VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

srai · Post by **srai** » 10 Dec 2017 15:54

^^^
When R-77 first came out it was supposedly an equivalent to AMRAAM. But almost 3 decade later it hasn't kept up. Says a lot of Russian products.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Dec 2017 16:07

srai wrote:^^^
When R-77 first came out it was supposedly an equivalent to AMRAAM. But almost 3 decade later it hasn't kept up. Says a lot of Russian products.

They have AMRAAM C-7 Class BVR missile RVV-SD and we have seen Su-35 carrying them in Syria

http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/
an
We will see both RVV-SD and RVV-BD integrated with MKI post the upgrade they would new connectors and adapters to carry them.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Dec 2017 18:27

Austin, look for Pit's posts on AA-10. Basically, even with the larger motor the AA-10 ER had some guidance limitations causing a reduced range. I am going by memory but i suspect 60-80km is about right . For AMRAAM, I supect IAF used data on AMRAAM C-7provided to it for MMRCA to make an estimate on C-5 performance. RMax by itself is not the be- all and end-ll of BVR performance, ECCM and seeker range, reliability are also huge considerations. I think Astra plus modern EW kit on our fighters is the first priority followed by renewed focus on Astra Mk2.

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:So:

Confirms, present Su-30s are limited to SARH AA-10 and Meteor BVR RMax is 150km and Indian estimate of AMRAAM RMax in PAF is 100km.
IAF operates both the medium and long range version of R-27 with range of 60 and 130 km and operate plus French BVR on Mirages

BRF own data on R-27 http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Galle ... /AAMs/R27/

If Pakistan has AMRAAM C5 for its entire F-16 fleet and operational with range of ~ 100 km then we will need a BVR missile beyond that range not just for Rafale which is still 3 years away from its first induction even if it comes with Meteor but also for Mirages , Mi-29 and Su-30 plus Tejas

An F-16 operational today with 100 Km BVR missile is a potential threat for any IAF aircraft confronting the F-16

Wiki tells me PAF today has 45 F-16 A/C and 31 F-16D , that makes it ~ 75 F-16 are all getting AMRAAM C5 class ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Dec 2017 18:33

srai wrote:^^^
When R-77 first came out it was supposedly an equivalent to AMRAAM. But almost 3 decade later it hasn't kept up. Says a lot of Russian products.

Russia is yet to catch up with compact military products for avionics and specialized gear. The extra weight and dimensions have their own penalty. Eg the SAP EW pids causing a reduced flight envelope. The PAKFA will show what improvements have occurred. Then there are the issues with skimping on certification and tests and rushing half baked products into service. Caveat emptor.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 10 Dec 2017 18:36

Plus for all fights so far (mostly NATO against riff raf airforces), BVR missiles have not been fired before visual confirmation. There are use cases to execute BVR at long ranges, if the fight is neat, no mixing of plane, and you know that incoming planes are enemies (and not yours returning from a raid or performing CAP). You may end up shooting your own plane (in spite of IFF; PAF managed just that on AFG border when the leader was shot by his wingman, in a 'neat' war). Still it is a very useful and deadly capability when used rightly (and morale booster, see how PAF behaved during Kargil and then during Uri). If nothing we should get a 100km AA missile, integrate in both western and Russian plane (easy said than done, we may not get source code from either the plane or missile), but we should somehow manage that - perhaps Astra is that effort.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 10 Dec 2017 19:07

Kakkaji wrote:Parrikar says Rafale deal gives India edge over Pakistan, slams Antony for delay

"Now the CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) guideline says you can't negotiate with anyone other than the lowest (bidder). The files were going in circles and circles," he said.

Parrikar said for two and a half years the file was "doing rounds in circle, we broke the circle by deciding that we will have to go for different approach".

Referring to the Congress's allegation about the "high price" of Rafale jets, he said "a fighter aircraft is not only an aircraft, the aircraft is probably a smaller part of the total cost. The real cost comes in purchasing special equipment."

The former defence minister said that in 1999, the Indian Air Force succeeded in pushing out its Pakistani counterpart out of the Kargil conflict zone, because India had Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles with a range of 30 km on SU30 and MiG 29 aircrafts.

"Pakistan had only about 20 km range ... due to which they remained away," he said.

However, between 1999 and 2014, Pakistan acquired a capacity of 100 km range whereas India had upgraded its BVR up to 60 km on SU30, he said.

".

I think we should take Parrikar's statements with a pinch of salt, he is making a political statement to relatively uninformed audiences. The C-5 and r-77 will be well matched. In fact since certain advantages of the SU-30 which will almost always have a higher launch speed higher IAF inventory of BVR missiles means they can launch missiles at extreme range to make the bogey dodge missiles and get bogey with further missile launches. An F-16 will have start doing tactical avoidance measures even if an R-27 is launched at 130Km range. Amraam launched at 100km will still need mid course guidance, the fighter if it needs a successful hit will need to get close to bogeys while dodging the other man's missiles.

These comments are to crowd who are comparing Indian Rafale price with announcement earlier this month of 2nd Batch of only fly away aircraft for Euro 1.1 Billion. I burst some balloons when I point the 2015 deal for Euro 6.5 Billion for 24 aircraft who went into sulk mode after some celebrations for 2 days on whatsapp.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2017 05:39

Fanne, Aastra seems to be the Jack of all in the BVR scenario for all our principal aircraft from SU-30s down to the LCA.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 11 Dec 2017 08:07

That is the ideas - isn't it. Where R-77 fails (from its advertised capability), Astra steps in to give us the edge again against TSPAF. Though Astra is by no means ready for induction.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 11 Dec 2017 08:18

Aditya_V wrote: announcement earlier this month of 2nd Batch of only fly away aircraft for Euro 1.1 Billion.

Could you post the links where it's clarified that the follow up purchase by Qatar was for jets in a fly away condition only.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 11 Dec 2017 10:15

Gurus there are allegations that Qatar paid only 110 million dollars per piece for the same Rafale India will be buying for 220 million. I am sure there are differences in there deal. Would be grateful if the main points can be summarised as this allegation needs to be countered asap. Sorry for asking answers in a capsule form.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Dec 2017 10:17

Will search for Links, but Qatar is a small country with 1 airbase, the 2015 Deal was for Euro 6.5 Billion for 24 aircraft and this is for additional Euro 1.1 Billion. All links state this deal is part of that deal.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... a-51636977

Macron is traveling with Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who in 2015 as defense minister helped negotiate a deal with Qatar to buy 24 Rafale fighter jets. As part of a deal negotiated two years ago, Qatar exercised its right to purchase 12 aircraft.

Another matter the Uber cheap 24 Eurofighters have been purchased by Qatar for $ 8 billion. This is in addition to 12 F-15's purchased earlier. Looks like Qataris have to keep all Western Fighter manufacturers happy as protection money from being attacked from wither side of the Persian Gulf.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 11 Dec 2017 11:15

I agree about the follow up purchase being a part of the options agreed earlier. It's just that the details of the package are not immediately clear to me. Euro 6.5 Billion for 24 aircraft, what was included in the deal and if the follow up orders are for exactly the same package or just the jets in fly away condition.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Dec 2017 12:02

This is not spelt out in Bold lettering , but what is a fact -

1) Some NDA MP had stated in a press club in 2016 meeting that Fly away cost of the Rafale 3R was Euro 91 million for single seat and Euro 94 million for twin seat. Qatar version is very similair and includes even the Israeli HMCS.

2) Qatar ordered Euro 6.5 Billion deal in May 2015 for weapons, infra, training and 18 Single seat and 6 dual seat Rafales.

3) the Latest deal of Euro 1.1 Billion is for 12 Single seat Rafales.

This with disclosures int he French parliament and various press reports stating that this 12 aircraft is part of options under 2015 agreement, it is highly likely this is the fly away cost of 12 single seat Rafales.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Dec 2017 12:11

That's approx. $100M+ each. I wonder who has the lucrative AMC contract for the Qatar aviary?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 11 Dec 2017 12:16

Well but indicates the true cost of MMRCA contenders

1. Rafale at USD 9 Billion for 36 aircraft
2. Eurofighter at USD 8 Billion 24 aircraft
3. F-15 at USD 12 Billion for 36 aircraft.

Seems Rafale is indeed L1, the MMRCA deal I guess was all about fly away cost, infrastructure weapons, training , Life cycle costs. It was at least 35 Billion dollar deal for 126 aircraft. No wonder nobody could sign it as conceived, there would not be a capital Budget for anything else.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Dec 2017 17:37

Those are contracts that involve the aircraft, user defined support, weapons, and logistical deals, host country commitments etc. Overall all three of the aircraft listed would be in the general $90 - $120 Million Fly-Away cost range given the technology, production rates and cost structures. Qatar is a rather special case since they went from operating a handful of legacy 4th gen M2Ks to ordering 3 disparate types and growing their combat air force exponentially. That has unique costs that wouldn't exist for a more established air-force.

the Latest deal of Euro 1.1 Billion is for 12 Single seat Rafales.. it is highly likely this is the fly away cost of 12 single seat Rafales.

True. This is the likely expected fly-away cost for an export bound Rafale (around $107 Million / Unit) with minimal host nation modifications. On top of this one can add any host-nation funded, or OEM funded modification where the G2G negotiations do not apply (not sure how this works in France or Britain and Germany, but in the US FMS case these systems are acquired outside the FMS process using a Direct Commercial Sale under most cases unless the host nation requests USDOD to monitor or even lead the developmental and test efforts for unique systems). On the Rafale this may be a HMS system that may not be integrated on the aircraft already, and in the case of the F-15's it was a new Electronic Warfare system that the OEMs developed on their own and would pass on that cost to the customer.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Dec 2017 00:29

fanne wrote:That is the ideas - isn't it. Where R-77 fails (from its advertised capability), Astra steps in to give us the edge again against TSPAF. Though Astra is by no means ready for induction.

Astra has cleared all developmental trials with extensive involvement from IAF.
The user trials can expected to be fairly comprehensive but Astra should be upto the task.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 862081.ece

In a set of seven development trials conducted during September 11-14 over the Bay of Bengal, off the coast of Chandipur, Odisha, the missile hit and destroyed pilotless target aircraft, the Ministry of Defence claimed in a statement today.

With these final trials, the indigenous missile system, developed by the Defence Research Development Organisation with the active participation of several private industries and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, will be manufactured by Hyderabad-based Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL).

The missile is the product of research and development by the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), while its avionics and RF Seeker have been developed by the RCI. Both organisations are based in Hyderabad.

During the trials, the missions included engagement of target at very long range, a high manoeuvring target at medium range and multiple launches of missiles in salvo to engage multiple targets. All the sub-systems, including the indigenous RF Seeker, performed accurately, meeting all the mission parameters and objectives, defence scientists said.

In another exercise, two missiles launched in the combat configuration with warheads neutralised their targets. With this, DRDO together with the Indian Air Force (IAF) has completed the development phase of the weapon system successfully.

With 50 unit LSP, even the production aspects are being concurrently handled.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Dec 2017 01:10

fanne wrote:That is the ideas - isn't it. Where R-77 fails (from its advertised capability), Astra steps in to give us the edge again against TSPAF. Though Astra is by no means ready for induction.

It is ready for induction. It has passed the final development trials. One of DRDO's big achievements this year.

Final trials of Astra missile system completed

Hyderabad, Sept 16:

Astra, the beyond visual range air-to-air missile, is all set for production and later induction into the armed forces.

In a set of seven development trials conducted during September 11-14 over the Bay of Bengal, off the coast of Chandipur, Odisha, the missile hit and destroyed pilotless target aircraft, the Ministry of Defence claimed in a statement today.

With these final trials, the indigenous missile system, developed by the Defence Research Development Organisation with the active participation of several private industries and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, will be manufactured by Hyderabad-based Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL).

The missile is the product of research and development by the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), while its avionics and RF Seeker have been developed by the RCI. Both organisations are based in Hyderabad.

During the trials, the missions included engagement of target at very long range, a high manoeuvring target at medium range and multiple launches of missiles in salvo to engage multiple targets. All the sub-systems, including the indigenous RF Seeker, performed accurately, meeting all the mission parameters and objectives, defence scientists said.

In another exercise, two missiles launched in the combat configuration with warheads neutralised their targets. With this, DRDO together with the Indian Air Force (IAF) has completed the development phase of the weapon system successfully.

HAL has played a role in modifying aircraft for weapons integration. More than 50 public and private industries have contributed in building the Astra weapon system, according to S Venugopalan, Programme Director, who led the launch operations and flight trials along with teams from multiple organisations.

Nirmala Sitharaman, who took charge as Defence Minister recently, congratulated DRDO, IAF, Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSU) and industries for the successful trials of the Astra Missile. The Chief of DRDO, S Christopher, and Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister, G Satheesh Reddy, also congratulated 'Team Astra'. They said the technologies developed under the programme would form the building blocks for the development of more variants of air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Dec 2017 01:14

They should have said user trials but instead used developmental trials and final, and ready for production. Hopefully, that means these were combined user + developmental trials. Lets see.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Dec 2017 02:40

[

Dilbu wrote:Gurus there are allegations that Qatar paid only 110 million dollars per piece for the same Rafale India will be buying for 220 million. I am sure there are differences in there deal. Would be grateful if the main points can be summarised as this allegation needs to be countered asap. Sorry for asking answers in a capsule form.

Those making the allegations should be informed that the IAF too would be paying approximately that price for the follow-on 18 (or was it 36) Rafales that were listed as follow-on options as part of the initial contract. This was stated in some article that quoted someone in the know.

There are a lot of things that go into introducing a new type into service. I need to put these points together in an article if I ever get the time.

Simply speaking, when the options are exercised, it means that the airplanes are bought at the same price as in the original contract. This applies to the airframes and the engines. The big difference lies in all the other items that are needed as well, to be able to fly and maintain those jets in India.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 Dec 2017 02:42

Karan M wrote:They should have said user trials but instead used developmental trials and final, and ready for production. Hopefully, that means these were combined user + developmental trials. Lets see.

we both quoted the same article, upon seeing the same point made by Fanne, separately! lol.

Yes, it does look like a combination of development and user trials. Development trials for simply validation purposes, since they didn't really have time to incorporate any feedback from those trials immediately. And yet they conducted 7 tests, including corner of the envelope type tests, which indicated a high level of confidence that things would work.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Dec 2017 03:24

"we both quoted the same article, upon seeing the same point made by Fanne, separately! lol. "

lol. all those years of debating across multiple fora..have made our brains used to referencing all these reports in a jiffy.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Dec 2017 05:29

Aditya_V wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:Parrikar says Rafale deal gives India edge over Pakistan, slams Antony for delay

I think we should take Parrikar's statements with a pinch of salt, he is making a political statement to relatively uninformed audiences. The C-5 adn r-77 will be well matched infact since certain advantages of the SU-30 which will almost always have a higher launch speed higher IAF inventory of BVR missiles means they can launch missiles at extreme range to make the bogey dodge missiles and get bogey with further missile launches. An F-16 will have start doign tactical avoidance measures even if an R-27 is launched at 130Km range. Amraam launched at 100km will still need mid course guidance, the fighter if it needs a successful hit will need to get close to bogeys while dodging the other man's missiles.

These comments are to crowd who are comparing Indian Rafale price with announcement earlier this month of 2nd Batch of only fly away aircraft for Euro 1.1 Billion. I burst some balloons when I point the 2015 deal for Euro 6.5 Billion for 24 aircraft who went into sulk mode after some celebrations for 2 days on whatsapp.

Not just pinch but bagful of salt. If mkis were being outgunned by solah, IAF fighters from MKI to bison wouldn't have fared so well in a variety of dact exercises. I recall distinctly that even the bisons did well vs the rsaf blk 50 falcons. Not to mention f15c of the usaf. Another thing to note is that the r27 has a much longer range than the c5 or probably even the c7, and with a powerful bars radar to back it and maintain lock, the MKI will keep all these riff raff fightersr at bay. Sarh aams might evenl offer its own advantages other than range. Take for example the ir and er version both released at the same time. ...very hard to spoof because one could be totally silent. Then consider that target has to try to break lock of not some puny missile radar but a massive bars which has very long range and power, not easy to spoof.

Jmtp of course

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Dec 2017 06:42

^^^
From what I remember, there were complaints about unrealistic/agreed-upon missile ranges in those exercises.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 12 Dec 2017 06:54

Unrealiistic? Not that I can remember. yes some ranges and abilities were simuulated that were still not in IAF stable at the time, eg. Mica. The "hands tied behind"bit was wrt the size of the packages that the attacking IAF flew and the lack of AEW. And iirc that was only for the first CopeIndia. Not against the RSAF at least. The bison guys seemed very pleased after the first Sindex event in kalaiikunda. By now, they must be quite expert in dealing with solah.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 12 Dec 2017 10:33

The whole I am trying to Make there is a need for Rafale, but to the uninformed folks who comment on everything in general. They think AAM have constant range irrespective of whether the aircraft launching is at Air speed of 300km 100 meters altitude or airspeed 1500km 10Km altitude.

The very fact that they ask the question on why Qatar 698 crore (Euro 1.1 billion/12) VS 1798 crore (Euro7.87 Billion/36) without factoring the earlier 2015 Qatar deal shows thier stupidity and mentality of a 10 year old.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 Dec 2017 10:52

Cain Marko wrote:If mkis were being outgunned by solah, IAF fighters from MKI to bison wouldn't have fared so well in a variety of dact exercises. I recall distinctly that even the bisons did well vs the rsaf blk 50 falcons. Not to mention f15c of the usaf.

No, the Bison did well only in Within Visual Range engagements where USAF had no AWACS support. There was no BVR missiles used in Cope India 2004 where India supposedly beat USAF.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/05/02/c ... 4-results/

First of all, the lack of the advanced active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar on their F-15s. Second, the air engagements typically involved six Eagles against up to eighteen IAF aircraft with no chance to simulate any beyond visual range (BVR) missile shot (due to the Indian request of not using the AMRAAM).

Mr. Manohar Parrikar is absolutely accurate with practical missile ranges. Here is how missile range varies -

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/T ... 837123.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.

R-77 actual performance is far below its advertised performance. Check the Indian Navy thread on how Al-31FP engine TBO falls very short of what is advertised and its the same with all Russian equipment, including R-77. Which is why we're replacing it with Astra.

Requesting members to kindly desist from discrediting Mr. Parrikar - one of India's finest defence ministers.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Dec 2017 11:00

I am sure PMO would have taken the right decision based on prevailing condition then but since we have a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence they can review the Rafale deal in its entirety and can put this across to the parliament.

This would be helpful in clearing distortions and doubts on this deal and help the government

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Dec 2017 11:50

I remember a DRDO boffin at a recent AI show giving us a detailed description of Astra's virtues and predicting that this missile would be a real game changer for the IAF. Astra could eventually emerge as a tri-service missile too and perhaps give our fighters a first shot at the enemy.However.most air combat is more likely to be in the WVR zone,where other factors become vital such as dogfighting capabilities,pilot skills and the gun,which the Israeli air force feel is essential.As pointed out by others,the huge cost of BVR missiles like the meteor,etc., make it impossible for the IAF to equip this missile aboard most of its principal fighters. The Rafales are most likely to have them first.I doubt that all 310+ MKIs would be so equipped ,s there would probable be a new Ru AAM or new more capable variants of exg. ones arriving by 2020.Wiki has good info here.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-73_(missile).The 400km range AWACS killer,the K-100,was supposedly restarted for us in 2004 for the MKis in a similar JV like BMos,but little info has surfaced about the status of this programme if it has actually been restarted.The focus appears to have been on ASTRA.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 12 Dec 2017 15:10

Philip wrote:However.most air combat is more likely to be in the WVR zone,where other factors become vital such as dogfighting capabilities,pilot skills and the gun,which the Israeli air force feel is essential

It's not always necessary that our IAF should follow the other IAF. The IDF feels that heavy MBTs are best. Does the Indian army think so too. Do you?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Dec 2017 17:28

We're not copying them.The value of a gun/cannon during a dogfight has been well described in many prev.posts . AAMs are limited in no., plus accurate cannon fire in support of ground troops preferred to rockets which have less accuracy. Why dedicated GA aircraft have guns/ cannon with extra rounds..Even the F-35A has a 3000/min gun.

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Dec 2017 18:03

Philip,
Astra has WVR capabilities too. Look at the launch modes section in the poster below.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 12 Dec 2017 19:18

Philip wrote:We're not copying them.The value of a gun/cannon during a dogfight has been well described in many prev.posts . AAMs are limited in no., plus accurate cannon fire in support of ground troops preferred to rockets which have less accuracy. Why dedicated GA aircraft have guns/ cannon with extra rounds..Even the F-35A has a 3000/min gun.

Agree. 100%. Hence I just highlighted the Israel AF part. The IAF (Indian that is) has actual experience of using aircraft cannon and do not need the other IAF to tell them that.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Dec 2017 00:27

They use simulated missiles in the A2A exercises with a defined range, Pk and immunity to chaff etc.
This allows for secrecy around actual operational performance.
This also means IAF can simulate capabilities that don't exist. At Cope India, before Mirage upgrade, they simulated ARH missiles on Mirage 2000 per reports.

Bars is used in training mode. In some cases, not.
But AFs can judge the real performance from its raw size and specs.
SARH AA-10s (and Sparrows) have fared relatively poorly in actual combat.

Cain Marko wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:
I think we should take Parrikar's statements with a pinch of salt, he is making a political statement to relatively uninformed audiences. The C-5 adn r-77 will be well matched infact since certain advantages of the SU-30 which will almost always have a higher launch speed higher IAF inventory of BVR missiles means they can launch missiles at extreme range to make the bogey dodge missiles and get bogey with further missile launches. An F-16 will have start doign tactical avoidance measures even if an R-27 is launched at 130Km range. Amraam launched at 100km will still need mid course guidance, the fighter if it needs a successful hit will need to get close to bogeys while dodging the other man's missiles.

These comments are to crowd who are comparing Indian Rafale price with announcement earlier this month of 2nd Batch of only fly away aircraft for Euro 1.1 Billion. I burst some balloons when I point the 2015 deal for Euro 6.5 Billion for 24 aircraft who went into sulk mode after some celebrations for 2 days on whatsapp.
Not just pinch but bagful of salt. If mkis were being outgunned by solah, IAF fighters from MKI to bison wouldn't have fared so well in a variety of dact exercises. I recall distinctly that even the bisons did well vs the rsaf blk 50 falcons. Not to mention f15c of the usaf. Another thing to note is that the r27 has a much longer range than the c5 or probably even the c7, and with a powerful bars radar to back it and maintain lock, the MKI will keep all these riff raff fightersr at bay. Sarh aams might evenl offer its own advantages other than range. Take for example the ir and er version both released at the same time. ...very hard to spoof because one could be totally silent. Then consider that target has to try to break lock of not some puny missile radar but a massive bars which has very long range and power, not easy to spoof.

Jmtp of course

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Dec 2017 00:39

tsarkar wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:If mkis were being outgunned by solah, IAF fighters from MKI to bison wouldn't have fared so well in a variety of dact exercises. I recall distinctly that even the bisons did well vs the rsaf blk 50 falcons. Not to mention f15c of the usaf.
No, the Bison did well only in Within Visual Range engagements where USAF had no AWACS support. There was no BVR missiles used in Cope India 2004 where India supposedly beat USAF.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/05/02/c ... 4-results/
First of all, the lack of the advanced active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar on their F-15s. Second, the air engagements typically involved six Eagles against up to eighteen IAF aircraft with no chance to simulate any beyond visual range (BVR) missile shot (due to the Indian request of not using the AMRAAM).

That Aviationist report is not quoting the AWST report properly. It was four vs 12, but a large number of the 12 involved strikers. Limiting longest range BVR IMHO was about creating a practical training environment (at the time) vis a vis PLAAF/PRC likely scenarios (short interception ranges, sudden appearance from low flying profiles in an AWACS free environment) & also because N001V on our Su-30 K had 100Km TWS range (no long range detection mode). It would be a useless turkey shoot with limited training value to just have your force salvo'ed away.

F-15s used SARH and IAF used ARH. But both sides limited overall BVR ranges.

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-co ... cle02.html

Generally the combat scenario was to have four F-15s flying at any time against about 12 Indian aircraft. While the U.S. pilots normally train to four versus 12, that takes into account at least two of the U.S. aircraft having AESA radar and being able to make the first, beyond-visual-range shots. For the exercise, both sides restricted long-range shots.

"That's what the Indians wanted to do," Snowden says. "That [handicap] really benefits a numerically superior force because you can't whittle away some of their force at long range. They were simulating active missiles [including] AA-12s." This means the missile has its own radar transmitter and doesn't depend on the launch aircraft's radar after launch. With the older AA-10 Alamo, the launching fighter has to keep its target illuminated with radar so the U.S. pilots would know when they were being targeted. But with the AA-12, they didn't know if they had been targeted. The Mirage 2000s carried the active Mica missile. Aerospace industry officials said that some of the radars the U.S. pilots encountered, including that of the Mirage 2000s, exhibited different characteristics than those on standard versions of the aircraft.

The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise.

"When we saw that they were a more professional air force, we realized that within the constraints of the exercise we were going to have a very difficult time," Snowden says. "In general, it looked like they ran a broad spectrum of tactics and they were adaptive. They would analyze what we were doing and then try something else. They weren't afraid to bring the strikers in high or low. They would move them around so that we could never anticipate from day to day what we were going to see."

The IAF did not fly its top-end Su-30MKI aircrafts, instead the older un-upgraded Su-30MKs and Su-30Ks of the 24 Sqn, such as these. Compare the relative size of the aircraft!

By comparison, the U.S. pilots don't think they offered the Indians any surprises. The initial tactic is to run a wall with all four F-15s up front. That plays well when the long-range missiles and AESA radar are in play.

"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.

"All their aircraft seemed to be capable of breaking out [targets] and shooting at the ranges the exercise allowed," he says. "We generally don't train to an active missile threat [like the Mirage's Mica or the AA-12 for the Russian-built aircraft], and that was one of the things that caused us some problems."

USAF planners here see Cope India as the first step in an annual series of exchange exercises.

What's interesting is the Americans apparently learned a lot from Cope India so as to change their entire curriculum.

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

“What happened to us was it looks like our red air training might not be as good because the adversaries are better than we thought,” Snodgrass said. “And in the case of the Indian Air Force both their training and some of their equipment was better than we anticipated.”

“Red air” refers to the way the Air Force simulates enemy capability in air combat training. Because the service has assumed for years that its fighters are more capable than enemy aircraft, the U.S. pilots that simulate the enemy, known as “red” forces, in air combat training are required to operate under rules that constrain their combat capability.

“We have always believed that our technology was superior to everyone else’s technology, that we would fight a somewhat inferior adversary, so we have had to supply a simulated adversary from our own resources; we call that ‘red air,’” Snodgrass said.
Exercise Cope India 2004 - USAF F-15C and IAF MiG-21 Bisons (MiG-21 Upgrades) in formation

As a result, Air Force pilots are used to flying against an enemy whose combat capability is deliberately limited.

“There are manoeuvering limits as well as weapons employment limits, what we believe enemy aircraft may be able to do with their weapons systems, so we try to simulate that in our own airplane with our own weapons,” Snodgrass explained. “It becomes very complex because instead of using the airplane the way it was designed, you now have to come up with rules of thumb that limit what you do and cause you to not perform . . . the way we really would want to in combat.”

The Cope India exercises consisted of air combat maneuvers in which pilots would practice their fighter tactics and fly against each other one-on-one, as well as simulated combat scenarios. It was during this simulated combat, which included both “offensive counterair” and “defensive counterair” scenarios, that the Indians proved the most formidable, according to the 3rd Wing officials. In the offensive counterair scenarios, a small number of F-15Cs would attempt to intercept an enemy strike aircraft en route to a target that was guarded by a larger number of Indian fighters. In the defensive counterair missions, the F-15s would attempt to defend a target against Indian fighters.

In these offensive and defensive missions, four F-15Cs were usually flying against 10 or 12 of the same model Indian fighter, according to Col. Greg Neubeck, deputy commander of operations for the wing’s 3rd Operations Group and exercise director for Cope India. The 3rd Operations Group is responsible for the 3rd Wing’s flying mission.

The Indians flew a number of different fighters, including the French-made Mirage 2000 and the Russian-made MIG-27 and MIG-29, but the two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MIG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MIG-21, and the SU-30K Flanker, also made in Russia, Neubeck said. He emphasized the fact that U.S. forces were always outnumbered in these scenarios, but said the missions proved more difficult than expected.

Mirage-2000s and F-15s fly over the majestic Himalayas

“What we faced were superior numbers, and an IAF pilot who was very proficient in his aircraft and smart on tactics. That combination was tough for us to overcome,” Neubeck said.

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.

“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.”

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Dec 2017 00:44

tsarkar wrote:Mr. Manohar Parrikar is absolutely accurate with practical missile ranges. Here is how missile range varies -

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/T ... 837123.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.
R-77 actual performance is far below its advertised performance. Check the Indian Navy thread on how Al-31FP engine TBO falls very short of what is advertised and its the same with all Russian equipment, including R-77. Which is why we're replacing it with Astra.

Requesting members to kindly desist from discrediting Mr. Parrikar - one of India's finest defence ministers.

+100 and full agreement with tsarkar.

Parrikar has stated some harsh truths, as unpalatable as they may be, we should acknowledge them. Granted AMRAAM ranges may be best case estimates for C7 (what IAF was offered and not C5), but he has been on the dot regarding the difference in BVR capability that emerged & its to his credit that he attempted to solve two really thorny issues (Su-30 serviceability & its weapons status).

We should respect him for that.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Dec 2017 00:47

tsarkar wrote:Mr. Manohar Parrikar is absolutely accurate with practical missile ranges. Here is how missile range varies -

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/T ... 837123.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.

Exactly.

For instance R-77 manufacturer claim:

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 13 Dec 2017 00:51

Simulated fight do not use actual missiles, one can feed brochure number and claim wins using that, but R-77 did fall short, by how much? well IAF, it is the user and hence knows the data is willing to just move on from that missile. In the recent ME war, RuAF is not using R-77 (which should be there main bread and butter missile if it worked). Says a lot about R-77.
I have a different question, R-77 was highly regarded during Kargil war, so much so that it kept PAF at bay. What changed?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Dec 2017 00:57

Fanne IAF did not have R-77 in Kargil, only AA-10. It was an "unknown quantity" for the PAF.

This is my old post on prior exercises.

Karan M wrote:
shiv wrote:Vishnu Som makes a report and stands by it. A few people laugh and cheer and some people do not want them to cheer. This sounds so much like my grandmother who used to warn us when we were kids if she found us laughing by telling us that excessive laughter inevitably leads to tears in due course. How weird is that.

I think Vishnu Som's report is something to cheer and gloat about precisely because it causes discomfort and distress to others. That simply adds to the fun. Lectures and moralizing ain't gonna stop the gloating. It may stop if we have our asses kicked - but why not wait till that happens? After all at least a few people other than my grandmother have predicted that? Why poop on the party?
Beyond all this, I don't know how many people are keeping track of the IAFs experiences vs other frontline AFs. I certainly am.

1. Garuda1 vs FAF: We "won" in WVR, lost in BVR. French advantage, better radars, better missiles simulated & better tactics (they called Fox faster repeatedly in BVR). IAF learnt. Note, it was Mirage vs Mirage

2. CopeIndia 1 vs USAF: IAF won, with a 9:1 ratio. Key points: IAF flexibility, greater numbers skill, use of active missiles simulated, inability of USAF to anticipate high skill levels & tactics plus airframes they were facing (which is where greater numbers counted, USAF wanted those numbers because the F-15s train to a lower tech threat in greater numbers). Afterwards, USAF went and changed their concept of Red Air to "all up fighters training with all tactics", mirroring the IAFs concept. Key takeaway "IAF doesn't do red air, they send their best guys up doing all they can to win against the trainees", paraphrased.

3. Cope India 2 w/USAF: Intermixed packages of F-16s with Su-30Ks, Bisons and MiG-27s, possibly MiG-29s (going by memory) with USAF AWACs. Bison hard to track on radar (low RCS w/small size, bodes well for LCA as it has both attributes) and IAF fighters responded faster to AWAC calls despite no datalinking
USAF quote on a website : we trained against the IAF MiG-29s, they lost one, we lost one, this was scary, we weren't used to this. Possibly quote from Cope1
USAF pilots on net: Praise for IAF professionalism and high flight hours and tactics. "Their senior guy flew the Su-30s backseat as a mission commander"..

4. RSAF vs Su30MKIs, Mirages and Bisons. Su-30MKIs do very well against F-16s, Bisons about average and Mirages are at parity. IAF concerned about former & looking at tactics, tech (since RSAF F-16s are better than those in Cope2 where Bisons did well) and Mirage upgrade needs to be progressed.

5. Indradhanush-1 vs RAF: Su-30MKIs vs Tornado ADVs, ADVs leverage AWACs and do stage ambushes (RAF/ADV combination is very experienced) but overall Su-30MKIs come out on tops. The key thing, IAF's first reported use of "radar with only some modes" which still held up well.

6. Red Flag: IAF tops in WVR in Mountain Home, does very well in Red Flag (gets called to the podium for a special appreciation) in BVR, LFE, A2G. Uses Litening, has restrictions on chaff/flare, datalink employment and uses radar in training mode, range reduction and mode limitation. Former causes higher attrition figures but overall everything holds up well, especially radar in jamming.

7.Garuda-2: IAF vs French AF Mirage 2000s and Rafales. Points to note from press comments, Su-30 agility and radar/weapons performance called out for long range. Radar in training mode, no EW from Indian side (no pods shown). French state their Rafales are more discreet, Su-30 has to be handled in the initial merge otherwise its performance will "tell" against their Mirages etc.

8.SAF deployment: Mirage deployment - notable as was Red Flag for a huge long distance deployment. Very good learning for IAF apart from the minor mishap when a Mirage prangs on the runway (subsequently repaired)

9.Indradhanush2: Not really that useful as RAF deployment of ELINT aircraft makes IAF wary and not use radars. TVC not used in WVR. Mostly joint ops familiarization and long distance deployment.

10.Indradhanush-3: RAF with Typhoons. RAF claims victory via publicized leaks and then media reports. Point to note: This is while MMRCA negotiations are ongoing. Possibly PR tactics.

11.Indradhanush-4: RAF with Typhoons. Su-30s dominate in WVR & do well/equivalent in BVR. IAF confirmation that an upgrade package is also in the works for Su-30MKI.

Now I am sure I missed a bunch of exercises in between since these are now formalized engagements and little is revealed to press. Above are what came to mind. Predominantly, there is a clear pattern, the Su-30s are really capable in WVR, BVR and A2G and across the IAF pilots, tactics are skilled and A/C is equivalent to the best out there. With MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 upgrades, thats another plus.

Per se, I am not bothered by the wailing by the furren fanboi's shilling the Rafale etc about how the SDRE indoo's can't be as great as their TFTA counterparts or their vaunted bhesthern equipment is bhest. That's my take, apart from the exercise "victory" or whatever which doesn't matter but for the extreme denial and prejudice some of these chaps display.

From the above exercise results, and accounts which we have over the years, I can fairly tell the IAF is a mature AF, with first class equipment which is being proven in complex exercises with other worldclass AF.

Add further reports of new GOI now supporting IAF efforts to raise Su-30 serviceability upto required 70%, reports from NIIP about radar upgrade in progress (current radar itself), new SAP jammers replacing earlier Elta plus new DARE RWRs in testing to replace earlier Tarang, and the Su-30 fleet seems well placed to be our frontline platform.

Now for progress on the LCA & other upgrades.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 Dec 2017 01:01

fanne wrote:Simulated fight do not use actual missiles, one can feed brochure number and claim wins using that, but R-77 did fall short, by how much? well IAF, it is the user and hence knows the data is willing to just move on from that missile. In the recent ME war, RuAF is not using R-77 (which should be there main bread and butter missile if it worked). Says a lot about R-77.
I have a different question, R-77 was highly regarded during Kargil war, so much so that it kept PAF at bay. What changed?

It bears remarking the RussAF did deploy R-77 in ME recently. We don't know whether R-77 or R-77SD (newer variant). Its been two decades since development. They could have worked out prior niggles in serviceability.

It would be interesting to see what missiles were purchased for MiG-29 upgrade.