Indian Military Aviation - 21 Sept 2015

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 20:51

manjgu wrote:@karan M.... Today, until and unless the missile itself fails (mechanical reliability issues), missiles like the Python-v, AIM-9X are like sure shot killers. They cannot be jammed. !!!!!!!!!!! this is news to me.

No fighter ready DIRCM.. what it takes to jam a missile like the Python-V, Aim-9X, IRIS-T, ASRAAM etc which have IIR seekers.
Flares won't work as these missiles don't work on the basis of heat seeking alone but image analysis.
The F-35 is supposed to get a DIRCM, and supposedly so is the PAK-FA, but they are a ways off.

Right now, long story short, irrespective of whether you are in a F-22 or a MiG-29 - try and avoid the close in fight. It has become very very lethal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4_jzqBJnA

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 20:53

Where the Su-30 scores btw is its combination of incredible nose pointing thanks to TVC and HMS + R73E. If R73Es are flare resistant, that makes them lethal in the close in fight.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 13 May 2016 21:05

Karan, excellent posts!

Funny thing is, pilots did their best to avoid close turning fights even in World War II. The preferred method was always the surprise, slashing attack, and the aircraft that attacked first invariably won the fight.

If you compare the Bf-109 with the Spitfire, you see that the Spitfire was designed with superior aerodynamics in mind: low wing loading, better streamlining, better turning performance, etc. But the Bf-109, designed as a simpler designed from the outset, was better when it came to climb rate and engine power at lower altitudes. So the Bf-109E and F often dictated the terms of a dogfight: it could engage and disengage at will. It is only after the introduction of the Mk-IX with its superb Merlin 61 engine that the tables turned in favour of the Spit.

And yet, Shri Das wants to do back to pre World War-II ideas and design a fighter optimised for low-to-medium altitude turning fights with cannon and what not.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 21:14

Manjgu, in fact even DIRCMs will have to be purpose made for IIR seekers:
http://spie.org/newsroom/5614-ir-imagin ... er-jamming

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 13 May 2016 21:32

Karan, could you comment on this bit?

https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon- ... inal-word/

In terms of weaponry, the Rafale is severely limited at long ranges in the air-to-air arena by having to rely entirely on the MICA which is not credible beyond 20km due to being essentially a short range missile adapted for short-mid range work. Until the Meteor enters frontline service with Rafale operators, the aircraft lacks long range air-to-air punch, certainly compared to the proven and effective AIM-120C AMRAAM load out on Typhoon. Even the ASRAAM used as the short range IR missile by the RAF has greater kinetic energy and manoeuvrability performance at ranges beyond 20km than the MICA. The MICA is a fast and manoeuvrable missile at short ranges with lock-on after launch capabilities. However, it is neither as manoeuvrable as the IRIS-T used by German, Italian and Spanish Typhoon operators, nor as fast and lethal at medium ranges as the ASRAAM. Finally on missiles, whilst the Meteor will give the Rafale much needed long range firepower, the Rafale will only be able to utilise a one-way datalink with the missile when it has been fired, not the two way datalink which Typhoon and Gripen are equipped with – which allows for much more accurate and reliable guidance during very long range engagements whilst the missile is in semi-active mode.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 13 May 2016 21:39

I think we should have tried to copy Mirage 2000 but tried to leapfrog with LCA. The lesson therefore is to evolve LCA and Suz-30MKI and not to go for totally new super costly products.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 21:46

Right now, long story short, irrespective of whether you are in a F-22 or a MiG-29 - try and avoid the close in fight. It has become very very lethal.

Close includes ground too. You know for those cheap, low tech, ground attack planes with great AR and LE.

Anyways. Where is my 6th gen plane. When I want it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2016 21:47

Gyan wrote:I think we should have tried to copy Mirage 2000 but tried to leapfrog with LCA. The lesson therefore is to evolve LCA and Suz-30MKI and not to go for totally new super costly products.

Too late. Madam MCA is on her way. Better to find her a good modern name.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 22:03

Mihir,

Justin Bronk's articles are a good read (IMHO) but he tends to be pretty pro EF and sometimes overstates his case (eg sensor fusion on the two platforms is stated by him to be marginally different, but the Swiss eval painted a very different picture - albeit with an in development EF).

Coming to his Mica assertion, IMO stating its a 20km ranged missile, without context is incorrect.
The Taiwanese AF:
http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/mirage.html

On May 8, 1998, a two-seat Di fired one MICA missile and successfully hit a target drone 67 km away. It was the first launch of the said missile outside France. The second MICA live-firing exercise took place off the east coast of Taiwan on March 29, 2000, in which 2051 fired a single MICA missile from its left inner pylon.

The correlation between maximal ranges and low altitude targets may be found here, eg Astra:
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/scienc ... 037476.ece

The missile could be launched from different altitudes - it can cover 110 km when launched from an altitude of 15 km, 44 km when fired from an altitude of eight km and 21 km when the altitude is sea level.

The Astra in that sense, is a bit better than the RVV-AE.

So, the range of the Mica, depends on what target it is against and at what altitude and the speed of the launching platform, plus whether the target is maneuvering.

IMHO, its a 60km class missile, a bit better than Derby & in the class as the AIM-120 A/B range wise, but with better electronics & the unique attribute is the IR version which can make it very dangerous.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 May 2016 22:30

Long range BVR work requires a mix of a lot of things but suffice to say that against a credible threat it requires the ability to put altitude, speed and maximize your kinematic performance of the interceptor. That along with the characteristics of your missile ie. Data-links (hence two way DL’s have come into the picture as missile engagement envelopes have become larger), accuracy (GPS is now in as well in addition to other guidance features) is what gets you those long range intercepts against credible maneuvering targets.

At the moment the Typhoon-AMRAAM/METEOR combination, and the F-22/Aim-120C/D combination is whats going to get you there at the very ends of the engagement envelopes. With other fighters you would require a cooperative target or massive EW in order to position yourself for those sort of range kills. Against a LO/VLO target what you are looking at is a cooperative, multi-sensor/weapon linked environment as opposed to pure kinematic long-range. You won’t be able to find, fix, and put a track on a VLO fighter at those very long ranges unless someone, somewhere has screwed up. At the end of the day its just not he missile but a combination of the missile and the carrier aircraft, and support.

Different platforms, different operational scenarios, different qualities come to the forefront. Going forward we’ll probably see diversification in missile types depending upon the roles i.e. traditional fighters with very long ranged BVR weapons (Aim-120D, Meteor, NG AMRAAM etc) and VLO type figthers with a mixed load of higher capacity Medium ranged weapons with a few long range sniping weapons since they can penetrate the sensor net and gain massive amounts of intel while their non LO/VLO counterparts really can’t without being targeted themselves.

Multi-Mode RF seeker is already rumored to exist on the Aim-120D (JANE’S Missiles), and Chinese weapons and regardless, at least in the US, the NG missile and seeker have been tested extensively (dual-mode). Japan is trying to launch something as far as upgrading or replacing the meteor seeker is concerned but there is less clarity on what it will turn out to be t at the moment. Kinematically there are advantages and disadvantages of pursuing different sollutions with the need for longer range naturally trailing other things that need to fall in place if long range interceptions are to be a legitimate form of targeting for any operational scenario.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 May 2016 22:43

Excellent post Karan Saar.
You have summed it up perfect.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2016 22:46

Real long range missiles apart, I think what's required is to make the mid range robust. High dual pulse motors, or ability to take very high load limits and of course multi-sensor seekers. The reliance on RF alone for most BVR missiles is baffling, insofar countries like the US and those in Europe are concerned who have the capability to field such multispectral unit. Which is why I suspect its been done and not publicized. India, PRC are still getting to grips with compact packaging of sensors & Israel makes what its customers need (and its local one, the IDFAF, with the F-35 & robust local EW will continue to lead in A2A and hence doesn't feel the need to overengineer its AAMs). Though the Stunner derivative may well be path breaking.

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 13 May 2016 23:02

brar_w wrote: I believe they signed late last year and will be the first export customer for both the Su-35 and the S400 air-defense system.

Crafting an export variant for foreign sales wouldn't be outside of the realm of possibilities in that program going forward. China, given one of Russia's larges defense markets will likely be one potential customer if they choose to further diversify their fleet or have growing developmental challenges in fielding competent J-20's.

This is strategic geopolitics and there is no denying that India has in the recent past acquired technology from Russia that no one would have even thought about selling. That carries some weight.

The Russians have been dealing with the Chinese for a while now. Nothing new with that.However they do realize that selling China top of the line stuff isnt in Russian interests. The Su35 order is/was barely worth a squadron.

Selling PAKFA to the Chinese or even an export version ensures that for a piecemeal order for the Russians, the Chinese will comes up with some J-xx copy.

Thats NOT the case with India.

That the Russians have collaborated with India on strategic programs including the ATV and the Akula lease indicate that we do have a mature relationship with them.

Speculation like - Russia has warned India that it will stop weapons sales, strategic co operation to show its displeasure with Indias western/American arms purchases is just frivolous.

NRao wrote: Do not know if that is possible, although until a few months ago used to propose the same. India needs fuel, funds, etc to grow and Russia - as any other nation - can slow that growth by denying India certain commodities. at crucial juncture. Would be interesting to see what happens with France and the Rafale.

Why would Russia want to screw with Indias economy ? Just cause we bought or plan to buy a few hundred fighter jets from US ?

We have had a good strategic relationship with Russians all these years. Even back then we did have a diversified arms portfolio.

For Shri BK to say this

But why did the Modi govt do a turnaround on the FGFA that IAF wanted to junk? This because, as stated in earlier posts, Modi government was warned about the outcomes of “buying West”. It weighed the danger of Russia simply terminating all engagement with this country in the military sphere coupled with a proportional link-up with Pakistan, and deeper weapons co-development with China that would place India in a deep hole. It would have instantly seeded dangers on numerous fronts. Firstly, the hardware void cannot be easily filled by Western sources because the bulk military armaments are ex-Russian. Secondly, the termination of technical assistance in advanced and sensitive projects would quite literally put all prestige Indian projects into a freeze, which cannot be thawed out by Western countries as few of them will willingly sell other than “cutting edge minus-minus”-quality weapons and weapons platforms, and none of them is prepared to cooperate in actual technology transfer of the substantive kind, leave alone co-design and co-develop sophisticated armaments for love or money.

is preposterous. I would like to call it a dhoti shiver of the highest order.

Russia will stop everything with India and go proportional with bakis. Lets see how the Russians extract a billion dollars for an Akula lease form the bakis.

I wouldn't mind such commentary from our media folks. Coming from Shri BK, its very disappointing.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 May 2016 23:04

Each one of those capabilities has been demonstrated in the past, demonstrated recently, or is planned to be demonstrated very soon. As far as RF seekers you have to take everything along and come up with a workable seeker. The USN sanctioned 2 different AESA based EW payloads for its and the USAF’s targets in an effort to simulate what its industry (Mercury and other suppliers) could deliver as far as cutting edge DFRM technology. As a result of that they introduced a host of changes (hardware and software) with that have now slowly also found their way into the D. With a dual-data link, and an ever increasing access to computing through miniaturization, it opens up a lot of possibilities when it comes to multi-sensor, multi-aircraft, multi-weapon cooperative targeting and I think that is ultimately what will be pursued to combat the very high end threat that packs in ECM, and EW capability.

From AvWeek, may 2015 -

ST. LOUIS—Boeing conducted four flight tests under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (Darpa) Triple Target Terminator (T3) program, Boeing Phantom Works President Darryl Davis said here May 18.
The test vehicles, about the size of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam), flew “faster and farther” than an Amraam, Davis said, but he did not provide any other details.
Darpa issued T3 contracts to Boeing and Raytheon in 2010, with the aim of demonstrating technology for a single weapon type that could function as an anti-radar missile, an air-to-air Amraam replacement and a cruise-missile defense weapon. The program has now been concluded

^^ The faster and longer ranges have been achieved previously by the various ramjet and possibly dual pulse AMRAAM offshoots (ERAAM irc), this was all about seeker technology and demonstrating performance against a diverse and challenging target set. The Aim-120E will have interesting choices and a very large menu of technologies to choose from irrespective of the fact that they make it multi-use or just keep it Air to Air. The other areas such as performance, warhead advances, and guidance advances have all been demonstrated over the last 10-15 years both using baseline AMRAAM and on all new programs (Boeing has done a lot of work, as has Lockheed and surprisingly Northrop Grumman).

In the end it boils down to cost v capability and how much you want to pack Into the missile vs adjusting the shot doctrine and magazine depth. A dual mode RF seeker was rumored on the Delta AMRAAM for a long time and even mainstream media has reported that over the years. Regardless, 2 separate dual mode seekers were developed for a new weapon (same class as the AMRAAM) by Boeing and Raytheon and Lockheed has brought some very interesting RF seeker solutions over the years to the AFA shows based on their work on the PAC-3 seeker that was designed with heavy ECM in mind. For Air-Ground/SEAD they already pack GPS guidance into the existing D variant.

Other notable efforts have been made in increasing the HOBS capability of the AMRAAM and this has been front and center in the C7 to D transition. For the future whether they pursue a dual pulse or a Solid IRR is entirely up to the requirements and platforms, with both having been prototyped and demonstrated by Boeing and Raytheon over the years (Raytheon has gone through 3 ramjet generations/designs starting with liquid, and two generations of solid IRR’s). I’d have to check but they have even looked at multi pulsed options in the past.

The Meteor nations have been less adventurous when it comes to seeker upgrades and they need to commit a lot more resources to drive production volumes up, and costs down on the meteor (something the AMRAAM never really had a problem with – given the pre IOC Aim-120D inventory was 1000+) but Japan could inject some much needed money when it comes to improved seeker technology. Russian choices for its PAKFA and Su-35 would also be interesting but even their volumes have been quite low internally.

Range and performance of the MICA RF/IR is fine for the two platforms that carry it. Meteor will be the primary long range weapon though it will obviously be quite expensive.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 May 2016 00:07

nirav wrote: I would like to call it a dhoti shiver of the highest order.

Russians might be just bluffing, for all we know. But the important point is, until we become self sufficient in technology we will be dhoti-shivering here and there. Anyway.

@NRao
YJust to clarify my point more: Yes the point is cheating Physics and Maths. But better understanding of Physics and better tools makes you a proficient cheater. For example the same wing which couldn't be made thicker than 12% few decades ago, now can reach as much as 20% thickness to chord ratio, increasing lift, wing stiffness, internal volume etc significantly without increasing drag one bit. Thanks to CFD. We don't have to make highly swept rectangular wings (MiG17) or razor-sharp leading edges (F104). Compare the efforts NASA needed to come up with first supercritical airfoil without numerical tools, to what someone today would need for the same invention. Huge huge change. We don't need to carry old baggage now. The 3D aerodynamics design tools make lot of difference in jet engine design. GTRE today do not have that know-how. They can build it but it will take time. GE for example, already have it so theiraero-designs are superior. Just the rapid prototyping tools used in design iterations can make a sea change in design quality, simply because your design envelop can be larger and your design solution can be much more optimum, in the same amount of time and efforts. Tools are the force multipliers of an Engineer.

BTW didn't get the reference of the SAfrican guy.

@Karan
Totally agree what you say. That's why I said, reverse engineering cannot be your Plan A. It has to be only used to fill the gaps. One needs to start from clean sheet to be a good designer ultimately. Neither do I endorse PD's cocktail plane. I will be more positive to the idea of taking a proven design with good potential and remove its short-coming s using advances in technology and make it contemporary. Like reviving HF-24 twin engine concept for example. Aircraft design needs to consider all the aspects. One cannot simply take a 2nd Gen airframe and put 4th gen engine and 4th gen avionics in it without comprehensive redesign efforts sinking in in it.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 May 2016 02:30

^^^

I think one fundamental flaw in PD's argument is that he thinks designers have not thought about the things he has proposed. Typically, designers when coming up with new designs call upon their vast experience and research. [There would be some degree of bias though based on past knowledge/experience ... just like we see with PD's ideal light fighter.] So a good designer (or team of designers to be more precise) would have considered past designs and weighted in on various trade-offs. They would put several ideas to computer and scale models and test them out ... now with modern tools 3D CAD, CFD, wind tunnel and 3-D printing that makes it a lot easier and quicker to prototype. Even then, still a time consuming exercise when it's not just aerodynamics but also how subsystems fit-in internally. That's why a design effort for a new plane like AMCA takes around 7-years to get the optimal balance of ideas and trade-offs to meet the specification. For the most part, ideas are built upon and don't just appear out of thin air. Design patterns are applied over and over again. There is bit of history all over the design if one would only look closely

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 May 2016 03:10

nileshjr wrote:
@NRao
YJust to clarify my point more: Yes the point is cheating Physics and Maths. But better understanding of Physics and better tools makes you a proficient cheater. For example the same wing which couldn't be made thicker than 12% few decades ago, now can reach as much as 20% thickness to chord ratio, increasing lift, wing stiffness, internal volume etc significantly without increasing drag one bit. Thanks to CFD. We don't have to make highly swept rectangular wings (MiG17) or razor-sharp leading edges (F104). Compare the efforts NASA needed to come up with first supercritical airfoil without numerical tools, to what someone today would need for the same invention. Huge huge change. We don't need to carry old baggage now. The 3D aerodynamics design tools make lot of difference in jet engine design. GTRE today do not have that know-how. They can build it but it will take time. GE for example, already have it so theiraero-designs are superior. Just the rapid prototyping tools used in design iterations can make a sea change in design quality, simply because your design envelop can be larger and your design solution can be much more optimum, in the same amount of time and efforts. Tools are the force multipliers of an Engineer.

Computational sciences, material sciences and miniaturization, I would say.

I read somewhere that, for every change that is requested for the F-35, they actually "recompute" - just to make sure that nothing else goes out of wack. Which is why I find it funny that we are talking AR and LE. All that stuff has been entered into a rules engine. Ages ago I may add.

And, just BTW, the USAF/Marines have not allowed a A-10 to fly in Syria. They have not prohibited it from flying there, but they have not found a situation that could be addressed on a consistent basis. Of course, they have alternatives that do the same job. But that is a different story. No fun sitting way up there and blasting away. Need that eyeball to eyeball experience to get a fix I guess.

BTW didn't get the reference of the SAfrican guy.

Oh. Mr. Musk. The guy who mumbles and says something while he talks, but walks it? Even after failures? You know the guy whose company landed the first stage on a floating barge in the middle of the ocean? Twice? Who knew nothing about rockets, I may add.

Anyhow.

I think one fundamental flaw in PD's argument is that he thinks designers have not thought about the things he has proposed. Typically, designers when coming up with new designs call upon their vast experience and research. [There would be some degree of bias though based on past knowledge/experience ... just like we see with PD's ideal light fighter.] So a good designer (or team of designers to be more precise) would have considered past designs and weighted in on various trade-offs. They would put several ideas to computer and scale models and test them out ... now with modern tools 3D CAD, CFD, wind tunnel and 3-D printing that makes it a lot easier and quicker to prototype. Even then, still a time consuming exercise when it's not just aerodynamics but also how subsystems fit-in internally. That's why a design effort for a new plane like AMCA takes around 7-years to get the optimal balance of ideas and trade-offs to meet the specification. For the most part, ideas are built upon and don't just appear out of thin air. Design patterns are applied over and over again. There is bit of history all over the design if one would only look closely

Fairly confident that all that is in a machine by now.

I, for sure, can take the 100,000 data points and run it through a ML gizmo and come up with good/serious points to ponder. But, itt would all depend on the 100,000 data points. IF they are clean, etc then I will get some good results, else it will be gibberish.

Bhailog, IF a car can drive itself, there is enough intelligence to build a very good Gnat 2.0 without human intervention. The basics of aerodynamic, mat sci, fluid mech, etc, etc, etc - AR/LE/etc - all have been captured. They are already doing automated testing (even in IT depts it is coming out - doing it at a leading fin company). MLs - check out coursera.com - goal is to get rid of human computer language coders. And, it will happen in the next 5-10 years.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 14 May 2016 06:26

Karan M....there is nothing like sure shot killer missile , even the manufacturers dont claim that. Kill will depend on many variable wrt to opposing planes distance, speed, altitude, direction , electronic suite etc .... sure shot is when all variables are in the missiles favour.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 May 2016 06:30

Sure shot obviously means an extremely high probability of kill when launched within he envelope parameters of the weapon. Nothing is 100%, not even very large SAM's but what you are dealing with is probability and with modern WVR weapons you will find it extremely hard to escape the NEZ if you choose to enter and play in that space. The question then comes to tactics, do you look to enter the merge or get close in or stay at distance and take pot shots. It all comes down to tactics.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 May 2016 06:34

manjgu wrote:Karan M....there is nothing like sure shot killer missile , even the manufacturers dont claim that. Kill will depend on many variable wrt to opposing planes distance, speed, altitude, direction , electronic suite etc .... sure shot is when all variables are in the missiles favour.

What is your opinion about such missiles over the past 10 years? Have they become better? Worth their while or funds or costs? Reasons?

To added to brar, if you are the target, what is "sure" to you? It better be 100% or close.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2016 06:47

manjgu wrote:Karan M....there is nothing like sure shot killer missile , even the manufacturers dont claim that. Kill will depend on many variable wrt to opposing planes distance, speed, altitude, direction , electronic suite etc .... sure shot is when all variables are in the missiles favour.

Manjgu, please look into the context before arguing.

I have even given you a reference about how hard IIR seekers are to dodge & jam. There are no "electronic suites" able to dodge or jam IIR CCMs in service today on fighter aircraft. You can jam RF equipped BVR missiles. Not IIR equipped CCMs.

"Opposing planes distance, altitude etc".

It should be obvious that a trained and skilled pilot would employ a weapon within its optimal parameters.
Are you familiar with the term NEZ? Its basically the missile envelope within which it attains its optimal Pk. Also known as the "No escape zone".
The NEZ takes into account, all the above and is unique to each missile. However, within that NEZ, a manned aircraft is in trouble, period.

In short, if a missile has a 99%+ Pk within its NEZ - "No escape zone", then you are welcome to sit and argue all day about what that 1% constitutes. In reality though, here are the facts. As of today, there are no escape/countermeasure methods against IIR seeker equipped missiles within their NEZ. The unfortunate reality.

If you know of any, share it.

The only high risk method is to "blow through" the engagement. Use your kinematics to take your shot and run. Constant changes in direction & heading against clutter to avoid getting shot.

Guess why - I put that AIM-9X clip? To show you that way back, Aim-9x was taking out fighters doing that exact tactic, while they were deploying flares.

In which case, what Brar_w said below is absolutely cent per cent correct. If you wish to avoid CCM launches and then trade shots at a distance, reducing your own Pk, but saving your own aircraft as well, fine.

But in the close in fight, the era of high Pk, "sure shot" kills has arrived & its not pleasant. Which is why every AF wants to go BVR, if their opponent has advanced CIW. The larger the distance between the missile and you, the more time (and space) you have, to avoid.

brar_w wrote:1.Sure shot obviously means an extremely high probability of kill when launched within he envelope parameters of the weapon.2. Nothing is 100%, not even very large SAM's but what you are dealing with is probability and with modern WVR weapons you will find it extremely hard to escape the NEZ if you choose to enter and play in that space. - finally, The question then comes to tactics, do you look to enter the merge or get close in or stay at distance and take pot shots. It all comes down to tactics.

Here is the Python-V promo. Again, see tactics & what it was tested against. The Python-V w/HMS is on LCA. TVC or no TVC, even the Su-30 will have a tough time against a small aircraft with such a weapons fit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWG2PkwKiaQ

As long as mechanical issues don't exist (and all missiles will have an issue there which AF factor in terms of wastage) - the envelope of modern CCMs has expanded to a huge degree.

Aim-9x, IRIS-T, Python-V, ASRAAM are all in service.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2016 07:07

As a matter of fact, there was a USAF pilot quote from Cope India, where they went up against MiG-29s. To paraphrase, he said "they were taking a shot, we were taking a shot, we were losing a plane, they were losing a plane. This is not what we train/intend for, this was really bad". etc.

Basically showing why its important to "stack the deck" against the opponent before taking to the air. Otherwise, high attrition is a given which is not a positive (to put it mildly). Which is why post Cope India.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-ia ... cle01.html

“I believe what this demonstrates is that the capacity exists out there for any nation with the appropriate resources and the will to acquire technology and to train their aircrews to be very, very capable,” said Col. Russ Handy, commander of the 3rd Operations Group. “In the long term this could occur in nations outside of the Indian Air Force.”

and

One reason the Indian pilots proved so formidable is that their training regimen does not include a concept of “red air.” Instead, “they fly pretty much blue-on-blue . . . [a] full-up airplane with no restrictions against somebody else’s airplane with no restrictions, and that leads to more proficiency with your aircraft,” Neubeck said.

In addition to reinforcing the need for the F/A-22, therefore, Cope India demonstrated that the service might be able to immediately improve its air combat capability by changing the way Air Force pilots train.

“The Air Force is re-examining, from what I can understand, our concept of red air and how we might be able to provide red air to our fighter forces so that we get [the best] training we can afford,” Snodgrass said.

Neubeck said the service probably needs to “take off the handcuffs that we put on our red air training aids and allow them to be more aggressive and make the red air tougher than we have in the past.”

Although India is a friendly nation, the lesson of Cope India is that almost any nation could surpass the United States’ air combat capability if the Pentagon does not continue to invest in better training and technology, the Elmendorf officials said. At last count, for example, there were over 5,000 MIG-21s active in air forces around the world, Snodgrass said. Even American fighters, such as Boeing’s F-15, are being sold in upgraded versions to countries around the world.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-ia ... cle01.html

Now India has a window period wherein TSPAF does not have advanced CCM AAMs - but its a matter of time. PRC for sure will be sinking a lot of funds into that.

IMHO, defensive aids research in India has been lagging & its high time DARE et al were given impetus.

We need both SPJs in plenty for BVR & also work today onwards for DIRCMs or counter IIR Missile measures.

Note that even relying on Israel for dual color MAWS for fighters was not optimal. Their hardware was bulkier than expected and we had to do a lot of effort to fit them on our Su-30 MKIs without compromising their aerodynamics.

Now think of how hard it would be to accurately target a missile with a laser turret, in effect its not a dazzler given power required but a DEW.

A mix of measures is required, including anti IIR seeker coatings, DIRCM and automated cues to flight control above & beyond what a pilot may be able to do in the heat of combat.

But we are nowhere there yet.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2016 07:30

As of 2015.
https://www.cso.nato.int/ACTIVITY_META.asp?ACT=6481
The SCI-192 activity led to the general conclusion that there is a real technological rupture between the current proliferating non imaging missiles and the arising imaging missiles in terms of IRCCM capabilities (capabilities to resist to IR countermeasures). To face this technological rupture, far more sophisticated IRCM techniques need to be anticipated.

Why DIRCM, automated cues into FC, and special flares "may" work

CONCLUSION
The goal of this study was to determine if spatially distributed flares could be use
d in the protection of fast jets against surface-based imaging IR-guided threats. The results demonstrated that at medium and long
range, the distributed flare had no effect on the imaging tracker. However, the results suggest that if the target
aircraft can maneuver into a tail-chase engagement geometry, there exists a flare effectiveness region (cone
shape) of approximately 30° wide in azimuth, 40° in elevation and 600 m long where the successive
deployment of distributed flares could cause a break-lock from the tracking system.
Several system parameters such as threat field of view and maneuverability; target aircraft size and velocity;
distributed flare size and burn duration could all impact on the effectiveness region. Future work will include
varying these system parameters in order to maximize the effectiveness of the distributed flares.
Spatially distributed flares used in conjunction with a DIRCM could be used as part of layered defense system
to provide additional protection from imaging based threats specifically in the late stage of an engagement

Right now, no fighter DIRCMS in service.
Future?
http://aviationweek.com/defense/northro ... ammer-f-35

PAK-FA KS-O supposedly one.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 May 2016 07:39

One of Northrop engineers actually had an IEEE or AIAA presentation that I had earlier comes cross that talked about where this was headed. This wasn't your scaled up DIRCM from other applications but something rugged, high power and designed around the unique mission computing, and EODAS systems that are largely developed by them. It is a part of the larger effort to create the infrastructure (sensors, computing and fusion) to eventually cue directed energy systems further down the road. The DIRCM bit is actually not the hardest bit as they are well ahead and its just a matter of packaging quite mature technology. The challenge is in integration and fusing everything to work seamlessly. It'll happen but that bit isn't easy. Until then you better stick on a path of the longer stick. For now, they are largely satisfied with the Aim-120D HOBS capability to defer the block III sidewinder but the program can't really sit for long after the block II+ is fielded to begin working on the next iteration. For PAKFA, the curve is longer for they need to field a 360 degree EODAS like system first, put into service with fusion software and then layer a DIRCM solution on top of that. You are looking at a longer time frame there.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 May 2016 12:53

@NRao...Ahh Mr Musk. I wasnt thinking on that one. Well he is gonna teach us a thing or two in coming days on supersonic, electric, VTOL Aircraft that he has picked up from some Stanford project I think. Amazing what a visionary leader can accomplish without even having much of a technical background in something.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 May 2016 14:06

What is the available data about BVR engagements in the period 2005-2015

How many BVR missiles fired?
From what distance?
How many hit?
How many missed?
At what distance was the target detected?
How many were launched with AWACS assistance?
How many were launched with only the launching aircraft's detection and targeting system?
How many targets were manoeuvring or required combat manoeuvring on the part of the launch aircraft?

I have not been able to find data for the last 10 years. Ultimately it is combat data that matters.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 14 May 2016 14:37

Karan N...there is a great difference between sure shot and high probability ( from even a english point of view) !! I dont deny the advent of BVR engagements/missiles with sophisticated electronics with a high kill probability etc .. but the way u r arguing, even I can say if I am on 6 o clock of a enemy plane and its within X yards ahead of me, then with guns also its a sure shot kill. I understand within a certain envelope the BVR missiles have a very high kill probability just as the guns have high kill probability within a certain envelope.

when the gun were predominant, the planes came closer to fight as both sides understood the limitation of guns in terms of range , accuracy etc...with the advent of BVR missiles planes will try to fight knowing the range, accuracy limitations etc of missiles. in my view nothing much has changed...previously the air combat was at closer distance..now combat will be at larger distances. Tactics, pilot training, electronic protection suites etc will still be as important as they were in past ( minus the electronics suites). it will be instructive to research how many so called BVR missiles have been fired and how many kills scored as suggested by shiv.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 May 2016 15:01

manjgu wrote: it will be instructive to research how many so called BVR missiles have been fired and how many kills scored as suggested by shiv.

The reason I ask those questions is that all the data up to 2005 or so is available and analysed and I have posted the relevant articles.

BVR combat is not new. It started very poorly in Vietnam and has steadily improved but air combat itself has become less frequent - for whatever reason - so data is hard to come by and analyses are used either way by lobbies that push for various vested interests.

In two of the best papers that I found (both of which I posted) there is agreement about the data.

The data is that

that there has been very little air combat in the 2005-2015 period.
There is enough data to assess BVR efficacy from 1990 to 2005 and compare it with the 1970-1990 period
Combat has shifted towards greater use of missiles, esp BVR since 1990
But the claimed BVR successes have often come at non BVR ranges and with the target having been detected and identified by AWACS rather that the launching aircraft
IFF is still an issue that causes concern as well as kill confirmation

Some of the lessons that have been drawn so far is that BVR still needs AWACS - especially when smaller aircraft use BVR missile because even when they have the radar range, they lack the discrimination equipment to identify the target positively in an area thick with friendly fighters (I am not making this up and neither is Prodyut Das saying it). This is in two articles I have posted above

This data has led to two different arguments being made in the two articles.

The pro-BVR article says that the future lies with large stealthy aircraft with the power to detect and identify at long range and carry a lot of BVR missiles

The more cynical "anti BVR" article agrees that BVR is better with big heavy fighters but they are less stealthy and more costly to operate

Disclaimer: Both articles are of US origin

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 May 2016 15:11

shiv wrote: The reason I ask those questions is that all the data up to 2005 or so is available and analysed and I have posted the relevant articles.

BVR combat is not new. It started very poorly in Vietnam and has steadily improved but air combat itself has become less frequent - for whatever reason - so data is hard to come by and analyses are used either way by lobbies that push for various vested interests.

In two of the best papers that I found (both of which I posted) there is agreement about the data.

The data is that

that there has been very little air combat in the 2005-2015 period.

There is enough data to assess BVR efficacy from 1990 to 2005 and compare it with the 1970-1990 period

Combat has shifted towards greater use of missiles, esp BVR since 1990

But the claimed BVR successes have often come at non BVR ranges and with the target having been detected and identified by AWACS rather that the launching aircraft

IFF is still an issue that causes concern as well as kill confirmation
Some of the lessons that have been drawn so far is that BVR still needs AWACS - especially when smaller aircraft use BVR missile because even when they have the radar range, they lack the discrimination equipment to identify the target positively in an area thick with friendly fighters (I am not making this up and neither is Prodyut Das saying it). This is in two articles I have posted above

This data has led to two different arguments being made in the two articles.

The pro-BVR article says that the future lies with large stealthy aircraft with the power to detect and identify at long range and carry a lot of BVR missiles

The more cynical "anti BVR" article agrees that BVR is better with big heavy fighters but they are less stealthy and more costly to operate

Disclaimer: Both articles are of US origin

Shiv, that's is the best summation so far of BVR engagements.

Jst to add one point to it , BVR has taken place between asymmetrical enemies who neither had those capabilities in most cases or had developed counter bvr tactics once they knew they were under attack at long ranges for the simple reason their ESM/EW for most part could not detect such attack or the direction of the attack hence no suitable counter measure was applied to disengage or ecm bvr missile because they were devoid of such equipment which could do the job

Iirc in Kosovo conflict about 8 bvr missile were fired against single mig-29 target hence beyond the asymmetric capability in such war over whelming force was also applied.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 May 2016 15:20

Thanks Austin. Yes I left out the point you made (forgot). For the reasons you state many of the BVR kills were on non manoeuvring targets.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 May 2016 15:37

The reason I ask those questions is that all the data up to 2005 or so is available and analysed and I have posted the relevant articles.

BVR combat is not new. It started very poorly in Vietnam and has steadily improved but air combat itself has become less frequent - for whatever reason - so data is hard to come by and analyses are used either way by lobbies that push for various vested interests.

In two of the best papers that I found (both of which I posted) there is agreement about the data.

The data is that
that there has been very little air combat in the 2005-2015 period.
There is enough data to assess BVR efficacy from 1990 to 2005 and compare it with the 1970-1990 period
Combat has shifted towards greater use of missiles, esp BVR since 1990
But the claimed BVR successes have often come at non BVR ranges and with the target having been detected and identified by AWACS rather that the launching aircraft
IFF is still an issue that causes concern as well as kill confirmation

As I have opined before, there are some limitations when you take the historic approach. Just because an academic literature review may only have scant references, it doesn't mean that for those that have the ability to actually go through the entire gamut of analysis (PHEOC like approach) won't exercise that opportunity and base their decisions, investments, and actions on results observed. Those decisions would obviously be many times more informed than those that purely rely on historic investigation and analysis that itself does not account for 100% of data availability (what was the shot doctrine, what was the entire data availability, tactics employed etc etc) but tries to fill the gaps with assumptions (those go from some legit and reasonable assumptions to completely the opposite end of the pool). A historic academic research into this would show that no BVR combat has taken place with ECM availability, the operator community will point to their entire test program built around a heavy electronic counter-measure environment that is constantly getting improved, dense and upgraded. They'll point to payloads, specifically designed for this role that ranges from 200 lb all the way up to the four digits. They'll obviously base their decisions on what they observe as part of their T&E activity as opposed to looking at an analysis based on open source historic data (something that they themselves have access to that the researchers do not - FULL DATA). I am afraid the POGO, PD, Sprey, Picard and other open source analysis based on historic data are of little importance to those who's job it is to analyze seeker capability and counter-measures, that have resource availability (platform) ranging from a small drone (cruise missile simulation) to larger drones with a few hundred lb. of payloads, all the way up to a QF4 and now the QF16 that can carry significantly heavier payloads. It also doesn't hurt to have dedicated ECM and ECCM programs run concurrently with an extensive industry pull to get prototype countermeasures fielded so that informed decisions can be made with new system requirements and to guide their evolution. BVR started out (much like PGM"s) with a lot of risk and a lot of unknowns, much like supersonic flight for instance.

They have learnt the lessons from Vietnam, Gulf War and Kosovo and invested significantly to make sure those bases are covered and robust prototyping, and testing (look at the scope of Combat Archer, it isn't the ONLY program of its kind..with other less talked about programs also running concurrently)..BVR has gone through the maturity in terms of technology and tactics that other air-power concepts have gone through. We are on the verge of next generation IFF, next generation AEW, and two generation of fighter design iterations. As technology matures, so does the understanding of it, with limitations driving future iterative improvements. The Gulf War ushered in the largest display of collective 2nd offset strategy (YES Asymmetric since its a word that is adored) technologies developed largely in the 70's and 80s. It was an overwhelming show of force and net-centric warfare that the rest of the world in some sense is only now fielding. Yet, from a technology, tactics, and capability stand-point they have leapfrogged a couple of iterative cycles when you compare systems deployed then, to those available now.

In the end it boils down to what you do as part of your program to evaluate your existing weapons, evaluate modern technology enabled countermeasures and then even give operators access to this ability. Its biggest advantage is that it allows you very high degree of realistic experimentation and T&E as you define future requirements for investments.

The last round of payload that went AESA, and incorporated modern DRFM capability for both the QF-4 and QF16 applications was done in support of EPIP (AMRAAM C7 and eventually D) testing and validation in 2013. Both the QF4 and QF16 can fly with this AESA based payload as and when required. Smaller payloads have also been deployed on the other target drones. QF4 and QF16 collectively simulate modern payloads and 3 and 4th generation performance. As shown earlier, 5th generation target simulators are already in the works (AFRL is designing the 5GAT in house) with Low Observability (RF and IR signature reduction) and naturally would incorporate even more advanced payloads. It isn't unreasonable to expect those that have 'decision authority' to actually base their decisions on the collective analysis of these FACTS, as opposed to reading an open-source review of literature based on incomplete historic data stretching back to Vietnam. You would need to be quite dumb to execute the largest and most well funded T&E, and prototyping program in the world when it comes to BVR missiles and not use the results to inform acquisition and technology-investment decisions while completely basing them on an analysis that involves open-source data.

Things like IFF have improved since the gulf-war. A focus on what those improvements have been with the newer modes, would be an interesting topic to look into if one had time. Additionally, we have come a long way form a MSCAN antenna paired with a 70's and 80's designed Radar mounted on a smallish nose (F-16C) to cutting edge 2nd generation and 3rd Generation T/R modules (GaAs) and high end processing. The UAE Block 60's received the AESA even before the F-22's went operational and shared the T/R module technology with them. They had a multi-fold improvement in capability and had sensor fusion to actually make the Radar and the Falcon Edge system work together to a degree to nail down emitting threats. The current F-16V AESA (Modified SABR with F-35 T/R Modules and F-35 based mission computers) will be a generation leap over the AN/APG-80. Of course AWACS would help, but one must be careful if one is making the case for small fighters having to rely on AWACS to get BVR capability because this isn't the Gulf War, and/or Kosovo and the current technology laden small fighters available (that were available even a decade ago) have dramatically improved their capability when it comes to sensor coverage, and Active/Passive EA/EW. To still subscribe to that narrative (that was based on historic look at the GW data) one would have to completely disregard advances made in the last 24 or so years of semiconductor industry advances that the Radar community mass produced.

What is the available data about BVR engagements in the period 2005-2015

How many BVR missiles fired?
From what distance?
How many hit?
How many missed?
At what distance was the target detected?
How many were launched with AWACS assistance?
How many were launched with only the launching aircraft's detection and targeting system?
How many targets were manoeuvring or required combat manoeuvring on the part of the launch aircraft?

No combat doesn't mean those who's job it is to develop systems, countermeasures, pit them against each other go to sleep and don't do anything. They are constantly at work and refining and developing newer techniques to solve the challenges associated with the status-quo. Thats their job.

^ This is just one large program (Its A2G counterpart is the Combat Hammer ) primarily focused at making sure the training element is well executed. There are more niche programs focused at some very specific things such as advanced payloads, countermeasures and counter-counter measures in both the RF and IR domain. Those are more relevant to the future requirements and capability development. Again, can't blame the operator community for going by what data is available to them, data that they'd be quite stupid to fully share to the general public.

Which leads to a point made by that needs to be highlighted because it nails down the argument against such systems, arguments that are based on data that is open source, incomplete, and historic and does not cover the entire gamut of scientific method and analysis that the 'decision makers' use to chart a path and execute.

srai wrote:
I think one fundamental flaw in PD's argument is that he thinks designers have not thought about the things he has proposed.

^ This applies to arm-chair analysis as well. And we should all know that analysis based on poor, incomplete, and irrelevant (historic) data is largely going to struggle when it comes to accurately predicting the future especially when pitted against an analysis that utilizes more comprehensive data. Nothing is perfect, and nor is BVR combat but I'd rather make a decision based on much better data.

You'll have to wait till perhaps 2040 or so to get a historical analysis (based on open source data) of what these capabilities demonstrated in real conflict. However the operator community doesn't have this luxury. Had they relied on historical data the Veitnamn to GW transition wouldnt have involved focusing very heavily on Net-Centric Warfare, BVR combat, and Precision Guided Munitions. They did that because they understood some of the status-quo limitations, and developed a robust capability and T&E to make sure improvements are fielded over time.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2016 16:00

Manjgu wrote:Karan N...there is a great difference between sure shot and high probability ( from even a english point of view) !!

For all practical purposes a high Pk of the order of 99%+ is a sure shot. We can engage in semantics -"english point of view"..etc but its moot.

I dont deny the advent of BVR engagements/missiles with sophisticated electronics with a high kill probability etc

These are not BVR missiles. These are Close Combat missiles with high G overload (far more than any pilot can make), and IIR seekers, which have no countermeasures at present. Read the links again. You are not getting what is being debated.

.. but the way u r arguing, even I can say if I am on 6 o clock of a enemy plane and its within X yards ahead of me, then with guns also its a sure shot kill. I understand within a certain envelope the BVR missiles have a very high kill probability just as the guns have high kill probability within a certain envelope.

A guns kill is dependent on pilot skill and airframe performance. Not the case here, since its missile capability which is dominant.

And again, these are NOT BVR missiles though some like ASRAAM approach that at the edge of their envelope.

hen the gun were predominant, the planes came closer to fight as both sides understood the limitation of guns in terms of range , accuracy etc...with the advent of BVR missiles planes will try to fight knowing the range, accuracy limitations etc of missiles. in my view nothing much has changed...previously the air combat was at closer distance..now combat will be at larger distances. Tactics, pilot training, electronic protection suites etc will still be as important as they were in past ( minus the electronics suites). it will be instructive to research how many so called BVR missiles have been fired and how many kills scored as suggested by shiv.

Again, you are off an a tangent. We are NOT speaking of BVR missiles here, and [n]nor was my original post[/b].

But CCM with IIR seekers which as of today, are literally impossible to guard against within their NEZ, especially when cued by HOBS capable helmet sights.

Once you are in WVR, in a maneuvering fight, you cannot predict where the shot will come from until and unless you have trained against that particular threat & even so, there are no guarantees.

Especially if you have not trained against each and every fighter with differing HMS and missile combos, since the helmet sight can cue a missile anywhere from within the pilot field of view (as versus the Sura/R73E HOBs combo) & the missile is able to overload any G's you can theoretically pull, and your flares are unreliable.

BVR missile seekers with RF seekers have limitations since countermeasures have been found & deployed. IIR seeker equipped close combat missiles are yet to be countered.

BVR missiles, for the most part (except the Mica) are dependent on RF seekers. RF seekers do have countermeasures (especially DRFM equipped self protection jammers) hence their Pk is suspect since the cat & mouse.

Even there, their employment is becoming more and more advanced & sudden, reducing the ability of the pilots to react or deploy countermeasures.

Can you predict this by seeing where the aircraft nose is pointing or the pilot is looking?

http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noti ... fference-/

During our assessments, we performed BVR and WVR engagements with the Mirage 2000 C RDI (analyzed in more detail in Part 3 of this test), where we had the opportunity to confirm the combination of the sensibility of SPECTRA EW with the all-aspect launching and target acquisition of MICA IR. This allowed us to designate the target from any source (EM / IR / Laser Threat Detection - Electromagnetic Threat Detection / Infrared / Laser), when the security bubble around the Rafale was invad-ed, and to execute the missile launch “over the shoulder.” Over the shoulder means that a MICA can be fired at a target located at position six o’clock (behind the aircraft) without changing flight direction.

From 2007
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=598598

A French Air Force Dassault Rafale F2 has conducted an operational test firing of MBDA's Mica air-to-air missile, demonstrating an ability to engage airborne targets in a mode that may be unprecedented.

The missile was fired in an 'over-the-shoulder' manoeuvre to hit a target at beyond visual range, using targeting information datalinked to the launch aircraft by a second Rafale.

This combination of a thrust-vectored, active-radar missile, fired successfully at a rear hemisphere target by a datalinked 'blind' aircraft, is almost certainly the first such test to merge so many specific elements.

This Mica test was the 11th in a 12-shot series of Evaluation Technico-OpÃ©rationnelle/Operational Technical Test (ETO) firings conducted by the French Air Force as part of its tactics development work for the Rafale F2. The 12th and final test took place on 29 June, but no further details of the trials have been released. ETO 11 was the most complex of the ETO firings up to that point and the first time that the Mica/Rafale combination had been tested to such extremes.

The test involved two Rafale F2s operated by the Centre d'Experiences Aeriennes Militaires (CEAM): the French Air Force test centre. A C 22 target drone was positioned at a distance behind a Mica-armed Rafale (Rafale 1), acting as a surrogate threat aircraft. Rafale 1 had no radar contact with the drone. A second Rafale (Raffle 2) was manoeuvring in co-ordination with Rafale 1 which was at its two o'clock, maintaining situational awareness with a combination of its RBE2 radar and Link 16 datalink.

Operating some tens of kilometres from Rafale 1, Rafale 2 detected and tracked the C 22 with its radar and datalinked the target's position to Rafale 1. Rafale 1 then used that data to align the inertial navigation system on one of its active-radar Mica EM missiles and launched the weapon. Neither Rafale 1 nor its missile had a lock on the C 22 target before launch. The Mica used its thrust-vectored motor to perform a 180 degree over-the-shoulder turn and fly out directly behind Rafale 1. The Mica then entered the defined target area 'box' and began searching for the C 22 with its own seeker. The drone, carrying simulated missiles, was engaged and destroyed at a range "considerably greater than any short-range missile such as the [Rafael] Python 4 or [Vympel] R-73 that could have threatened Rafale 1", according to MBDA.

The Mica EM and Mica IR variants are already qualified on the Mirage 2000-5 and Rafale. This latest ETO test programme was to prove expanded engagement modes for the Rafale F2, with both Mica types, in French Air Force service. That work is now complete. The Rafale F2 has been declared fully operational at EC 1/7 'Provence' based at Saint-Dizier, where the aircraft maintain a quick reaction alert. Weapons development work is now shifting to the next F3 standard for Rafale capability.

Note, Python-4. The Israelis then developed Python-5 with full sphere engagement capabilities.

As regards BVR kills etc, most of the data is with AMRAAM A/B & AIM-7 & AA-10, most of which is irrelevant to the Meteors & AN/APG-63v2/Captor-M/RBE-2/N0-11Ms of today.

So what is the solution?

You'll have to start putting in automated protocols in aircraft flight control systems for missile evasion with sensors to detect and counter. But no such items currently exist for IIR seekers.
Automated sensors to detect & cue these measures - MAWS on every fighter.
Specific manouevers, deployment of countermeasures & constantly refine them.

And train against opponents with those capabilities.

Even then, if you are in a Python-V, ASRAAM, Aim-9X NEZ, the chances of "escape" at present - are very limited.

Why?

Helmet mounted sights now make shots across the pilot field of view possible.
Advanced datalinks (most of whose actual deployment is classified - see above to get what was possible 9 years back) allow for initial cues beyond frontal view
Missiles with very high G overload and end game maneuver capabilities capable of full 360 degree engagement profiles
IIR seekers - which have no proven countermeasures at present.
Combination of above adds upto a large NEZ, which is literally NEZ.

At least with BVR, the combination of range (ie time) & RF seekers gives you the ability to disengage or jam. Here, you are in the knife box, stay and die. Or fire & leave, which is what more and more pilots will practice for as these systems proliferate.

So far only the F-35 (and perhaps the T-50) have shown any significant attempt to counter these systems.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 14 May 2016 16:15

Karan M....

a) from where did u get the figure of 99% ? i am curious. Even the guns are 99% accurate if the bogey is within a certain envelope!!

b) " A guns kill is dependent on pilot skill and airframe performance. Not the case here, since its missile capability which is dominant."... i think you are off totally on a tangent IMHO. Please do talk to someone who flies rather than reading missile brochures. role of pilot skill , airframe, on board radars, electronics is as important. Of all the factors even today pilot skill will be most dominant.

c) the whole idea of modern day air combat ( of the little i know) is to stay out of opposing a/c weapons envelope ( wether its BVR or short range non BVR ) and shoot ur load with a high kill probability and hope for the best. Brochures sure sound very impressive, but real life is not so clean.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2016 16:28

manjgu wrote:Karan M....

a) from where did u get the figure of 99% ? i am curious. Even the guns are 99% accurate if the bogey is within a certain envelope!!

Read the technical literature, do an informed assessment of what is possible with current technology and what has been achieved with similar systems. Your guns analogy is meaningless without context.

b) " A guns kill is dependent on pilot skill and airframe performance. Not the case here, since its missile capability which is dominant."... i think you are off totally on a tangent IMHO. Please do talk to someone who flies rather than reading missile brochures. role of pilot skill , airframe, on board radars, electronics is as important. Of all the factors even today pilot skill will be most dominant.

Manjgu, I have spoken to enough pilots. I suspect at this point you don't even understand the topic and are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are not even reading what is written and are making statements which have been addressed already.

Do something - go speak to a pilot about what they have in place to counter IIR equipped missiles with HMS & how pleasant/blase that capability is, and then come back and inform us.

Karan M wrote:Helmet mounted sights now make shots across the pilot field of view possible.
Advanced datalinks (most of whose actual deployment is classified - see above to get what was possible 9 years back) allow for initial cues beyond frontal view
Missiles with very high G overload and end game maneuver capabilities capable of full 360 degree engagement profiles
IIR seekers - which have no proven countermeasures at present.
Combination of above adds upto a large NEZ, which is literally NEZ.

Karan M wrote:The test involved two Rafale F2s operated by the Centre d'Experiences Aeriennes Militaires (CEAM): the French Air Force test centre. A C 22 target drone was positioned at a distance behind a Mica-armed Rafale (Rafale 1), acting as a surrogate threat aircraft. Rafale 1 had no radar contact with the drone. A second Rafale (Raffle 2) was manoeuvring in co-ordination with Rafale 1 which was at its two o'clock, maintaining situational awareness with a combination of its RBE2 radar and Link 16 datalink.

What in the above suggests that onboard radars and electronics, pilot skill (in terms of understanding and deploying systems) and airframe performance is not important. However, the fact is in a knife fight, the missile capability has overtaken the manned platform capability, when deployed by platforms designed to use the same with corresponding systems.

Look it up. Don't make generic statements like you are doing. Look at aircraft profiles, Gs pulled, speed, manueverability/ capability.

Are you even aware of how much effort the USAF had to go to, to develop countermeasures and training methods against R73E & Sura? Do you think the world has stayed at the same place till then?

c) the whole idea of modern day air combat ( of the little i know) is to stay out of opposing a/c weapons envelope ( wether its BVR or short range non BVR ) and shoot ur load with a high kill probability and hope for the best. Brochures sure sound very impressive, but real life is not so clean.

Good luck in trying to stay of out of opposing a/c weapons envelope in a knife fight if they have similar or more advanced systems.

"Brochures", "real life"... and similar stuff are meaningless attempts to deflect the facts as you don't have the points to counter any of the points above.

When the facts are that these systems have been deployed, tested extensively & are being constantly finessed & are being acquired by the IAF for the very reason they are so potent.

They have an edge today because they have them. The opponent doesn't. But that's not a guarantee the opponent won't either.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2016 16:54

BTW, for those interested in actually mapping the threat profile as versus handwaves at "brochures" and "real life".

The PAF received the JHMCS for their F-16s. The larger flight envelope, agility of the F-16s with JHMCS + Aim9M makes them a serious danger to even IAF aircraft armed with the HMS/true HOBs combos. However, they are the only PAF aircraft with this capability.

http://www.boeing.com/history/products/ ... ystem.page

The Boeing Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) combines a magnetic head tracker with a display projected onto a pilot's visor, giving the pilot a targeting device that can be used to aim sensors and weapons wherever the pilot is looking. It does so by synchronizing aircraft sensors with the user's head movements so they automatically point where the pilot looks and displaying flight information on the inside of the helmet visor so data is always in view.

To aim and fire a missile, pilots point their heads at the targets and press a switch on the flight controls to direct and fire a weapon. To attack a ground target, pilots can acquire the target with a sensor and note its location on the helmet display. Alternatively, pilots can use the helmet display to cue sensors and weapons to a visually detected ground target.

In a dual-seat aircraft, each crewmember can wear a JHMCS helmet and perform independent operations with continuous awareness of where the other crewmember is looking.

The high off-boresight seeker (HOBS) system consists of the JHMCS and the AIM-9X high off-boresight air-to-air missile. The AIM-9X is an advanced short-range dogfight weapon that can intercept airborne targets located at high off-boresight lines of sight relative to the shooter. The combination of JHMCS and AIM-9X results in a weapon that can attack and destroy an airborne enemy seen by the pilot. This weapon can be employed without maneuvering the aircraft, minimizing the time spent in the threat environment.

The PAF has not received the AIM-9X because as it stands, it is still at the pinnacle of proven (as versus testing) of US weapons deployment.
The PAFs linkages with PRC are well known.

PAF got the AIM-9L Lima and AIM-9M, which will behind the AIM-9X but still has:
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sidewinder-94.html

The AIM-9M is an improved AIM-9L, with a low smoke motor, better guidance and counter-countermeasures capability. The AIM-9M is the principal dogfight missile used by frontline Western air forces, and also equips the FAF's F/A-18 force. The AIM-9M was responsible for all of the 10 Sidewinder kills scored during the Gulf conflict, with most kills scored by the longer ranging Sparrow due the Iraqis' reluctance to engage in dogfights.

The Lima was followed in production in 1982 by the AIM-9M, which is essentially an improved AIM-9L. The Mike has improved background rejection, counter-countermeasures capability and a low smoke motor to reduce the visual signature of the inbound weapon. The latest subtypes due for deployment are the AIM-9M-8 (Navy) and AIM-9M-9 (USAF). The AIM-9M is the RAAF's standard dogfight AAM, carried by the F/A-18 and F-111.

http://www.deagel.com/news/Pakistan-Sig ... 01321.aspx

The country of Pakistan has signed a Letter of Offer and Acceptance for the procurement of 500 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) - generating the largest single international AMRAAM purchase -- and 200 AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles.

PRC has Flanker airframes (superb nose pointing ability & high TWRs) with Sura HMS & R73E. Also indigenous programs based off of the Python-3 which was license produced by the PRC.

India has an edge as the Su-30, TVC + Sura/R73E combo is faster & provides a much larger envelope than a non TVC airframe. LCA will have Dash HMS+Python5/R73E. Mirage will have Topsight with Mica-IR. Both are delta airframes with high ITR. Finally, MiG-29 (great ITR & T/W) with Sura-K and R73E.

So, while the opponent is hardly a slouch, we do have an edge (for now).

However, South Africa (which has a long history of working with Pakistan) is developing the A-Darter.

http://www.deneldynamics.co.za/products ... s/a-darter

A-Darter is a leading wingtip fifth-generation Imaging Infrared (IIR) SRAAM air-to-air missile system. It has a lock-on after launch and memory tracking with the latest processing capabilities. The A-Darter may be designated to a target by using the aircraft's radar, a helmet sight or the missile's very effective autonomous scan feature if radar silence is required. The seeker's large look-angles and the airframe's agility enable high off-bore sight helmet designated firings. Long-range intercepts beyond IR detection range are also possible with the lock-on after launch capability of the A-Darter.

Program is still in development, but judging by Denel's record, it would be reasonable to assume it will enter service.

So, the IAF's focus on MAWS should continue & in fact move beyond that, to investment in new gen flares + DIRCM systems and automated protection suites.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 May 2016 17:14

In fact, India has a unique opportunity to scupper both the PAFs plans and gain vital experience in the short range missile segment.
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/articl ... 2016-04-15

Mectron engineer Wagner do Amaral Silva confirmed to the website that the programme had suffered budget cuts and that the future of the project was unclear. “It would be excellent if we knew the future of the various projects we have with the [Brazilian] air force, in which more than $300-million of Brazilian taxpayers’ money has been invested.” (Mectron is Brazil’s missile manufacturer, producing all of the country’s missiles, namely the MAA-1 and MAA-1B Piranha IR-homing AAMs, the MAR-1 anti-radar missile and the MSS-1.2 anti-armour missile.)

Fortunately, development of the missile has been concluded and last year South African defence acquisition, disposals and research and development agency Armscor placed a production contract for the missile with the lead company on the project, Denel Dynamics, part of South Africa’s State-owned Denel defence industrial group. This contract was for missiles for the South African Air Force (SAAF) and covers five years.

IAF should ask for detailed briefings on the program & DRDO/Pvt sector should look at whether it can be used to develop a variant for an Indian specific CCM.

Alternatives are the SRSAM program & even MRSAM is stated to have a close in range of ~500mtrs-1km. But denying PAF this tech (which will find its way to PRC) is a strategic issue too.

Mectron's MAR-1 ARM was acquired by PAF for JF-17.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 May 2016 17:30

@ NRao, So True. BVR or air-combat in general will be a very tightly held capability as far as sharing data. This is true for IFF advances (Mode 5 and beyond as an example), BVR Missile NEZ's, analysis of performance against countermeasures, and even shot doctrine. Same applies to Electronic Counter measures, and counter counter measures. If we go back in time we can look at some of the past work. The NSA, CIA and the USAF collaborated on some massively successful programs. Google/search for Project Musketeer, Project Combat Scent and palladium some of which even exist to this day. Outside of the Intelligence community, you have a very highly developed, worldwide lead in semi-conductors and treat radar advances as part of your strategic edge against near peer states. So you develop systems based on cutting edge work and then evaluate your weaponry against those. Those are the 'data' sets guiding the decision authorities in making investment towards a particular track. The rest of the world does it in a similar way because that is how this methodology works. They may not have access to similar levels of technology, or scale but the operator community around the world is obviously collecting vast amounts of data and figuring out which capabilities to invest in and prioritize. No one is going to 'show you the data' because the really relevant stuff will be closely held for very obvious reasons.

This isn't going on the internet, or buying into a database and doing an academic analysis based on literature referencing historical open source materials. There is a method to how they field, and operationalize capability, and even how they put prototype capability through its paces both from a threat pov (DRFM payloads) and from future capability stand-point (Look at the NEW boeing BVR Missile tested in 2014-2015 - These were the same guys testing them..). While it isn't perfect (although the most extensive of its kind in the world) it is constantly being improved, refined and enhanced in scope and availability of technology and is still leaps and bounds ahead of anything anyone can put together through a purely academic analysis based on open source, mostly incomplete data. Those challenging counter arguments are valid and have a place even though they may not be relevant given the sort of data they are being based upon but they are unlikely to deter the operator community from making investments into what they have, through their own MANY TIMES more informed analysis determined as the right direction to take. Same applies to the rather foolish VLO vs UHF/VHF radar claims that have been made by some in the academic and media communities while the operator community continuous to focus on the investment tracks its own R&D, and analysis has shown to work. These arguments have a place in so much as they drive discussion and dialogue at the more sensitive levels. Sometimes you even open up a bit to shut these arguments down..however, some folks (like Sprey) seem to think they have a monopoly on wisdom, and their largely open source lit review yields in better conclusions than those that have access to significantly better quality data and the ability to verify hypothesis through experimentation.

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/produ ... 99-101.pdf

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 May 2016 17:48

Shiv wrote: I have not been able to find data for the last 10 years. Ultimately it is combat data that matters.

Says who?

"Combat data" could be biased. One pilot is far better trained than the other - skill. The air craft they fly perhaps. Weather? ......................

Which is why the "sortie" data really does not cut it. It MAY provide a direction in which to head, but it certainly will not provide definitive data to make such decisions - on a serious level (not talking of blogs - pub a real paper, with refs).

shiv wrote:What is the available data about BVR engagements in the period 2005-2015

IF it is there, great. One can add to the stream for analysis. But, if it is not there it really does not make a diff. There are techniques in use for 50-60 years to overcome deficiencies in "data". Any stats dept - worth its salt - will provide classes. Services have Operational Research depts that do exactly this type of work. Vendors to have such facilities and test for *every* part AND person conduction the tests (to weed out any human biases). Being done today. There is much more to say, but will stop there.

Point being absence of data is no reason to stop your decision process.

The key to all this is clean, good data. Sortie data for BVR Missiles? Hmmmmmm. Does not cut it.

How many were launched with AWACS assistance?

Assistance is the key in modern (today's) warfare. They just call it by another name - networks. It is a positive, not a negative. It is OK if a plane hits a target using data from another source - in this case an AWACS. In fact, it is great to use more than one source. Just do it - get the enemy off the board without loss at your end.

How many BVR missiles fired?
From what distance?
How many hit?
How many missed?
At what distance was the target detected?

How many were launched with only the launching aircraft's detection and targeting system?
How many targets were manoeuvring or required combat manoeuvring on the part of the launch aircraft?

Fluff for the discussion of the Gnat 2.0.

Use any means to get the opponent off the board and you are back home having a nice drink.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 May 2016 17:55

Here is a post that was made earlier

Mihir wrote: "When confronted with data I don't like, I shall ignore the data."

..just sayin'

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 May 2016 18:07

NRao wrote: Assistance is the key in modern (today's) warfare. They just call it by another name - networks. It is a positive, not a negative. It is OK if a plane hits a target using data from another source - in this case an AWACS. In fact, it is great to use more than one source. Just do it - get the enemy off the board without loss at your end.

More than one source of radiation for the adversary to detect passively?