VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 16 Oct 2019 09:24

Haridas wrote:
chetak wrote:Saar,

Quite simply put, RCS is not only about composite skins.

Correct, unless all wheels of tank move in unison, it ain't going nowhere.

In RF engineering it's like having a near perfect low loss cable but terminated in highly mis-matched termination, will always reflect.

Most untrained people wrongly think that composite surface don't reflect. Composites are lossy and have high dielectric constant, so they reflect rf quite nicely, perticularly if not shaped for stealth.

Else I would not be buying expensive rubbery RF absorbers for my anachoic chamber, instead of some composites from nearby Tap-Plastics.

Making X band frontal stealth is difficult, all aspect stealth is even more difficult. Broadband all aspect microwave stealth near impossible to engineer.

first and foremost, for optimal frontal stealth, the engines need to be buried so that the compressor faces are not directly visible to the incoming radar emissions.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 Oct 2019 09:33

chetak wrote: first and foremost, for optimal frontal stealth, the engines need to be buried so that the compressor faces are not directly visible to the incoming radar emissions.

One of the reasons the IAF wasn't so enamored with the Su-57 perhaps

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Oct 2019 09:45

Actually, the above picture, if not doctored, shows a radar blocker and not the compressor blades.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 16 Oct 2019 10:06

Haridas wrote:
Correct, unless all wheels of tank move in unison, it ain't going nowhere.

In RF engineering it's like having a near perfect low loss cable but terminated in highly mis-matched termination, will always reflect.

Most untrained people wrongly think that composite surface don't reflect. Composites are lossy and have high dielectric constant, so they reflect rf quite nicely, perticularly if not shaped for stealth.

Else I would not be buying expensive rubbery RF absorbers for my anachoic chamber, instead of some composites from nearby Tap-Plastics.

Making X band frontal stealth is difficult, all aspect stealth is even more difficult. Broadband all aspect microwave stealth near impossible to engineer.

Composites are used so that designers can better use conformal shapes and reduce weight of the airframe. The shaping is critical here, then a coating of RF absorbing material will reflect less RF energy.

X-band is what AA missiles typically use for an active radar seeker. If the missile has data links, a surveillance radar in L, S, and C band can track the aircraft in azimuth and elevation.

I don't know where stealth will be in 20 years. Given current and future signal processing technology and fast FPGAs, radar receivers can see below the thermal noise floor using statistical methods.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 16 Oct 2019 20:12

Stealthy aircraft will be obsolete in 20 years with:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... adar-25361

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Oct 2019 20:39

There are people whose sole job is to conceptualize counter stealth technologies, prototype them and see how effective they are and use the said technologies or the results from their development to inform and guide investments into stealth. Some of these teams have been working on this for more than three decades and have built up everything from bi-static sensors to ginormous VHF radars and integrated RF/IR sensors, passive radars, acoustic tech etc etc etc and these teams continue to be well funded on their path to hypothesize and then verify their concepts via prototype and dynamic testing. I’m sure similar teams exist around the world though their resources may vary depending upon the portfolio size they support.

That stealth is an integral design element on systems ranging from fighters to bombers and UAVs they are expected to be in service for the next 50 years and those that will be in service 100 years from now ( and are currently being conceptualized) is a result of all this. But perhaps, the clickbait National interest knows something that the professionals do not. I'd place my bets on people with the ability and resources to engineer multiple systems both on the blue side and the threat side over a blog known to chase clicks.

Generally speaking a red team might ask a series of questions such as the following:
• What are the key gaps in my system or capability that an adversary might exploit?

• What are the countermeasures that an adversary could develop to exploit those gaps and how effective would those countermeasures be?

• How difficult would it be for an adversary to implement the countermeasures?
Would the countermeasures be a 10-line software modification, or would it require building a new system from the ground up?

How much detailed information about the US system does the adversary require to make the countermeasure effective? Does the adversary just need to know our system’s general concept, or would the countermeasure depend on specifics that are classified or otherwise difficult to acquire?

• How difficult would it be for the United States to counter those countermeasures that might be effective? How much information would be required about what the adversary is doing to effectively counter the countermeasures?

The Air Force Red Team is much more than a systems analysis group to explore these questions. Much of the Red Team's work involves the development and testing of prototypes of potential future threat systems. Importantly, these prototypes are not based solely on intelligence estimates of what technologies our adversaries are investing in. Instead, the red team process uses systems analysis to determine the technologies that would result in the most pertinent threat capabilities, and then develops prototypes that could be used to test the real-world impact of those technologies in tactically relevant scenarios. Prototyping and testing alone, however, can rarely be used to explore the full impact of a potential threat in a broad range of tactical situations. Therefore, the results of the testing are used to validate the systems analysis models, which can then be extended to assess a range of relevant scenarios. This integrated program of systems analysis, prototyping, and instrumented testing is the core of the highly successful Air Force Red Team. The real benefit of the analysis in this context is to sort through the large number of potential threat responses and narrow down to the few that are most important. those few can be the subjects of more intensive prototyping and testing campaigns to understand the full impact they might have on our systems.

For each air defense element (surveillance, fire control, missile seeker, and fuze), the air defense can use a variety of sensor technologies, including active or passive radar (radio frequency), infrared, or a range of other less conventional sensors. The unconventional approaches proposed as counter-stealth technologies may run the gamut from acoustics to cosmic rays to gravimeters; however, in each case, it is critical to consider not just whether or not a technology can theoretically detect an aircraft, but whether it meaningfully contributes to the adversary's kill chain. For a number of good physics reasons, air defenses rely primarily on radar and infrared sensors. Compared to infrared, radar has the advantage of offering long-range detection with minimal interference from weather or other environmental factors. It is no accient that the most important long-range surveillance and fire-control systems continue to be active radars. One disadvantage of radar systems is that they are potentially susceptible to jamming, also called electonic attack. Therefore, for as long as air defenses have been invested in radars, aircraft designers have invested in electronic-attack countermeasures to those radars, and, in turn, radar designers have invested in electonic-protection counters to those countermeasures in an endless cycle. The key on each side of the cycle is to invest in technologies that are as robust as possible to the other side's likely response.

On advanced LFS with modern signal processing, guess those are not something that are unavailable to those developing stealth or formulating requirements for the same . The Nevada Test range is getting modern RF phases array sensors in the UHF , L and S band and combined multi spectral IR sensors specifically to test the B-21 and other classified programs - Collectively a $3+ billion investment in threat system red teaming combined test and training systems. Incidentally, though not surprisingly, the team leading this acquisition program is the team that stood up the first F-35 squadron and knows a thing or two about stealth and counter stealth tactics. This on top of existing land based and airborne capability that is as extensive as anywhere else in the world and in some cases is unrivaled when it comes to dynamic testing. Those that were claiming that stealth is dead or that they took the “ the drama out of stealth [SAAB]” are fast at work beefing up their own VLO aircraft and weapon portfolios despite the best claims of their PR shops. They are doing this because their customers are demanding it. This is true for Sukhoi, Dassault, BAE, Boeing, KAI, Mitsubishi etc etc

That speaks for itself when it comes to the debate whether stealth is here to stay or fade away. Systems in their infancy NOW, be it Russian, European or American that will see the light of the day 10, 15 or 20 years from now and remain in service for 30-40 years beyond that are all emphasizing VLO principles.

I think where folks get it wrong is when they envision it as invisibility..it is not that though in some cases the effect is the same. Stealth, as per those that pioneered it and work on it, is as much or more about survivability and EMS superiority by denying your opponent the maneuver space within wide areas of the EM spectrum. The goal is to greatly complicate the enemy kill chain and to impose a high cost for the same. The more LO aircraft and weapons you have, and combined with the right support elements, the more you can impose this effect. This fact too is not lost on the operator and user community the world over. Hence the mad rush to procure, design, or co-develop Low Observable air vehicles across the tactical requirements sphere. That wideband stealth is a requirement was/is also not lost on the designers. After all, the F-35's FiberMat concept goes back to the ATF program and the need to utilize thicker applications of radar absorbing materials that cover a wider frequency range than just your standard coatings that existed back then.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 17 Oct 2019 00:27

brar_w,

I’m sure the developers of counter measures and radar avoidance are working in tandem with aircraft designers. Some do have large budgets as well. The flip side of this is that radar designers are working on building better detection capability through signal processing and computing. If resources are comparable on both sides of this problem, then better detection will happen.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Oct 2019 00:42

That may be a hypothetical scenario. In real life however, an overwhelming majority of the top air-forces or combat forces out there have moved, or are moving towards incorporating VLO into their force structure at a pace commensurate with their budgets, threats, and technical abilities. Everyone from China, Russia, India to even smaller countries like Sweden and Indonesia. The larger players are doing it faster and at a wider scale. That is no coincidence especially when they are all investing with the intention of utilizing the capability for the next half a century and more.

The flip side of this is that radar designers are working on building better detection capability through signal processing and computing.

And why do you think this is not happening in collaboration? Some of the makers of some of the largest and most advanced radars in the world are also heavily invested in designing LO materials, aircraft, and incorporating those principle into their product designs. They have decades of experience doing both of those things and doing both successfully. Perhaps they have a good insight into both the worlds and are able to visualize how these capabilities will be tactically exploited enough to be good at both those things.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 17 Oct 2019 01:22

^^^They are. In NG and Raytheon’s case the R&D of surveillance divisions work separate from aircraft divisions. These divisions have made significant progress and the physics of which has made detection more capable.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Oct 2019 01:33

It is not about working as one all the time but having access to what the most cutting edge stuff that is happening in the sphere. In this case, Lockheed and Northrop grumman have both been pioneers when it comes to stealth and both enjoy a very high level of technical ability and success when it comes to very cutting edge modern RF sensors and even IR targeting and surveillance technologies and capabilities. It would be foolish to assume that they do not leverage "whole of the company" to competitively position themselves especially when they compete their work product is judged based on best-in-class capabilities as is evident from the investments the USAF and other agencies within the US have made when it comes to red-teaming counter stealth technologies or even going one step beyond that and developing and procuring very high end threat systems for both extended red-teaming and combat forces training.

It is childish to claim that they see tens of billions of future work in competition but do not leverage the best detection tools they have to constantly push their aero side design teams to higher levels of performance to squeeze out the best competitive advantage they can. Just look at the requirements for the 4 increments of the ARTS program as an example. These are the threat systems that 5th and 6th gen. aircraft will be training against and these, and systems even more advanced then them that will follow them up, will be used to develop requirements for the next gen. systems. Stealth-Counter stealth go hand in hand and there even exists a program office with that name in the DOD which has been doing this very thing for a greater part of 2.5 decades. But even if we assume that all the US OEM's, their respective management and engineering talents are foolish, dumb or outright incompetent..in order to subscribe to the "stealth won't last beyond 20 years" theory one would have to attribute same or higher level of incompetence to everyone else around the world trying to match or beat these companies when it comes to VLO technology..

As I've mentioned in the past, most run into issues because they do not visualize this in terms of the impact on kill chains, EMS maneuver and denial. That is the true value of VLO capability and why it is deadly when combined with other offensive abilities. Hence why everyone with the resources, needs or technical abilities is spending top $$ trying to get ahead of everyone else. This isn't about holding a fly-off where one VLO system is up against one radar to see who wins. This is about bringing all of capability to bear and who has more robust, shorter, and more precise kill chains. Denying the enemy effective operations over huge swath of the EM spectrum, you are creating a huge strategic advantage for yourself and imposing a huge cost on your enemy. This is why large number of tactical VLO platforms constitute a strategic advantage which folks are rushing to obtain beyond a silver bullet force only.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Oct 2019 01:43

srai wrote:
Kartik wrote:
Please no ji in your addressing of me.

The Su-30 having long legs has nothing to do with the exposure to the MiG-29 squadrons in exercises conducted within India. Yes, when it came to flying across continents, the MiG-29s were incapable of it till the UPG upgrade happened and they became in-flight refueling capable.

But even for Mirage-2000s, except for the exercise in South Africa, they've not ventured out of our country. But at least on Indian soil, they are active participants in exercises. The MiG-29s weren't even given that, with some peripheral roles in most exercises, completely at odds with their status as the premier air superiority fighter in the IAF that focused entirely on air defence and air superiority.

Especially against the RSAF, which exposes them against the F-16 Block 52. The MiG-29s are all based on the Western front and will take on PAF fighters in a conflict. Their primary threat is the F-16 and these exercises would validate tactics and the capability of the MiG-29s in BVR combat against these jets. It was the pasting at the hands of the French AF Mirage-2000-5s in the first exercise that brought home the lack of BVR training of the IAF pilots and brought about a big change in the IAF's approach towards BVR combat.

Let's see if the fact that the MiG-29s are now upgraded and available in large numbers means that they also get to participate in exercises.
They participated in the Cope India(s) against F-16s and F-15s.

Yes they did- in a peripheral role. I have read multiple articles on the Cope India exercises and all confirmed that apart from some BFM and some sorties with pilots flying in the rear seat, the MiG-29 was never fully utilized in its role as an air superiority fighter. Even against RSAF, I have seen MiG-27s used as strikers, Mirage-2000s, MiG-21 Bison and Su-30MKIs but only an odd MiG-29 here or there.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Oct 2019 04:05

May be with the upgrades, we will see them more.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Oct 2019 04:37

tsarkar wrote: The dorsal tank and louver tanks from the MiG-29K developed for IN and with Indian money went to the MiG-29UPG along with Zhuk radar.

No they didn't. the MiG-29SMT was the variant for which the dorsal tank was designed. The louvers were done away with the even earlier 1980s designed MiG-29M variant. The SMT was designed for upgrading older airframes and bringing in features that were designed from the ground up on the MiG-29M.

The MiG-29UPG variant (izd. 9.20) was basically built on the SMT airframe upgrade including bolt on aerial refueling probe and with some new equipment based on Indian requirements.

MiG-29UPG is a low cost subset of features developed for MiG-29K

Again not fully accurate. It is a mix of the MiG-29SMT airframe upgrades (the fat hunchback spine in particular) and the bolt on probe. The MiG-29UPG's Zhuk-M2E radar has additional modes than the Zhuk-ME radar on the MiG-29K, the IRST is the same (OLS-UE), the displays may retain significant commonality with the MiG-29K.

There are additional avionics that even the MiG-29K doesn't feature, such as the ELT-568 Virgilius AESA electronic jammer. The UPG also has a podded Elta EL-8251 Escort Jammer as an option, which the MiG-29K doesn't AFAIK.

The KSU-941 digital FBW system on the MiG-29K is also re-used on the MiG-29UPG.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 17 Oct 2019 05:28

A question for the gurus - what does the dorsal tank do to crew survivability in the event of a fight? Also does fuel sloshing in the tank cause issues with aircraft handling?

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 Oct 2019 05:50

Nope it doesn't. Fuel doesn't slosh around since such a large tank is typically broken down into smaller tanks inside. And the pilot doesn't need to worry about it since the MiG-29UPG's KSU-941 digital FBW should handle all the limits to which the fighter can be maneuvered. Basically it won't let you do what you shouldn't do.

Again, Fuel Management System should address that so that the fuel in a tank that may restrict maneuverability is used up first and only after that the wing or fuselage tanks that don't restrict maneuverability or G loads. All that while keeping in mind the CG and CL should only shift within permissible limits.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 17 Oct 2019 10:42

Kartik wrote:
tsarkar wrote: The dorsal tank and louver tanks from the MiG-29K developed for IN and with Indian money went to the MiG-29UPG along with Zhuk radar.
No they didn't. the MiG-29SMT was the variant for which the dorsal tank was designed. The louvers were done away with the even earlier 1980s designed MiG-29M variant. The SMT was designed for upgrading older airframes and bringing in features that were designed from the ground up on the MiG-29M.

The MiG-29UPG variant (izd. 9.20) was basically built on the SMT airframe upgrade including bolt on aerial refueling probe and with some new equipment based on Indian requirements.

MiG-29UPG is a low cost subset of features developed for MiG-29K
Again not fully accurate. It is a mix of the MiG-29SMT airframe upgrades (the fat hunchback spine in particular) and the bolt on probe. The MiG-29UPG's Zhuk-M2E radar has additional modes than the Zhuk-ME radar on the MiG-29K, the IRST is the same (OLS-UE), the displays may retain significant commonality with the MiG-29K.

There are additional avionics that even the MiG-29K doesn't feature, such as the ELT-568 Virgilius AESA electronic jammer. The UPG also has a podded Elta EL-8251 Escort Jammer as an option, which the MiG-29K doesn't AFAIK.

The KSU-941 digital FBW system on the MiG-29K is also re-used on the MiG-29UPG.

SMT was never fully developed and just a concept. When IN team landed in Russia, RSK MiG was unable to pay salaries. The IN order resurrected MiG. Everything you wrote about SMT was just unfinished concept those days. I am sure you're very well aware of Algeria returning half baked MiG-29SMT. That was the only SMT sale.

IN money allowed development and testing of systems that were ploughed back from MiG-29K to MiG-29M2 later sold to Syria and others.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2019 11:49

Kartik wrote:Yes they did- in a peripheral role. I have read multiple articles on the Cope India exercises and all confirmed that apart from some BFM and some sorties with pilots flying in the rear seat, the MiG-29 was never fully utilized in its role as an air superiority fighter. Even against RSAF, I have seen MiG-27s used as strikers, Mirage-2000s, MiG-21 Bison and Su-30MKIs but only an odd MiG-29 here or there.

Kartik - they were used in an ASF role. I remember a USAF account of a pilots BVR experiences vs the IAF. He said that he and an IAF MiG-29 were firing on each other and virtually the same ranges, resulting in MAD. He ended his account with "that was scary, those guys were well trained and I don't want to fight like this, we shouldn't have to fight like this", making the case for the F-22 etc. Basically, MiG-29s were definitely part of the exercises. Also, against the RSAF we have accounts the MiG-29s performed well.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 17 Oct 2019 12:54

Karan M wrote:
Kartik wrote:Yes they did- in a peripheral role. I have read multiple articles on the Cope India exercises and all confirmed that apart from some BFM and some sorties with pilots flying in the rear seat, the MiG-29 was never fully utilized in its role as an air superiority fighter. Even against RSAF, I have seen MiG-27s used as strikers, Mirage-2000s, MiG-21 Bison and Su-30MKIs but only an odd MiG-29 here or there.
Kartik - they were used in an ASF role. I remember a USAF account of a pilots BVR experiences vs the IAF. He said that he and an IAF MiG-29 were firing on each other and virtually the same ranges, resulting in MAD. He ended his account with "that was scary, those guys were well trained and I don't want to fight like this, we shouldn't have to fight like this", making the case for the F-22 etc. Basically, MiG-29s were definitely part of the exercises. Also, against the RSAF we have accounts the MiG-29s performed well.

Look up the military exercises thread gents, I think you will be pleased to see the upgraded baaz in play in Oman.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 17 Oct 2019 13:11

Kartik wrote:The UPG also has a podded Elta EL-8251 Escort Jammer as an option, which the MiG-29K doesn't AFAIK.

Then what does hardpoint 8 in the below image carry

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Gall ... 9.JPG.html

For full details on the avionics of MiG-29K, read the Black Panthers induction on Bharat Rakshak. Its a whole new aircraft. The entire "MiG-35" was built on Indian effort.

Surprising people spend time reading brochures outside but not the comprehensive information released by Indian Navy and diligently published by Bharat Rakshak.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Oct 2019 16:39

TSarkar, that's an ASPJ not an escort jammer.

The ASPJ chosen for the MiG-29 K was the EL/L-8222 (same as on the SHar IIRC).

I am not sure whether we inducted the Elta 8251 though.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Oct 2019 01:19

Kartik wrote: Yes they did- in a peripheral role. I have read multiple articles on the Cope India exercises and all confirmed that apart from some BFM and some sorties with pilots flying in the rear seat, the MiG-29 was never fully utilized in its role as an air superiority fighter. Even against RSAF, I have seen MiG-27s used as strikers, Mirage-2000s, MiG-21 Bison and Su-30MKIs but only an odd MiG-29 here or there.

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote:May be with the upgrades, we will see them more.

EX EASTERN BRIDGE-V
Indian Air Force is participating in a Bilateral Joint exercise with Royal Air Force Oman (RAFO), named EX EASTERN BRIDGE-V, scheduled from 17-26 Oct 19, at Air Force Base Masirah. The last exercise, EX EASTERN BRIDGE-IV was held in 2017 at Jamnagar. For the first time, MiG-29 fighter aircraft will be participating in an International Exercise outside India. IAF contingent comprises of MiG-29 and C-17 aircraft. MiG-29 will be exercising with Royal Air Force Oman’s Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16 and Hawk.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Oct 2019 05:15

tsarkar wrote:
SMT was never fully developed and just a concept. When IN team landed in Russia, RSK MiG was unable to pay salaries. The IN order resurrected MiG. Everything you wrote about SMT was just unfinished concept those days. I am sure you're very well aware of Algeria returning half baked MiG-29SMT. That was the only SMT sale.

IN money allowed development and testing of systems that were ploughed back from MiG-29K to MiG-29M2 later sold to Syria and others.

The fact is that the MiG-29UPG's dorsal tank is not derived from the MiG-29K variant but from the SMT variant that actually went into production first as the Algerian MiG-29SMT. And the SMT was a fully developed prototype, not just a paper concept. It was flown well before any MiG-29K prototype flew.

This was the first MiG-29SMT prototype, flown during the Farnborough air show in 1998

Initial flight of the first MiG-29SMT prototype was on 29 November 1997, with Marat Alykov at the controls. This machine was a modification of a company demonstrator that had already been used in the earlier MiG-29S effort, and did not include all the features expected for the "production" MiG-29SMT. The first full-standard MiG-29SMT, also a conversion of a company demonstrator, performed its first flight on 14 July 1998, piloted by the MiG organization's new chief test pilot, Vladimir Gorbunov. This aircraft was demonstrated at the Farnborough Air Show in the UK in 1998.

link

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Oct 2019 05:17

Cain Marko wrote:
Karan M wrote:
Kartik - they were used in an ASF role. I remember a USAF account of a pilots BVR experiences vs the IAF. He said that he and an IAF MiG-29 were firing on each other and virtually the same ranges, resulting in MAD. He ended his account with "that was scary, those guys were well trained and I don't want to fight like this, we shouldn't have to fight like this", making the case for the F-22 etc. Basically, MiG-29s were definitely part of the exercises. Also, against the RSAF we have accounts the MiG-29s performed well.
Look up the military exercises thread gents, I think you will be pleased to see the upgraded baaz in play in Oman.

I posted it on the IAF thread before itself. Clearly, the MiG-29UPG is viewed in a different light than the non upgraded MiG-29s were in the IAF.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 18 Oct 2019 06:45

Mig-29UPGs are a game changer! If Jaguars can be upgraded with domestic uprated Adours - IAF suddenly is very long on teeth!!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2019 11:23

This is my old post on prior exercises.

Karan M wrote:
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, also MiG29s likely. Su-30MKIs do very well against F-16s, Bisons about average and Mirages are at parity, MiG29s do well. 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.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 18 Oct 2019 12:44

Thanks for digging that up Karan. I found that article which referred to the “peripheral role” played by MiG-29s in that Cope India exercise that really got famous.

VayuSena tripod page link

Brought in for the exercise were Sukhoi Su-30s (but not the newest Su-30 MKIs) carrying simulated AA-11s and AA-12 Adders. There also were five MiG-29 Flankers involved in a peripheral role and an Antonov An-32 Cline as a simulated AWACS.

But yes it did participate in the exercise with RSAF F-16 Block 52+ jets as this link clearly shows.

link

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Oct 2019 17:56

I think they were the escorts for the Cline perhaps.

Great find on the RSAF!!

The Cope India -2 exercises also had MiG-29s. You remember this from one of the pilots "Ragins"

We started off on the first day with mixed formations doing fingertip flying, which was really cool. Next was some BFM, ACM, and Tactical intercepts. Then came the BVR Air Combat Tactics with us flying in mixed LFE formations with Su-30s, Mig 29s, Mig-27s, Mig-21 Bisons, and Mirage 2000s. The last phase was HVAA (High Value Asset) OCA and DCA. We did get into close combat with every jet they had and it was awesome... Their Sus and Migs really have a lot of power and it was impressive to see how they handled in BFM. The SU-30 was soooo easy to spot those because it makes the F-15 look like a Viper. One thing to note on the BFM strategies was that their pilots would do maneuvers that we had not really thought of before...I am not saying that we didn't know how to react to it, I just mean that when we saw them do a certain maneuver we would think "wow, I never thought of doing that before"....so it was good learning on both sides.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Oct 2019 00:03

Kartik wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Look up the military exercises thread gents, I think you will be pleased to see the upgraded baaz in play in Oman.
I posted it on the IAF thread before itself. Clearly, the MiG-29UPG is viewed in a different light than the non upgraded MiG-29s were in the IAF.

Yes I noticed. No wonder the iaf wants more of this bruiser.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 19 Oct 2019 00:10

: Does anyone notice the similarities between the upgraded baaz and Su35 dorsal humpwise. I think this is sop for russkis when they want to increase internal fuel cap.

I would love to see this on the MKI upgrade especially if they go with newer engines. Or maybe they try something like Su34, that beast has a range of over 4000km on internal fuel alone, 4500 according to a Janes report.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Oct 2019 02:02

That's not how they increased the fuel capacity of Su35. The dorsal spine has the same profile as on the Su27. The increase in fuel is by making the wing tanks larger, introduction of tanks in the fins and removal of the dorsal airbrakes (and using up that freed space for more fuel).

Let's get back to Rafale here. We can discuss Su35/Mig-29UPG in the airforce thread or Indian military aviation thread.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Oct 2019 03:09

Karan M wrote:I think they were the escorts for the Cline perhaps.

Great find on the RSAF!!

The Cope India -2 exercises also had MiG-29s. You remember this from one of the pilots "Ragins"
We started off on the first day with mixed formations doing fingertip flying, which was really cool. Next was some BFM, ACM, and Tactical intercepts. Then came the BVR Air Combat Tactics with us flying in mixed LFE formations with Su-30s, Mig 29s, Mig-27s, Mig-21 Bisons, and Mirage 2000s. The last phase was HVAA (High Value Asset) OCA and DCA. We did get into close combat with every jet they had and it was awesome... Their Sus and Migs really have a lot of power and it was impressive to see how they handled in BFM. The SU-30 was soooo easy to spot those because it makes the F-15 look like a Viper. One thing to note on the BFM strategies was that their pilots would do maneuvers that we had not really thought of before...I am not saying that we didn't know how to react to it, I just mean that when we saw them do a certain maneuver we would think "wow, I never thought of doing that before"....so it was good learning on both sides.

I remembered the discussion where one of those pilots (can't remember the call sign) posted his impressions of flying on board a MiG-29 in BFM. But didn't recall any BVR related discussions. Anyway, am just really glad to see the MiG-29UPG getting its due now. 4 squadrons of those Air Superiority jets gives me a lot of comfort. Just need them to be armed with Astra as soon as is feasible.

My last post on the MiG-29UPG here. Can carry on discussing in the Indian Military Aviation thread.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 26 Oct 2019 04:11

Excellent interview

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 28 Oct 2019 02:26

Kartik wrote:
Karan M wrote:I think they were the escorts for the Cline perhaps.

Great find on the RSAF!!

The Cope India -2 exercises also had MiG-29s. You remember this from one of the pilots "Ragins"
I remembered the discussion where one of those pilots (can't remember the call sign) posted his impressions of flying on board a MiG-29 in BFM. But didn't recall any BVR related discussions. Anyway, am just really glad to see the MiG-29UPG getting its due now. 4 squadrons of those Air Superiority jets gives me a lot of comfort. Just need them to be armed with Astra as soon as is feasible.

My last post on the MiG-29UPG here. Can carry on discussing in the Indian Military Aviation thread.

Well LFEs basically would mean BVR. He calls out BFM/CC especially as it was exciting, but my take-away is the fighters were used in both modes.
This quote in particular:
"Then came the BVR Air Combat Tactics with us flying in mixed LFE formations with Su-30s, Mig 29s, Mig-27s, Mig-21 Bisons, and Mirage 2000s. "

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 02 Nov 2019 03:17

https://twitter.com/avs_IND/status/1189791719732252672 ----> Indian Air Force pilots training started in Bordeaux, Mérignac. This training is designed to familiarize Indian pilots with the Rafale. As part of this 18-month training, which will come to an end in March 2021, pilots will perform 800 flights at an average rate of 3 flights/day.

RB001

RB002

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Nov 2019 14:13

Rafale

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Nov 2019 14:32

look a the fit and finish and compare with the work of our stodgy companies

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 04 Nov 2019 14:54

chetak wrote:look a the fit and finish and compare with the work of our stodgy PSUs

Indeed

ryogi · Post by **ryogi** » 04 Nov 2019 15:01

Kashi wrote:
chetak wrote:look a the fit and finish and compare with the work of our stodgy PSUs
Indeed

I see what you did there

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Nov 2019 15:08

Shiny Rafale

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Nov 2019 15:09

ryogi wrote:
Kashi wrote: Indeed
I see what you did there

yes I did.