Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Here is what on the Embraer AEW&C (Phalcon should be similar)
-ELINT, Voice/Comms data interception, Long Range IFF, datalinks, voice radio
Here is what on the Su-30 MKI
-HA RWRs designed to ID emitters, Radar with NCTR, datalinks, voice radio
All IAF aircraft to have datalinks and encrypted voice comms
So why would 6 aircraft all have every critical system not available??
-ELINT, Voice/Comms data interception, Long Range IFF, datalinks, voice radio
Here is what on the Su-30 MKI
-HA RWRs designed to ID emitters, Radar with NCTR, datalinks, voice radio
All IAF aircraft to have datalinks and encrypted voice comms
So why would 6 aircraft all have every critical system not available??
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
That's POGO which has run a campaign led by Pierre Sprey that BVR is essentially worthless, F-22 is gold plated etc.shiv wrote:Buttressing my own argument:
http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/09.pdfPromise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-To-Air Combat
by
Lt Col Patrick Higby, USAF
Air War College Seminar 7
A Research Paper Submitted to the Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements Air War College (AWC) Electives Program Air Power Theory, Doctrine, and Strategy: 1945-Present Maxwell AFB, AL
30 March 2005
Conclusions & Recommendations
This paper has shown that the pursuit of costly BVR capabilities during the Cold War was not justified by actual BVR performance. Air-to-air combat has not transformed into a long-range slugfest of technology wherein radar-guided missiles score near-guaranteed kills. Human factors, such as pilot skill—or the opponent’s ineptness—still trump technology. Furthermore, BVR appears to work best in situations it is needed least. In Desert Storm—unlike Vietnam,
Yom Kippur, and Bekáa Valley—the enemy had no chance of establishing localized or temporary air superiority. This allowed a persistent AWACS presence—coupled with overwhelming numbers of Coalition aircraft—permitting up to 16 BVR kills in the least stressing BVR scenario.
However, the USAF disagrees (and so do all other modern AF).
I can't find a single one not investing heavily in BVR.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Gurus. This is a Missiles thread.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Can you show me one reference that India uses NCTR? What percentage of Indian aircraft are equipped for that. What percentage of US aircraft are equipped for that.Karan M wrote: So basically, forget IFF everything ELSE also has to stop working for your scenario to be 100% accurate.
Do you think that's realistic?
I don't.
Radar recognition of targets is the theory but radar returns vary with direction and absolute identification may not be possible.
How many IAF aircraft are currently equipped for broad band datalink burst between peers and AWACS? I put it to you that you are applying American theory to an Indian situation that is MiG 27, MiG 21 and Su 30, Mirage 2000. What may happen in future is a different thing. In a war attacking Indian fighters are likely to be MiG 21s or 27s or Jags. Are these aircraft datalinked?
i do admit that I have been using the acronym IFF when I meant a generic inability to positively identify friend or foe - which is my mistake.
When you cannot guarantee that an aircraft is a foe it is my view that you should never shoot down a friendly - but you have already said that it is OK to shoot down friendlies. I disagree
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Another factor why AFs are going BVR is because how lethal WVR missiles are today.
Missiles like the Python-5, ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Aim-9X and Mica-IR are next to impossible to dodge within their NEZ (No Escape Zones).
The increasing risk to pilot lives and the high attrition foreseen means long range sniping is preferred. Of course, its not as foolproof since RF seekers are easier to jam (theoretically). In a real shooting war, its anyones guess whether anyone can roll out EW upgrades fast enough to matter.
Missiles like the Python-5, ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Aim-9X and Mica-IR are next to impossible to dodge within their NEZ (No Escape Zones).
The increasing risk to pilot lives and the high attrition foreseen means long range sniping is preferred. Of course, its not as foolproof since RF seekers are easier to jam (theoretically). In a real shooting war, its anyones guess whether anyone can roll out EW upgrades fast enough to matter.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
There will be constraints on usage, as these cases illustrate.Sid wrote:By that same logic SAMs usage will be limited to none in such situation?!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Ai ... #Shootdown
This is quite well know too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_A ... t_17#CrashA preliminary Russian report confirmed initial private assessments of American Military officials that the S-200 missile overshot its target drone—which had been destroyed successfully by an S-300 fired at the same time—and instead of self-destructing, locked in on the passenger plane about 250 kilometres (160 mi) further away and exploded as a ball of Shrapnel shells 15 metres (50 ft) over the plane.[10][11][12]
Sid wrote:All examples discussed till now have been from 1960s/1970s IAF era where we were technologically handicapped or technology was not mature enough.
1988 - US Harpoon accidentally hits Indian ship http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/13/world ... ewman.html
1994 - USAF F-15 shoot down Army Blackhawks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black ... n_incident
2001 - Ukrainian S200 missile accidentally hits airliner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Ai ... #Shootdown
2014 - Russian/Ukrainian Buk missile accidentally hits airliner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_A ... t_17#Crash
Here is an IFF failure in Iraq in 1994 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black ... t#IncidentSid wrote:Do we have similar situation (multiple fighters with dead comms/electrical failure returning to base with bogey on tail) happening with modern air-forces, like US/Europe? Like in Kosovo?
Technology will never be mature enough to handle all possible situations. And my saying so doesn't mean I'm anti technology. What I'm being cautious is -
1. An over-reliance on technology as a solution to all problems, like BVR missiles will ensure automatic air dominance or TERCOM on aircraft will prevent controlled flight into terrain. Not quite.
2. Preparing contingencies in case technologies fail.
Last edited by tsarkar on 26 Mar 2015 21:30, edited 6 times in total.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Never mind who agrees and disagrees. The data speaks for itself. The US regularly does things that cannot be supported by any evidence. The entire war on Iraq which "proved BVR" was based on a false premise - so this business of being critical of one entity or other is a game that everyone can play.Karan M wrote:
That's POGO which has run a campaign led by Pierre Sprey that BVR is essentially worthless, F-22 is gold plated etc.
However, the USAF disagrees (and so do all other modern AF).
I can't find a single one not investing heavily in BVR.
Last edited by shiv on 26 Mar 2015 21:20, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
I agree wholeheartedly with this. But western air forces have never faced an adversary that caused serious attrition in the last 30 years. They have chosen their enemies well. India does not have that luxury. Our war will have both sides relatively evenly matched and BVR does seem attractive in this situation. But if the air is thick with fighters from both sides fratricide is the last thing that should occur simply because a juicy target existed for a BVR missile. Every aircraft and pilot is precious.Karan M wrote:Another factor why AFs are going BVR is because how lethal WVR missiles are today.
Missiles like the Python-5, ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Aim-9X and Mica-IR are next to impossible to dodge within their NEZ (No Escape Zones).
The increasing risk to pilot lives and the high attrition foreseen means long range sniping is preferred. Of course, its not as foolproof since RF seekers are easier to jam (theoretically). In a real shooting war, its anyones guess whether anyone can roll out EW upgrades fast enough to matter.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
shiv wrote:Can you show me one reference that India uses NCTR? What percentage of Indian aircraft are equipped for that.
http://www.niip.ru/eng/index.php?option ... 6&Itemid=8
- recognition of an air target type upon its spectal characteristics while discrete tracking.
Based on current projections, I guess the Su-30s will be around a third of our fleet. The other systems we are acquiring are not exactly behind the Su-30 either, eg Rafale has a new Gen AESA and we know RDY has had NCTR modes mentioned.
NCTR is a very very touchy topic. Some manufacturers mention it, others don't.
Our Mirage 2000s will also have this soon (the RDY also has NCTR capability). The EL/M-2032 should also be capable of it, see target classification capabilities (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Elta.pdf) see the RS/ISAR part. Typically, if you can do high rez ISAR, NCTR methods are available. We also know the Israelis are no slouches in the Airborne radar arena (eg Track Before you Scan mentioned on AEWC etc).
Of course, its but one item in the overall matrix - of ESM, Voice comms, mission data etc hence the move to datalinks where everyone gets data.
A pretty high level. My personal estimate would be pretty much all. NCTR was first revealed in the 90's to be implemented on the F-15s. Fifteen years on, many radar upgrades done across the USAF fleet.. its accepted as a given most will have these modes.What percentage of US aircraft are equipped for that.
Of course.. which is why its one tool in a tool box. You are looking at absolutes. I am looking at a swiss army knife. ESM, Voice/Data comms, NCTR - all go in together.Radar recognition of targets is the theory but radar returns vary with direction and absolute identification may not be possible.
Su-30s all have datalinks & the IAF (obviously) won't release numbers of how many platforms it has equipped AWACS datalink sharing with. But based on published data, the Su-30s are all Phalcon compatible & the ODL being rolled out on the IAF fleet will be cross platform compatible.How many IAF aircraft are currently equipped for broad band datalink burst between peers and AWACS?
Shiv, this American theory stuff is bogus, no offense intended.I put it to you that you are applying American theory to an Indian situation that is MiG 27, MiG 21 and Su 30, Mirage 2000. What may happen in future is a different thing. In a war attacking Indian fighters are likely to be MiG 21s or 27s or Jags. Are these aircraft datalinked?
The world leaders in datalinks were not the Americans. But the Russians, Israelis and Swedes all of whom implemented their own solutions. The Americans came along, put a lot of money and made a world class system which everyone then adopted (NATO, commonality, assured upgrades, good performance).
Our MiG-29s have datalinks. Our Su-30s have datalinks. A Single Su-30 can share its radar and targeting data with a pack of upto 16 aircraft as I recall.
Our Mirage 2000 Upgrade includes a datalink.
ODL - Operational Datalink program which is being rolled out & which IAF (justifiably) does not talk about is for ALL platforms. MiGS, etc.
That's the thing and which is what I am trying to point out that "IFF as an overall item" - and you are right here, is a challenge and is being addressed. It won't be perfect, but there are methods.i do admit that I have been using the acronym IFF when I meant a generic inability to positively identify friend or foe - which is my mistake.
Depends.When you cannot guarantee that an aircraft is a foe it is my view that you should never shoot down a friendly
Tell me, if an airliner is not guaranteed to be hijacked but is proceeding towards Parliament and is next to it, will we or wont we shoot it down?
Similarly, in some situations the risk will be too high not to act.
Err.. I didn't say that. I just said that in a real war training scenario Red Flag, the IAF made this choice. Will it do so in a real shooting war. Don't know, but I suspect it will be very situation dependent and SOPs exist for it.- but you have already said that it is OK to shoot down friendlies. I disagree
Last edited by Karan M on 26 Mar 2015 21:35, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Shiv, it does matter who disagrees because as they say "put their money where their mouth is". US's political actions are a different issue. This is straightforward - is BVR a very lethal war influencing tech? Pretty much the whole world agrees with it. Russia, US, France, Germany, UK, China, Sweden, India.. list goes on and on.shiv wrote:Never mind who agrees and disagrees. The data speaks for itself. The US regularly does things that cannot be supported by any evidence. The entire war on Iraq which "proved BVR" was based on a false premise - so this business of being critical of one entity or other is a game that everyone can play.
Data is based on sampling.. current samples are based on wars fought. Those wars are mostly by big powers against weaker ones. Cynically speaking, its a way for the larger power to test its concepts, validate them and roll them out.
See Kargil - we used PGMs which were deployed by US in Vietnam, GW and what not.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
War experience shows that multiple methods can fail. It then becomes a local commander's choice to use or not use a BVRAAM. Obviously that man and the pilot who fires that BVRAAM will be a hero or a person looking to commit suicide depending on where that decision gets himKaran M wrote: but there are methods.
Depends. Recall that an airliner heading towards parliament is an unfriendly, not a friendly. A stricken pilot returning home after a mission is not an unfriendly under any circumstances.Karan M wrote:Depends.When you cannot guarantee that an aircraft is a foe it is my view that you should never shoot down a friendly
Tell me, if an airliner is not guaranteed to be hijacked but is proceeding towards Parliament and is next to it, will we or wont we shoot it down?
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Shiv, in a relatively evenly matched air war, what you do, is basically use battle management to ensure your side is well marked and runs volleys of BVR missiles against its adversary. You only close in, if you must. I also don't get this skies thick with fighters part. Its not like we have 10s of thousands. We will be running some strike packages, and that data will be known to mission plannign which coordinates such stuff.shiv wrote:I agree wholeheartedly with this. But western air forces have never faced an adversary that caused serious attrition in the last 30 years. They have chosen their enemies well. India does not have that luxury. Our war will have both sides relatively evenly matched and BVR does seem attractive in this situation. But if the air is thick with fighters from both sides fratricide is the last thing that should occur simply because a juicy target existed for a BVR missile. Every aircraft and pilot is precious.Karan M wrote:Another factor why AFs are going BVR is because how lethal WVR missiles are today.
Missiles like the Python-5, ASRAAM, IRIS-T, Aim-9X and Mica-IR are next to impossible to dodge within their NEZ (No Escape Zones).
The increasing risk to pilot lives and the high attrition foreseen means long range sniping is preferred. Of course, its not as foolproof since RF seekers are easier to jam (theoretically). In a real shooting war, its anyones guess whether anyone can roll out EW upgrades fast enough to matter.
We are even putting radars on all our Jags now.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
If multiple methods can fail, then everything can fail. WVR missiles can fail. So guns only. Guns can jam....list goes on and on.shiv wrote:War experience shows that multiple methods can fail. It then becomes a local commander's choice to use or not use a BVRAAM. Obviously that man and the pilot who fires that BVRAAM will be a hero or a person looking to commit suicide depending on where that decision gets him
How do we know its an unfriendly? It may be a plane with a navigation system gone astray, bad voice comms etc. So fundamentally an assumption is being made that the risk of it being an unfriendly mitigates its loss. Similarly, a stricken pilot returning home may not be risk (we may send up a flight to check him out and escort him). However, if that stricken pilot appears at high speed heading towards an IFR, or AWACS or high value asset and is too near to do a check, I'd wager SOP would be to protect HVA at all costs.Depends. Recall that an airliner heading towards parliament is an unfriendly, not a friendly. A stricken pilot returning home after a mission is not an unfriendly under any circumstances.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
The only thing that was tested was the fantastic system of identifying hostile aircraft at a distance and shooting them down using BVRAAMs.Karan M wrote: Data is based on sampling.. current samples are based on wars fought. Those wars are mostly by big powers against weaker ones. Cynically speaking, its a way for the larger power to test its concepts, validate them and roll them out.
Unfortunately this success has been seen by people on nonprofessional fora such as BRF as being the absolute future of all air combat. I don't think it is. The US has never faced an equal adversary where it has had to operate in less than near ideal conditions.
India is nowhere near the US in so many ways. Our war cannot be guaranteed to be like an Iraq cake-walk. Of all possible things that could happen in such a war the one isolated scenario I was talking about is fratricide because of inadequate ability to identify friend or foe. Of course "there are methods". None are fool proof. We don't even have AWACS cover for most of our airspace. More than half the air force does not have datalinks - and certainly not our attack aircraft who wil be out there over enemy territory. It's another thing if the Rafale or LCA comes in numbers but that is 10-15 years away at least. Our MiG are not going to acquire such capability - so we must not fool ourselves thinking that we can fight America like wars. We are not there by a long shot.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Well better to shoot it down rather than hit parliament in a decision that you said the IAF took in Red Flag. I think the decision would be wrong, but you are now asking me the same ethical question that I asked you when I asked if a possible Indian fighter would be shot down at BVR simply because it could not be proven to be friendly.Karan M wrote: How do we know its an unfriendly? It may be a plane with a navigation system gone astray, bad voice comms etc. So fundamentally an assumption is being made that the risk of it being an unfriendly mitigates its loss. Similarly, a stricken pilot returning home may not be risk (we may send up a flight to check him out and escort him). However, if that stricken pilot appears at high speed heading towards an IFR, or AWACS or high value asset and is too near to do a check, I'd wager SOP would be to protect HVA at all costs.
An airliner heading towards parliament would be a one-off (depending on what is meant by "heading towards parliament") But fighters whose identity is uncertain can happen with great frequency when two air forces are each conducting hundreds of sorties a day across each others borders. 100 km is BVR but it is also a distance that gives very little decision time either way. I also think that an Indian pilot and Indian fighter crossing the border are high value assets that we must not destroy.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
bottom line is that there is no 100% foolproof solution though technical advances over time reduce chances of bad things from happening.
So, apply caution but be ready for own damage as well.
At some point in the discussion, the arguments start resembling not to get out of the house at all to avoid road accident.
So, apply caution but be ready for own damage as well.
At some point in the discussion, the arguments start resembling not to get out of the house at all to avoid road accident.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
How about the other side of the argument - "Shooting anyone you do not recognize if he tries to walk up to your door in case he's an intruder?Picklu wrote:
At some point in the discussion, the arguments start resembling not to get out of the house at all to avoid road accident.
Analogies can never fill in for reality, although clever ones can be devised for every situation.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Shiv, ID'ing hostile aircraft at a distance is what the current debate is all about isn't it?shiv wrote:The only thing that was tested was the fantastic system of identifying hostile aircraft at a distance and shooting them down using BVRAAMs.
One of the things that has happened is that US may introduce the tech. Others build on it. Current systems in service are ahead of what was there in 1991, GulfWar2 etc.
Not just BRF.. it is the IAF which has analyzed the issues threadbare and is moving full blown to BVR capability.Unfortunately this success has been seen by people on nonprofessional fora such as BRF as being the absolute future of all air combat.
Which is why the AF has SOPs and leverages the tech it does have to max extent possible. 10 years back.I don't think it is. The US has never faced an equal adversary where it has had to operate in less than near ideal conditions.
India is nowhere near the US in so many ways. Our war cannot be guaranteed to be like an Iraq cake-walk. Of all possible things that could happen in such a war the one isolated scenario I was talking about is fratricide because of inadequate ability to identify friend or foe. Of course "there are methods". None are fool proof. We don't even have AWACS cover for most of our airspace.
More than half the air force does not have datalinks - and certainly not our attack aircraft who wil be out there over enemy territory.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237790/posts
Aircraft with long radars act as mission commanders. Aircraft without datalinks are voice commed to change tactics. Strikers and ADs are flown together as 2nd layer of protection.Mica-armed Dassault Mirages 2000s are also stationed there. Brought in for the exercise were Sukhoi Su-30s (but not the newest Su-30 MKIs) carrying simulated AA-11s and AA-12 Adders. There also were five MiG-29 Flankers involved in a peripheral role and an Antonov An-32 Cline as a simulated AWACS.
How BVR matters"They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn't working they would call an audible and change [tactics in flight]," he says. "They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. [Using all their assets,] they built a very good [radar] picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll [their aircraft] in and out."
"You know we're there and we're not hiding," Snowden says. "But we didn't have the beyond-visual-range shot or the numerical advantage. Eventually we were just worn down by the numbers. They were very smart about it. Their goal was to get to a target area, engage the target and then withdraw without prolonging the fight. If there were a couple of Eagles still alive away from the target area, they would keep them pinned in, get done with the target and then egress with all their forces.
See above. 10 years back, the IAF was already running sophisticated tactics and planning to fight America like wars. I suspect the USAF also thought like this "cant do what we do" and Cope India was a surprise.It's another thing if the Rafale or LCA comes in numbers but that is 10-15 years away at least. Our MiG are not going to acquire such capability - so we must not fool ourselves thinking that we can fight America like wars. We are not there by a long shot.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Fighters heading towards HVAs like IFR, AAR in specific situations is unlikely to happen w/great frequency. I agree with you pilots are HVAs. But IAF classifies tankers and AEW as HVAs.shiv wrote:Well better to shoot it down rather than hit parliament in a decision that you said the IAF took in Red Flag. I think the decision would be wrong, but you are now asking me the same ethical question that I asked you when I asked if a possible Indian fighter would be shot down at BVR simply because it could not be proven to be friendly.
An airliner heading towards parliament would be a one-off (depending on what is meant by "heading towards parliament") But fighters whose identity is uncertain can happen with great frequency when two air forces are each conducting hundreds of sorties a day across each others borders. 100 km is BVR but it is also a distance that gives very little decision time either way. I also think that an Indian pilot and Indian fighter crossing the border are high value assets that we must not destroy.
In most other situations, we will basically intercept, attempt ID and then engage - whether BVR, WVR depends on the situation.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Not advocating shooting everyone - just have the gun (and night vision gogglesshiv wrote:How about the other side of the argument - "Shooting anyone you do not recognize if he tries to walk up to your door in case he's an intruder?Picklu wrote:
At some point in the discussion, the arguments start resembling not to get out of the house at all to avoid road accident.
Analogies can never fill in for reality, although clever ones can be devised for every situation.

And if news of riot in the locality, better safe than sorry.
There will still be scenarios where Missus has gone out of house for some errand just the same moment when the news of riot comes in but those scenarios are exception rather than rule.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Below are some of the options. Select your pick:
1. BVR is totally useless
2. BVR is useful only when 1st world AF is fighting a 3rd Word AF, BVR is never useful for a country like India fighting against Pakistan or China
3. BVR is rarely(less than 10% scenarios) useful for a country like India fighting against Pakistan or China
4. BVR has varying usefulness for a country like India fighting against Pakistan or China. It can not be used in some scenarios and can be used in some. With advance of technology, the usefulness is increasing(60% scenarios in 2015).
5. BVR is mostly (greater than 90% scenarios) useful.
I would select option 4
1. BVR is totally useless
2. BVR is useful only when 1st world AF is fighting a 3rd Word AF, BVR is never useful for a country like India fighting against Pakistan or China
3. BVR is rarely(less than 10% scenarios) useful for a country like India fighting against Pakistan or China
4. BVR has varying usefulness for a country like India fighting against Pakistan or China. It can not be used in some scenarios and can be used in some. With advance of technology, the usefulness is increasing(60% scenarios in 2015).
5. BVR is mostly (greater than 90% scenarios) useful.
I would select option 4
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Picklu, ditto.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
No one is more aware of the lack of true combat experience for the systems in question then the air forces that will be operating them. The experience in the Gulf or Balkans is not the real benchmark for performance, despite its 'real world' nature.shiv wrote:Unfortunately this success has been seen by people on nonprofessional fora such as BRF as being the absolute future of all air combat. I don't think it is. The US has never faced an equal adversary where it has had to operate in less than near ideal conditions.
That comes through exercises like the highly realistic Red Flag conducted four times a year. And when it comes to missiles, under the Combat Archer program, the USAF & allies test fire an average of over 300 air to air missiles every year. Against a fleet of target drones that includes the re-purposed fighter aircraft - QF-4, now being replaced by the QF-16. That is a colossal amount of data generated on actual performance of BVR (and WVR) missiles in combat conditions.
So when the NATO and the US stake their future on BVR missiles being a staple for modern and future warfare, that is as informed and well reasoned a decision as can possibly be made. And while India may not have the kind of specialized systems for cooperative engagement under development in the US, it is well on its way to achieving staple NATO standards of C4I and networking.
81st Range Control Squadron
The 81st Range Control Squadron, callsign Wetstone, is ACC's only radar-control squadron tasked to support live-fire operational testing and evaluation of air-to-air weapons systems against a myriad of threat-representative targets. Wetstone provides technical and ground-controlled intercept support to Air Force's air-to-air operational test and evaluation programs to include the Weapon System Evaluation Program and other Department of Defense weapons tests. Wetstone provides range control and flight safety monitoring to deployed and local flying units for over 330 live missile firings and 3,000 combat training and test sorties annually. Wetstone is responsible for the daily operation of the $10 million Range Control System, and directs acquisition, logistics and budgeting for Range Control System modernization and sustainment.
Link
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
^^ Additionally there are red-teams specifically tasked with going out there and simulating highly advanced jamming and ECM techniques and come up with prototype hardware to simulate threats both immediate and far out. I'd have to dig a little bit but Mercury was tasked with putting together components and hardware for specific DRFM jamming and other denial technologies for the Aim-120C7 testing under the AEPIP and EPIP efforts. Other companies are also partnered with the various testing programs in coming up with proper threat estimation and that gets factor into the upgrades. Its pretty serious stuff given that they update critical components even on already built missiles based on these things.
In the end, nothing is certain. You learn from your mistakes and devise tactics, training and doctrine to make sure those aren't repeated. The combat archer program and the extensive testing in general of both the Aim-9 and Aim-120 families is a direct result of having to sit down and take a long hard look at how training is done, how testing is done and how newer technologies and capabilities can be routinely brought into the testing domain in order to more realistically simulate threat. I'm sure every other BVR weapon operator is doing the same as per their own experience, budget and technical capabilities.

In the end, nothing is certain. You learn from your mistakes and devise tactics, training and doctrine to make sure those aren't repeated. The combat archer program and the extensive testing in general of both the Aim-9 and Aim-120 families is a direct result of having to sit down and take a long hard look at how training is done, how testing is done and how newer technologies and capabilities can be routinely brought into the testing domain in order to more realistically simulate threat. I'm sure every other BVR weapon operator is doing the same as per their own experience, budget and technical capabilities.

-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3762
- Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
- Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
- Contact:
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
shiv,
I did read your posts. There were many more reasons for the scenario to be unrealistic. I noted a few. For some reason this argument/outcome is dear to a lot of people beyond my understanding.
My limited understanding is that there will be effective tactics in any craft that goes up that will decide when someone takes a shot and when they dont. A cohesive group returning so close to each other that they can not be separated are likely not to be a BVR engagement scenario anywhere. Hopefully the IAF does not deploy its resources that this comes to pass too often.
I did read your posts. There were many more reasons for the scenario to be unrealistic. I noted a few. For some reason this argument/outcome is dear to a lot of people beyond my understanding.
My limited understanding is that there will be effective tactics in any craft that goes up that will decide when someone takes a shot and when they dont. A cohesive group returning so close to each other that they can not be separated are likely not to be a BVR engagement scenario anywhere. Hopefully the IAF does not deploy its resources that this comes to pass too often.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
That was never the scenario - that is your understanding of what I wrote. However such things are never easy to discuss by typing - speaking is easier. Let us not insult what might exist of each others' intelligence by imagining what absurdity the other guy must be thinkingShreeman wrote:A cohesive group returning so close to each other that they can not be separated are likely not to be a BVR engagement scenario anywhere. Hopefully the IAF does not deploy its resources that this comes to pass too often.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
I deleted the percentage and date. This is probably as close as one can get in making a prediction of what might come to pass.Picklu wrote: 4. BVR has varying usefulness for a country like India fighting against Pakistan or China. It can not be used in some scenarios and can be used in some.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
What is so special about this?
It happens in the army as well in war, someone trying to make it back from a overrun position could easily be shot at.
Comes with the nature of job.
It happens in the army as well in war, someone trying to make it back from a overrun position could easily be shot at.
Comes with the nature of job.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
True.. blue on blue with long range arty shelling the wrong positions and so forth.. i met an arty guy (subedar) once who left the IA because his hearing was going thanks to all the heavy guns (days before IA started putting ear protection etc for crew), and he was getting increasingly concerned that he might not be able to pick up the right orders from radio sets.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
OT but during regular medical checkup, they are assigned medical category if something is wrong which usually lends them some desk job or may be relieved being declared medically unfit.Karan M wrote:True.. blue on blue with long range arty shelling the wrong positions and so forth.. i met an arty guy (subedar) once who left the IA because his hearing was going thanks to all the heavy guns (days before IA started putting ear protection etc for crew), and he was getting increasingly concerned that he might not be able to pick up the right orders from radio sets.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Nothing special. Just a question of whether one should take it stoically and say "It happens in war. It's OK. Part of the job" and move on or try and prevent killing one's own pilots and shooting down one's own aircraft if possible. Even losing wars is normal, let alone a few killed by our own here and there. Rescue teams for downed pilots may be a waste of resources if one can be stoic enough about who gets shot down.Singha wrote:What is so special about this?
It happens in the army as well in war, someone trying to make it back from a overrun position could easily be shot at.
Comes with the nature of job.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Hot debate going on BVR AAMs ..well i thought to add my own
BVR missiles are mostly Semi active radar homing , is there any possibility that the missile itself will not engage friendly radar emissions during the terminal phase ?? this will reduce fratricide in a big way .
coming down to su-30 mki , "We can count the number of blades in the engine of the aircraft in sight (by the NO11M) and by that determine its type," NIIP says. That speaks of the NCTR on JEM ( jet engine modulation ) specifically.

BVR missiles are mostly Semi active radar homing , is there any possibility that the missile itself will not engage friendly radar emissions during the terminal phase ?? this will reduce fratricide in a big way .
coming down to su-30 mki , "We can count the number of blades in the engine of the aircraft in sight (by the NO11M) and by that determine its type," NIIP says. That speaks of the NCTR on JEM ( jet engine modulation ) specifically.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
good to know but perhaps something may not be wrong per IA standards, but the person himself may see a trend.. and may start thinking of what the results may be. the guy was clearly physically very fit - visually at least, commanding posture and carried himself well, but said he had a hearing issue..OT but during regular medical checkup, they are assigned medical category if something is wrong which usually lends them some desk job or may be relieved being declared medically unfit.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
SARH missiles are mostly obsolete and on their way out. we still operate large numbers of them, but i think thats mostly due to lack of options. we also have large stocks of R77s and will have derby and mica for the LCA and Mirage 2000 respectively.Shaun wrote:Hot debate going on BVR AAMs ..well i thought to add my own![]()
BVR missiles are mostly Semi active radar homing , is there any possibility that the missile itself will not engage friendly radar emissions during the terminal phase ?? this will reduce fratricide in a big way .
Our SARH missiles (AA-10 and Super 530) are both tightly linked to their fire control radars, they won't track just any radar or emissions.
Yupcoming down to su-30 mki , "We can count the number of blades in the engine of the aircraft in sight (by the NO11M) and by that determine its type," NIIP says. That speaks of the NCTR on JEM ( jet engine modulation ) specifically.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
^^^
yup my suggestion was , is there any possibility of putting friendly radar signature library in to the missile itself , any R&D going on where the missile itself is "smart" enough not to engage friendlies ??
yup my suggestion was , is there any possibility of putting friendly radar signature library in to the missile itself , any R&D going on where the missile itself is "smart" enough not to engage friendlies ??
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
If you consider a ww3 scenario in 1980s europe, it would be a desperate fight by both sides with a vast front and not enough resources. The smooth polished over provisioned khan psyops we see today would be replaced by just how india and china would fight today.
For starters the vast open airbases khan likes to show off would either be flattened right away with tactical nukes or attacked daily with ballistic and cruise missiles.
Awacs would be hunted and pushed back by mig31s and amos missiles.
War between equally or 60-40 enemies can get ugly real fast.
For starters the vast open airbases khan likes to show off would either be flattened right away with tactical nukes or attacked daily with ballistic and cruise missiles.
Awacs would be hunted and pushed back by mig31s and amos missiles.
War between equally or 60-40 enemies can get ugly real fast.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Shiv sir to bluntly answer your question in event of a IFF module, VHF and UHF radio failure there is no way our AC can be identified as friendly when they are detected say at 200-300 km slant range. At that range there is no way one can distinguish between say a Mig-21 and a Bundar for both have similar RCS . In this case we will have no choice but to send in our interceptors and visually identify the targets , however as I said before on modern platforms like Tejas we have redundancies built for such key modules so probability of all of them going down at the same time is very low.
Hey speaking of which if all the above have failed can an incoming AC use it's Radar for sending in a signal ? Say something on the lines of a Morse code ? Technically it is not too hard or is it ? All you need is to send in a train of pulses of constant magnitude but with two distinct pulse widths .
Hey speaking of which if all the above have failed can an incoming AC use it's Radar for sending in a signal ? Say something on the lines of a Morse code ? Technically it is not too hard or is it ? All you need is to send in a train of pulses of constant magnitude but with two distinct pulse widths .

Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
There was a paranoia in the west (planners and warfighter) about loosing air-bases, protecting them and calculating how much damage was realistic and what were the runway repair (RPR/RRR) times and impact on sortie generation rates under difference scenarios. I am sure that existed in the SU as well. The Brits loved to say that the Harrier would be the only aircraft up in the air if the cold war ever went hot. But then attacking air bases is a 2-way street. You don't sit and take without attacks of your own.For starters the vast open airbases khan likes to show off would either be flattened right away with tactical nukes or attacked daily with ballistic and cruise missiles.
Awacs would be hunted and pushed back by mig31s and amos missiles.
War between equally or 60-40 enemies can get ugly real fast.
Last edited by brar_w on 27 Mar 2015 18:55, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
Sure. But still, that means soothing videos of lines of f16 and f15 doing mass takeoff is not on the program list.
As for the harriers just a pinprick in the grand scope of things. They would be easily targeted by roving interceptors like mig23mf
As for the harriers just a pinprick in the grand scope of things. They would be easily targeted by roving interceptors like mig23mf
Re: Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14
There would have been runway damage on both sides, and both sides would be frantically looking at the fastest RRR-protocol possible. You have advanced early warning, shelters, and rapid runway repair capability. You also have the ability to detect an incoming attack and launch aircraft to protect them. There was always a percentage of grounded fighter or strike aircraft built into the equation on both sides. Not only was it common sense (just as you picked it up on a forum ) but a matter of scientific research into calculating losses or expected losses over X days and then planning your fleets and options accordingly. Take-off and landing requirements were built into programs with sortie generation rates under RRR scenarios in mind. For the ATF for example they had it down to the number of craters repaired per hour and landing distances. While the capability vanished on the ATF post the cold war they were willing to use up significant weight, size and cost on that fighter to have that flexibility i.e 2000 feet instead of 3000 feet runway.Singha wrote:Sure. But still, that means soothing videos of lines of f16 and f15 doing mass takeoff is not on the program list.
As for the harriers just a pinprick in the grand scope of things. They would be easily targeted by roving interceptors like mig23mf