimized for.

As you probably already know this evaluation was done by the PLAAF after it's exercises with the Royal Thai Air Force not by some other third party. In subsequent exercises the PLAAF sent in J-10As and J-10Cs for these exercises, the latter has a Chinese AESA radar integrated and carries the PL-15 AAM, currently the longest ranged Chinese AAM. And this is what was reported for those encounters:

Gripen achieved 88 percent of its kills at 19 miles or greater, while the Su-27 had just 14 percent of its kills at this range. The RTAF also had 10 kills at a distance of more than 31 miles compared with zero long-distance kills by the Su-27.

In subsequent exercises the PLAAF fared better by sending the Chengdu J-10A - and then in 2019 the J-10C - in place of the Su-27. Li pointed out that the J-10C was more of a match for the JAS-39C/D in that “its active array radar significantly improves detection distance and multi-target attack capability, the DSI (divertless) air intake of the J-10C reduces the radar intercept area while the PL-15 missile increases the range, making it an over-the-horizon platform.”

Li also commented that the next-generation version of the Gripen, the JAS-39E, is likely to feature even more advanced combat performance. His interest in the aircraft parallels a larger body of analysis within the PLA intelligence community that has had a fixation on the design and development of the Gripen as a template for PRC industry to follow.


Interesting to note that it took an AESA equipped J-10C with the PL-15 to even the field with the JAS 39 C/D with a pulse doppler radar and AAMRAAMs. The JAS-39 E/F has the Raven AESA and is integrated with Meteor.

You are literally resorting to the worst kind of speculation here. There is no evidence that even if the S-400s detected the F-35s they would engage it. The Russians have better things to do than pick an open fight with the Israelis. Second, why would they use a S-400 to retaliate against the Turks when the Turks cried uncle after the Russian economic retaliation and paid off Russia by buying the S-400 itself? As to the Syrian friendly fire or lack thereof, the US has routinely shot down its own aircraft using Patriots. What does that supposedly say for US gear? Or the shootdown of the Iranian airliner by the Vincennes?

But what we do know is whosoever purchased the S-400 has been categorically told that the US will not sell them the F-35. Why is that you think. If the S-400 was so useless and underpowered, would the US even care if the radar was in theater with the F-35 flying around.

Which ever way you look at it, the S-400 as of date does not have a single kill in combat conditions, whether by design, accident or circumstance. Does it's forerunner the many variants of the S-300 have any kills? I have not researched that in detail. How well it will perform against a concentrated onslaught by Chinese YJ-91 anti radiation missiles with an advertised range of 120 kms e.g.? Has that been evaluated/simulated? And one can be reasonably certain that China will supply the YJ-91 anti radiation version to the PAF when Indian S-400s are deployed on the western border.

The larger point in my post is that the Soviet industrial complex is long dead and Russia the successor just does not have the funds to sustain a major R&D effort for major new platforms. You more than anybody else on this forum probably knows the blood, sweat and tears that the IAF and HAL along with countless other support firms went through to convert the SU-30K in 1997 to the SU-30MKI of today notwithstanding the less than professional support from the OEM. With the passage of time, further dwindling of the legacy Soviet expertise and funding as well as changing geopolitical equations the future of Russian support or lack thereof is transparent. The writing is on the wall.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19531
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 05 Jun 2020 21:34

ldev wrote:The EW carried by the Flankers whether SAP 18 or ELTA 8222 protect the Flankers from AAMs where the RVV-AE is outranged, but it does not address the shortcomings either in the terms of the NIIP N001 detection range nor the range of the RVV-AE. That is exactly what happened the day after Balakot, the IAF SU-30s were able to evade the F-16 AMRAAMs, but could get off their own AAMs. Also the Flanker is a large aircraft, probably the largest fighter with the largest RCS now operational. Therefore every single adversary it comes across will have a smaller RCS and that is something which the Flanker's radar has to be optimized for.


When you discuss something on any topic, it is usually useful to at least do some basic research lest you continue to make mistakes.

Standard EW pods are meant to reduce the range of the opponent FCR not merely the missiles, by confounding it in a head-on scenario/ tail chase scenario & the more powerful the pod, the greater the effect. Look at the size of the Russian pods. The fact the Chinese did not take their EW to the exercise shows that they were deliberately seeking to figure out what was the performance of their aircraft vs the latest western aircraft they could exercise against, and determine the effectiveness without giving away the actual capability of the entire "system". The Thai's were kind enough to play along.

Indian Flankers don't even have the N001, they have the far more capable N011M set. We had the N001 along with our Su-30Ks which were returned. Those N001 sets were perfectly capable of acting as long range sensors vs US F-15s at Cope India in 2004 allowing Bisons to close in.

Third, the above situation has little relevance to what happened during the incidents at Balakote as the IAF side was restrained by ROE considerations wherein they allowed PAF aircraft to approach at a tactically advantageous situation and take the first shot!

Fourth, Flankers field not just the R-77, but the R-27 and now the R77-1 and the RVV-BD. Might want to look up their performance too.

As you probably already know this evaluation was done by the PLAAF after it's exercises with the Royal Thai Air Force not by some other third party. In subsequent exercises the PLAAF sent in J-10As and J-10Cs for these exercises, the latter has a Chinese AESA radar integrated and carries the PL-15 AAM, currently the longest ranged Chinese AAM. And this is what was reported for those encounters:

Gripen achieved 88 percent of its kills at 19 miles or greater, while the Su-27 had just 14 percent of its kills at this range. The RTAF also had 10 kills at a distance of more than 31 miles compared with zero long-distance kills by the Su-27.

In subsequent exercises the PLAAF fared better by sending the Chengdu J-10A - and then in 2019 the J-10C - in place of the Su-27. Li pointed out that the J-10C was more of a match for the JAS-39C/D in that “its active array radar significantly improves detection distance and multi-target attack capability, the DSI (divertless) air intake of the J-10C reduces the radar intercept area while the PL-15 missile increases the range, making it an over-the-horizon platform.”


Which is relevant to India how? Its clear from the above, that the PRC was deliberately not sending across its higher performance J-11 series fighters or any fighter with a full blown EW suite. Think on why that was the case!

Li also commented that the next-generation version of the Gripen, the JAS-39E, is likely to feature even more advanced combat performance. His interest in the aircraft parallels a larger body of analysis within the PLA intelligence community that has had a fixation on the design and development of the Gripen as a template for PRC industry to follow.

Interesting to note that it took an AESA equipped J-10C with the PL-15 to even the field with the JAS 39 C/D with a pulse doppler radar and AAMRAAMs. The JAS-39 E/F has the Raven AESA and is integrated with Meteor.


Again, with the confusion. AESA radars are also pulse doppler radars. AESA is merely a technology by which one implements the pulse doppler set up. That apart, its very clear the PRC was merely seeking to benchmark what it had developed vs the Thais, without giving away all its tricks. Neither side used its ECM but the PRC can apply mathematical models to determine the performance.

In our case, we will not face merely J-10s but the J-11s which have a far more capable avionics and weapons combination, and the payload, persistence to matter.

It really does not matter what the PLAAF claimed it deployed to the exercise in terms of AAMs because they would have simulated the AAMs. They would never use the actual ranges.

Which ever way you look at it, the S-400 as of date does not have a single kill in combat conditions, whether by design, accident or circumstance. Does it's forerunner the many variants of the S-300 have any kills? I have not researched that in detail. How well it will perform against a concentrated onslaught by Chinese YJ-91 anti radiation missiles with an advertised range of 120 kms e.g.? Has that been evaluated/simulated? And one can be reasonably certain that China will supply the YJ-91 anti radiation version to the PAF when Indian S-400s are deployed on the western border.


I suggest you actually look at what a YJ-91 ARM is, its range, its capabilities before thinking it is any silver bullet vs a S-300 let alone the S-400. Neither the Gripen or the F-22 or the F-35 have any kills either. ARMs by themselves are very limited against a S-400 complex. If only it were that easy. The S-300/400 field missiles with a range of 120/250/380 km. Good luck in taking that out with a 120km missile.

The larger point in my post is that the Soviet industrial complex is long dead and Russia the successor just does not have the funds to sustain a major R&D effort for major new platforms. You more than anybody else on this forum probably knows the blood, sweat and tears that the IAF and HAL along with countless other support firms went through to convert the SU-30K in 1997 to the SU-30MKI of today notwithstanding the less than professional support from the OEM. With the passage of time, further dwindling of the legacy Soviet expertise and funding as well as changing geopolitical equations the future of Russian support or lack thereof is transparent. The writing is on the wall.


Your larger point is completely wrong, because you don't even seem to understand the topic you are attempting to make points on.

You just took a 1980s era warmed over Flanker, with its key avionics hobbled by a deliberate downgrade, put it against a fighter developed a generation later and stated the former was inferior, without even understanding the context, and the deliberate manner in which the PLAAF sent over assets which it did not consider to be its premier ones, and to be extra careful removed their key capabilities which would have made them acquit themselves far better than they did.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 05 Jun 2020 23:06

Karan M wrote:[

When you discuss something on any topic, it is usually useful to at least do some basic research lest you continue to make mistakes.

Standard EW pods are meant to reduce the range of the opponent FCR not merely the missiles, by confounding it in a head-on scenario/ tail chase scenario & the more powerful the pod, the greater the effect.


And your assumption was that I was not aware of this?

Look at the size of the Russian pods. The fact the Chinese did not take their EW to the exercise shows that they were deliberately seeking to figure out what was the performance of their aircraft vs the latest western aircraft they could exercise against, and determine the effectiveness without giving away the actual capability of the entire "system". The Thai's were kind enough to play along.


Nobody takes along an active EW suite to exercises unless they are being done in a formal alliance setting i.e. NATO.

Indian Flankers don't even have the N001, they have the far more capable N011M set. We had the N001 along with our Su-30Ks which were returned. Those N001 sets were perfectly capable of acting as long range sensors vs US F-15s at Cope India in 2004 allowing Bisons to close in.

Third, the above situation has little relevance to what happened during the incidents at Balakote as the IAF side was restrained by ROE considerations wherein they allowed PAF aircraft to approach at a tactically advantageous situation and take the first shot!

Fourth, Flankers field not just the R-77, but the R-27 and now the R77-1 and the RVV-BD. Might want to look up their performance too.


The BD has an advertised range of 110 km head on vs the AE range of 80 km. In the exercises quoted earlier the AE's effective range was 50 km. I wonder what the effective range of the BD is. In any event when the PLAAF sent the J-10C with AESA and the PL-15 the kill/loss ratios on both sides were even.

Which is relevant to India how? Its clear from the above, that the PRC was deliberately not sending across its higher performance J-11 series fighters or any fighter with a full blown EW suite. Think on why that was the case!

The J-10C is a single engined fighter. But with an AESA radar and the PL-15, and (unknown EW suite) is it any less capable? Maybe in terms of payload and time to speed/altitude yes but in terms of radar, AAMs and EW no.

I suggest you actually look at what a YJ-91 ARM is, its range, its capabilities before thinking it is any silver bullet vs a S-300 let alone the S-400. Neither the Gripen or the F-22 or the F-35 have any kills either. ARMs by themselves are very limited against a S-400 complex. If only it were that easy. The S-300/400 field missiles with a range of 120/250/380 km. Good luck in taking that out with a 120km missile.


It all depends on the deployment. If the S-400 is deployed within 120 km of the border, it will be within range from a YJ-91 launched from within China/Pakistan.

Your larger point is completely wrong, because you don't even seem to understand the topic you are attempting to make points on.

You just took a 1980s era warmed over Flanker, with its key avionics hobbled by a deliberate downgrade, put it against a fighter developed a generation later and stated the former was inferior, without even understanding the context, and the deliberate manner in which the PLAAF sent over assets which it did not consider to be its premier ones, and to be extra careful removed their key capabilities which would have made them acquit themselves far better than they did.


There were 3 exercises conduced between the PLAAF and Thais, 2015 where the warmed over Flankers as you call them were fielded and then by 2019 the most upto date J-10Cs were fielded. So it was not as if China held back the latest/best. As far as I know the J-10C was first integrated with an AESA radar. The J-11D variant of the J-11 series will have an AESA radar.

Basically I understand the IAF has got a hellva investment in the SU-30 fleet and that cannot be wished away. But try and move away from this Russian dependence for radars on the planned fleet upgrade and diversify away from Russian AAMs, specially long range AAMs. ASRAAM and Astra are first steps.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19531
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 05 Jun 2020 23:41

ldev wrote:
Karan M wrote:
When you discuss something on any topic, it is usually useful to at least do some basic research lest you continue to make mistakes.

Standard EW pods are meant to reduce the range of the opponent FCR not merely the missiles, by confounding it in a head-on scenario/ tail chase scenario & the more powerful the pod, the greater the effect.


And your assumption was that I was not aware of this?


You pretty much laid it out here:
The EW carried by the Flankers whether SAP 18 or ELTA 8222 protect the Flankers from AAMs where the RVV-AE is outranged

These pods are meant to protect the Flankers from any long range acquisition and targeting. Not merely when RVV-AE is outranged. The Russians can also multi-target with SARH missiles which equalize the range. Point being there are multiple tactics in play if the numbers are on your side to maintain an equal response and also, you don't let the opponent take the advantage in the preliminary chess moves as we did, due to our ROE.

Look at the size of the Russian pods. The fact the Chinese did not take their EW to the exercise shows that they were deliberately seeking to figure out what was the performance of their aircraft vs the latest western aircraft they could exercise against, and determine the effectiveness without giving away the actual capability of the entire "system". The Thai's were kind enough to play along.


Nobody takes along an active EW suite to exercises unless they are being done in a formal alliance setting i.e. NATO.


So then you now realize how unrealistic the inferences in the above article are, given one of the most critical aspects of the PRC Flankers is missing! And furthermore, they took their Tier 2 assets to the exercise next time along. Not their Tier 1 J11s which are equipped with far more powerful radars and have a superior persistence/payload combination. What does that tell you? Also, for all the talk of copying the Gripen - look at what they developed. The J-20. A massive beast, with pretty lousy T:W, not really agile, but a sort of stealth Flanker heavy fighter.

The BD has an advertised range of 110 km head on vs the AE range of 80 km. In the exercises quoted earlier the AE's effective range was 50 km. I wonder what the effective range of the BD is. In any event when the PLAAF sent the J-10C with AESA and the PL-15 the kill/loss ratios on both sides were even.


The missile you are referring to is the RVV-SD also known as the R-77-1 which was deliberately designed to counter the earlier AMRAAMs C5/C7 etc, and hence covers the range gap of the earlier R77 which was introduced as a counter to earlier AMRAAMs. The RVV-BD is this missile.
https://twitter.com/vkthakur/status/116 ... 32?lang=en

This is a long range missile which is a rough analog of the AIM-54 Phoenix which was the mainstay of the F-14 fleet. Originally designed for larger aircraft, the latest variant has a dual pulse motor and improved performance to handle a wider range of targets.

Also remember India is developing the SFDR with Russia. This is a full blown Meteor class missile. Do you think only India would develop and deploy a long range ramjet AAM? India took the R77 seeker and developed its propulsion to make an Astra to blow the R77/RVV-AE out of the water, why do you think that Russia didn't do this years back? Fact is they didn't have to. They were setting up a complex layered defense set up wherein S-400s, MiG-31s, Su-30s, Su-27s would all fit like cogs in a wheel and engage targets at different ranges, one missile or two was below their requirements. Now they are turning back towards the development and are coming out with newer products, given the export market is asking for it, and even their own expeditionary deployment to Syria type situations would benefit from it.

The fact that the PLAAF sent the J-10C as versus the J-11 speaks volumes. It means they did not want to show their actual best.

The J-10C is a single engined fighter. But with an AESA radar and the PL-15, and (unknown EW suite) is it any less capable? Maybe in terms of payload and time to speed/altitude yes but in terms of radar, AAMs and EW no.


I suggest you do a bit more reading on the topic from this forum itself.
A single engine J-10 is always going to be disadvantaged in terms of radar and EW performance vs a twin engine aircraft which has a larger power envelope and a larger volume to put in a far more capable radar. What matters more to a radar? Radar area or power, or both? The latter is the reason why even the USAF continues to tinker around with its F-15s and the IDFAF prize theirs so highly and didnt move to an all single engine force which would be far cheaper to maintain! Simply put, smaller fighters leverage their smaller signature to "make do" with smaller radars, and less powerful EW. However, while this is ok in a scripted scenario wherein both sides have fighters in a nice range box where the exercise takes place, in real world scenarios for true long range pickup these smaller fighters start depending more and more on AWACS and other supporting assets.

I suggest you actually look at what a YJ-91 ARM is, its range, its capabilities before thinking it is any silver bullet vs a S-300 let alone the S-400. Neither the Gripen or the F-22 or the F-35 have any kills either. ARMs by themselves are very limited against a S-400 complex. If only it were that easy. The S-300/400 field missiles with a range of 120/250/380 km. Good luck in taking that out with a 120km missile.


It all depends on the deployment. If the S-400 is deployed within 120 km of the border, it will be within range from a YJ-91 launched from within China/Pakistan.


Are you aware of the concept of a layered defence and the fact that systems of this class have decoys? You are taking the maximum range of an ARM and then assuming it will automatically knock out a radar. Kindly go back and look at the number of HARMs used in the Balkan conflict to see how limited ARMs like the YJ-91 are. It doesnt even appear to have the advanced features AARGM and NGARM have to boost its efficiency, such as dual seekers. And it will have to run the gauntlet of CIWS, and the S-400 itself, which by virtue of its huge radar set can actually detect missiles targeted at it and cue other weapons systems.

Your larger point is completely wrong, because you don't even seem to understand the topic you are attempting to make points on.

You just took a 1980s era warmed over Flanker, with its key avionics hobbled by a deliberate downgrade, put it against a fighter developed a generation later and stated the former was inferior, without even understanding the context, and the deliberate manner in which the PLAAF sent over assets which it did not consider to be its premier ones, and to be extra careful removed their key capabilities which would have made them acquit themselves far better than they did.


There were 3 exercises conduced between the PLAAF and Thais, 2015 where the warmed over Flankers as you call them were fielded and then by 2019 the most upto date J-10Cs were fielded. So it was not as if China held back the latest/best. As far as I know the J-10C was first integrated with an AESA radar. The J-11D variant of the J-11 series will have an AESA radar.


The PLAAF tacticians are not stupid. Please don't be under the assumption that they are. They did not send over any of their best in class systems, and sent over precisely those which they thought would give the Gripen C/Ds a tough fight despite their technological limitations (for all the talk of AESA, the J-10C was able to barely hold its own vs a Gripen C/D, equivalent to our LCA Mk1). They did not send their J-11s with more powerful radars (AESA alone is not the determiner of which radar is more powerful). The Japanese were the first to introduce AESAs on their F-2s in Asia, compare and contrast that to the ECR-90 on the EF which is a standard MSA, and the latter will be far more capable.

Which is why I say this topic is far more complex than you think it is merely because buzzwords like AESA etc have begun to imply automatic superiority.
The PLAAF has a fancy J-20 with AESA and stealth etc. Yet they went and purchased Su-35s for their praetorian guard over Beijing, with PESA radars and mere EW. Why do you think that was? Two squadrons merely to reverse engineer?

Their AESA radars, fancy SAMs apart, they continue to invest in S-300/S-400 for their praetorian defense of Beijing and VAs. Battalion set after set have been purchased. The S-400 is merely the latest. They have had testfires, deployed them, yet they continue to invest in these expensive systems. Why do you think that is? The Russian dedicated PESAs and EW continue to be a very tough nut to crack for most AF, and bar the USAF literally nobody has the technology to attack the whole onion. The S-500 is on its way BTW, which takes into account the LO advancements the US has made with the F-35 and in this game of shield vs sword, Russia is not a latecomer. You actually look at their radar designs, and it becomes very clear as to how capable the sets really are, they traded size for performance and were happy with it. Yes, the fighter becomes bigger as a result, but they are ok with that because for that too, they have an answer which is heavy duty active EW.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 06 Jun 2020 00:31

Get the JAS 39 E/F for the MRCA on the condition that India gets the Raven aesa radar and full avionics suite to outfit the entire IAF SU-30 fleet. That will open up US, French, Israeli missiles to be integrated with the SU-30. It is a potent platform as it is and will become truly formidable.
Last edited by ldev on 06 Jun 2020 00:45, edited 1 time in total.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 06 Jun 2020 00:41

ldev wrote:Get the JAS 39 E/F for the MRCA on the condition that India gets the Raven aesa radar and full avionics suite to outfit the entire IAF SU-30 fleet. That will open up US, French, Israeli missiles to be integrated with the SU-30. It is a potent platform as it is and will become truly formidable.

Are you suggesting to link MRCA with Super Sukhoi upgrade? :shock:

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 829
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 06 Jun 2020 00:42

When IAF gets 114 Rafales in make in India then Su30 mki may get complete indigenous upgrade.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 06 Jun 2020 00:46

basant wrote:
ldev wrote:Get the JAS 39 E/F for the MRCA on the condition that India gets the Raven aesa radar and full avionics suite to outfit the entire IAF SU-30 fleet. That will open up US, French, Israeli missiles to be integrated with the SU-30. It is a potent platform as it is and will become truly formidable.

Are you suggesting to link MRCA with Super Sukhoi upgrade? :shock:


Yes. Use all the leverage you can.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8762
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby brar_w » 06 Jun 2020 00:47

ldev wrote:Get the JAS 39 E/F for the MRCA on the condition that India gets the Raven aesa radar and full avionics suite to outfit the entire IAF SU-30 fleet. That will open up US, French, Israeli missiles to be integrated with the SU-30. It is a potent platform as it is and will become truly formidable.


If it were possible to integrate the Raven on the SU-30 (technically (within a reasonable budget/timeframe) and politically) why would it require the purchase of the Gripen? The SU-30 fleet is quite a decent size and that has all the financial incentives baked in to make it work if its Mfg. were so inclined. SAAB doesn't make the Raven. In fact, it isn't even Swedish.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 06 Jun 2020 00:49

brar_w wrote:
ldev wrote:Get the JAS 39 E/F for the MRCA on the condition that India gets the Raven aesa radar and full avionics suite to outfit the entire IAF SU-30 fleet. That will open up US, French, Israeli missiles to be integrated with the SU-30. It is a potent platform as it is and will become truly formidable.


If it were possible to integrate the Raven on the SU-30 (technically (within a reasonable budget/timeframe) and politically) why would it require the purchase of the Gripen? The SU-30 fleet is quite a decent size and that has all the financial incentives baked in to make it work if its Mfg. were so inclined. SAAB doesn't make the Raven. In fact, it isn't even Swedish.


Touche!! Talk to Leonardo directly.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 216
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

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

Postby basant » 06 Jun 2020 01:04

brar_w wrote:...
If it were possible to integrate the Raven on the SU-30 (technically (within a reasonable budget/timeframe) and politically) why would it require the purchase of the Gripen? The SU-30 fleet is quite a decent size and that has all the financial incentives baked in to make it work if its Mfg. were so inclined. SAAB doesn't make the Raven. In fact, it isn't even Swedish.

Et tu, brar_w?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 829
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

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

Postby sankum » 06 Jun 2020 01:11

For 150 Rafales will require minimum 1200 Meteor BVR and 600 Mica to blow half the Chinese Air Force of the Sky which will alone cost more than $5b for silver bullet.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19531
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Postby Karan M » 06 Jun 2020 02:47

ldev wrote:Get the JAS 39 E/F for the MRCA on the condition that India gets the Raven aesa radar and full avionics suite to outfit the entire IAF SU-30 fleet. That will open up US, French, Israeli missiles to be integrated with the SU-30. It is a potent platform as it is and will become truly formidable.


What the Raven is seeking to develop, was already deployed on the Su-30 and especially the Su-35 quite sometime back.



May be a PESA but those scan angles speak for themselves as does the demonstrated performance, so much so the Russian AF went slow on its Su-57s.

The JAS 39 E/F is nowhere near the Rafale btw in terms of mature demonstrated capability.

For weapons integration etc, we don't need the Swedes either.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXgkZoZVcAE ... name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQLWoQRU0AA ... me=900x900

Bar the radar which we might develop a Bars variant, literally everything else is available inhouse or from proven vendors. And even there an upscaled Uttam variant may well do the trick.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9062
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Postby Rakesh » 06 Jun 2020 06:56

Great posts KaranM. Always a pleasure to read them.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8423
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

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

Postby Mort Walker » 06 Jun 2020 07:55

sankum wrote:When IAF gets 114 Rafales in make in India then Su30 mki may get complete indigenous upgrade.


Is this a serious post or more speculation?

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4384
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Postby Cain Marko » 06 Jun 2020 08:25

Karan M wrote:[
Third, the above situation has little relevance to what happened during the incidents at Balakote as the IAF side was restrained by ROE considerations wherein they allowed PAF aircraft to approach at a tactically advantageous situation and take the first shot!
.

Arrey Bhai. Kitney baar iss ghodey ko dhona padega. Come on folks roe was restricted, paf got off a few first shots, which didn't result in anything and then ran off. If the figh't would have continued even a little longer, the mkis thanks to their endurance would've probly wiped off the vipers. Even so the bison got one. This encounter, more than anything else proved that iaf tactics as seen in cope India, work. And the mki is the only platform that gives this edge. I doubt if even the Rafale could be used like this, let alone the Gripen. They simply don't have the stamina. Nor the brute power. Nor the maneuverability that comes with zero eft and tvc. IOWs, even if the euro canards could dodge a salvo of amraams, it is very unlikely that they could reengage.

No frickin Gripen would've fared better. Possibly the rafale might've thanks to the uber meteor and better range. But at those ranges, while being on the defensive, I seriously doubt even a meteor would've have made much difference. Pafs entire gameplan was to come close, lob some shyt and pretend that they gave muh todh jawab. all good for ghafoor uncle but they just lost a viper and probly a solid pilot.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12038
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Jun 2020 08:38

Pakis were using 2 F16 wasting Amraams and since JF 17 bombs and Mirage based H4 bombs had failed were planning to use F16 launched LGB's , we got lucky a tree intercepted 1 bomb and Wing Commander Abhinandan and Squadron Leader Vyas ended it. PAF had probably assured I'm the dim and PA brass that of a Su 30 kill to make the IAF on the defensive for the future. Apart from shooting down of Wing Commander and our friendly fire of the Mi 17 everything quiet a few things went wrong with them.

1. JF 17 was useless with no smart munitions or BVR missiles that day. Thier MK83REK missed by a mile.
2.Expensive Mirage based H4 bombs need terminal guidance, which means an environment with no enemy Sam's or fighters 20km from the target. Given our SAM inductions this scenario is highly unlikely.
3. So only F16 in numbers can temporarily work for them, which they realised even worth 5 Amraams launched could not take one out with first high after burning speed BVR shot. And had the engagement continued would have been disastrous for them.

I am surewe learnt some lessons that day and better planned. Things have gotten worse and will get even worse for the PAF. The only good thing for them is more SAAB 2000 Erieye's. We must in addition to Rafale Metoer integrate a few RVV BD with our Su 30 without PAF having knowledge about it.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 06 Jun 2020 08:52

Karan M wrote:
What the Raven is seeking to develop, was already deployed on the Su-30 and especially the Su-35 quite sometime back.

What the Raven brings to the table is a whole host of Western and Israeli missiles and PGM to the table from AAMRAAMs to the Meteor to SCALP/Storm Shadow, Asraam, Python 5 and India can also negotiate to integrate Astra, NGARM (when ready), Brahmos and Nirbhay or it's successor. Yes the Irbis E claims a scan angle of 120 degrees vs 100 degrees for the Raven. What Irbis E does is lock India into the Russian weapons system in perpetuity, no other choice e.g. you want a long range AAM, have to ask the Russians for the RVV-BD. Integrate the Raven and you can get the Meteor, AMRAAM 120d if the US will sell that variant or the Astra 2 when ready.

May be a PESA but those scan angles speak for themselves as does the demonstrated performance, so much so the Russian AF went slow on its Su-57s.


Lol!! The Russians went slow on the SU-57 because they have no money for further development and the current engines they have, the Al-41, the same engine used on the SU-35 (a derivative of the AL-31FP) does not enable the SU-57 to achieve it's design performance numbers. And that is why India for once when it concerns the Russians has been smart and said that the SU-57 will be an off the shelf purchase when it is a mature design and inducted in numbers in the Russian Air Force.

The JAS 39 E/F is nowhere near the Rafale btw in terms of mature demonstrated capability.


True as far as the E variant is concerned. And that is why I think the better option is to use the Raven radar and other avionics from Leonardo. Can you imagine the SU-30 with it's payload capacity carrying Amraams, Meteors, Scalp, Astras. It will be a one of kind. That will make the Indian SU-30MKI equivalent to the Israeli F-15 Baz in terms of diverse weapon/sensor integration.

Bar the radar which we might develop a Bars variant, literally everything else is available inhouse or from proven vendors. And even there an upscaled Uttam variant may well do the trick.

if Uttam itself is not ready for prime time on the Tejas how many years will it be before the son of Uttam is ready for the SU-30?

An off the shelf and/or close to maturity radar such as the Raven AESA with the weapons integration capability that it brings will increase the potency of the SU-30 fleet by a factor of who knows how much. It will reduce the pressure on the squadron numbers issue as well.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 06 Jun 2020 09:05

ldev wrote:
brar_w wrote:
If it were possible to integrate the Raven on the SU-30 (technically (within a reasonable budget/timeframe) and politically) why would it require the purchase of the Gripen? The SU-30 fleet is quite a decent size and that has all the financial incentives baked in to make it work if its Mfg. were so inclined. SAAB doesn't make the Raven. In fact, it isn't even Swedish.


Touche!! Talk to Leonardo directly.

Hate to ruin this discussion err fantasy but Leonardo S.p.A. has been banned by Defence Ministry, while we can have Saab integrate it for Gripen (even that would be tricky given the blacklist) we will never buy any equipment from them.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 06 Jun 2020 09:42

John wrote:Hate to ruin this discussion err fantasy but Leonardo S.p.A. has been banned by Defence Ministry, while we can have Saab integrate it for Gripen (even that would be tricky given the blacklist) we will never buy any equipment from them.


Everything can be overturned/re-categorized if it is a matter of urgent national security:

The MoD has placed Denel of South Africa, Leonardo of Italy and the latter’s U.K.-based subsidiary AgustaWestland under its suspended category.

In addition, Rolls-Royce of the U.K., Tatra Trucks of the Czech Republic, and Israeli defense companies Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries have been placed under the restricted-procurements category.

However, they are permitted to carry out business dealings on account of operational urgency, national security and the lack of alternatives.

Moving a company from suspended to restricted procurements category can happen, will happen, could be made to happen......

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 06 Jun 2020 11:03

ldev ...
What the Raven brings to the table is a whole host of Western and Israeli missiles and PGM to the table from AAMRAAMs to the Meteor to SCALP/Storm Shadow, Asraam, Python 5 and India can also negotiate to integrate Astra, NGARM (when ready), Brahmos and Nirbhay or it's successor. What Irbis E does is lock India into the Russian weapons system in perpetuity, no other choice e.g. you want a long range AAM, have to ask the Russians for the RVV-BD. Integrate the Raven and you can get the Meteor, AMRAAM 120d if the US will sell that variant or the Astra 2 when ready.
...


Radar and weapon can be decoupled through WCS and MC.

https://twitter.com/hvtiaf/status/1157834605870944257
Taking full advantage of the indigenous platform, the architecture caters to integrating any missile and /or any radar. The Indian mission computer, which is the brain of the LCA, controls the assets completely. There is no need for direct dialogue between radar and missile.


Besides future is integration with Indian weapon systems:
Brahmos-series
SAAW
PG HSLD
Glide Bomb
Astra-series
NGARM
Rudra-series
Nirbhay
SANT-series
Other non-guided: HSLD, FAB, etc

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2385
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Postby John » 06 Jun 2020 12:05

ldev wrote:
John wrote:Hate to ruin this discussion err fantasy but Leonardo S.p.A. has been banned by Defence Ministry, while we can have Saab integrate it for Gripen (even that would be tricky given the blacklist) we will never buy any equipment from them.


Everything can be overturned/re-categorized if it is a matter of urgent national security:

The MoD has placed Denel of South Africa, Leonardo of Italy and the latter’s U.K.-based subsidiary AgustaWestland under its suspended category.

In addition, Rolls-Royce of the U.K., Tatra Trucks of the Czech Republic, and Israeli defense companies Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries have been placed under the restricted-procurements category.

However, they are permitted to carry out business dealings on account of operational urgency, national security and the lack of alternatives.

Moving a company from suspended to restricted procurements category can happen, will happen, could be made to happen......

No this is not going overturned couple more important procurements have already been canceled because of blacklist so it's highly unlikely this will be granted an exception especially when it is not even being considering anyone at the moment. Please don't waste bandwidth arguing it will get overturned for now anything from Leonardo is not going to be considered and thats not going to change for another decade.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1956
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

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

Postby srin » 06 Jun 2020 16:01

What’s so wrong with 2052 that we want Raven ? and why is Uttam not capable of providing the same in future ?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Postby srai » 06 Jun 2020 17:37

^^^
Sounds like a classic case of “brochuritus” :mrgreen:

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 06 Jun 2020 18:12

srai wrote:Radar and weapon can be decoupled through WCS and MC.


If that be the case why did MBDA refuse to integrate the Meteor on the LCA?

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 06 Jun 2020 18:15

srin wrote:What’s so wrong with 2052 that we want Raven ? and why is Uttam not capable of providing the same in future ?


2052 answer see above. MBDA refused with the Israeli radar. 'In the future" is the operative sentence. When in the future? 5 years, 10 years? A derivative of the present Uttam will have to be designed for the SU-30. And the present Uttam was not deemed sufficiently mature for the LCA as of now.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby ldev » 06 Jun 2020 18:19

John wrote:No this is not going overturned couple more important procurements have already been canceled because of blacklist so it's highly unlikely this will be granted an exception especially when it is not even being considering anyone at the moment. Please don't waste bandwidth arguing it will get overturned for now anything from Leonardo is not going to be considered and thats not going to change for another decade.


OT for this thread. But these bans/blacklists talk about companies that are blacklisted. I wonder what happens to the recipients of these companies "donations". How long do they stay "banned"? They never receive the same publicity as the banned companies. And IMO this whole policy results in India shooting itself in the foot by denying the country a wider availability of equipment.The ban policy was at it's height during the prior Government and the previous Defence Minister. I would have thought that the present GOI would have re-looked at this entire policy.

By the way Denel is no longer suspended. It is now on the restricted list along with RR, IAI etc. At least that is what I believe.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AshishAcharya and 32 guests