Tejas Mk.1 & Mk.1A: News & Discussions: 23 February 2019

[srai]

1 x Griffin-3 LGB (underbelly)
2 x R-73 CCM
2 x Derby BVR
2 x 800 ltr tanks
1 x Litening pod

[SidSoma]

A large number of AAMs are required in two cases: where a seriously capable fighter has very long legs to take on a number of aircraft in succession. The performance of the aircraft in A2A fights is not seriously altered by the carriage of large number of missiles and larger pylons. The above two requirements cannot be fulfilled in light aircraft like the LCA Mk1. Therefore, although twin launchers can be easily designed for the inboard and midboard positions, the IAF has not asked for it. With MWF's much longer legs, it is in the realm of possibility. Even there I am not aware that IAF has asked for dual racks for BVRAAMs. ADA is advertising that capability. As discussed earlier, it adds to the flexibity.

Don't you think larger number of AAMs may be required in cases where LCA carries a significantly capable (say meteor class or better) BVR missile against AIM 120C class BVR. In this case, may be a pair of LCAs can hold off a larger force of intruders. If we field the same class of missile as opposing aircraft, I dont see larger number of AAMs having any great advantage.

One question, wouldn't maneuverability be affected by multi rack BVRs, esp for LCA ?

[Karan M]

Back in the air, as the separation between the aircrafts decrease, it can be ascertained what the F-16s are carrying based on the RCS. The other tell tale sign is the response of the F16s to the LCA challenge. If they also start accelerating, then it's not a strike package. The two LCAs will vector to a location (of safetly) where the reinforcements can join them at the earliest, proabably 5 minutes away from where they are now. If the F16s are about a 100 kms behind them, they will be 6-7 minutes behind them. The need for carrying 4 BVRAAMs does not arise in this case.

There are so many assumptions in your post, I dont even know where to begin.
The F-16s can definitely accelerate to add extra punch to their weapons range, strike or otherwise.
The LCAs won't have the grace period to wait for reinforcements. They will be in the fight. You seem to think the IAF waits for reinforcements, then engages. Did that happen on Feb 27th? Did the pilots wait for the MiG-21 Bisons to arrive?

If it is a strike package, the objective of the LCAs change from aircraft kills to mission kill. The most likely scenario is that 2 F-16s are carrying strike ammunition and two are escorting them. As the engagement closes in, BVRAAMs will be shot. But not at 80 kms, at less than 1 Mach launch speed and 35k launch altitude. If they are, the LCAs don't have to worry much. These missiles won't have much energy by the time they reach the LCAs. More liklely than not they will not fire any Astras. They are going to change their vector by 90 degrees and start climbing. The DTs will be immediately emptied and let go off as soon as that is achieved. The LCAs task now is to shake off the BVRAAMs and soon thereafter identify and engage the F-16s with the strike package. Alternatively, if they see that (some of) the F16s are accelerating beyond supersonic speed and gaining altitude, then they would do so too. But now, both sides are closing in at over 2,400 kms per second. They will be in WVR territory in just over a minute. By the way, getting to 1.4ish mach would take tens of seconds on both sides. But both of them would know that the other side no longer has their DTs and is on AB. There is about 10 minutes of fight left in either of them. Again, I can't see the need for 4 BVRAAMs

There is no guarantee the PAF will send only 2 F16s with 2 escorts. They can mix and match however as many platforms they wish, as they did on Feb 27th. They will also try to overwhelm the LCAs or any number available with localized superiority.

They will also launch their BVRAAMs supersonic to add as much energy as possible to their lances. The F-16s can launch BVRAAMs and crank. They dont need to come closer to the LCAs and get into WVR territory either.

You have just created an extremely unrealistic scenario to come up with a case for fewer BVRAAMs, but that's not how the game is played at all as the PAF itself demonstrated. Each F-16 AN/APG-68 v(9) can launch up to 6 AMRAAMs in TWS mode, with intermittent updates. They might even launch a few AMRAAMs to put the LCAs on defensive and follow up with the definitive shots against the LCAs when the latter are deemed to have lost situational awareness. There are so many tactics in play.

All boil down to 4 things - situational awareness (sensors, datalink), fuel, weapons payload and kinematics. To then hobble any one of the above is a compromise.

Is a $40 - 60 Mn LCA worth $6 Mn in AMRAAMs, plus the cost of the pilot and the PR win for the PAF, do the math. It clearly is.

[Indranil]

Karan,

1. There are so many variables that assumptions are invariable. In fact IAF (and any AF) will change tactics everyday of the war to maintain the element of surprise.
2. I don't know how F-16 carrying strike packages can accelerate much above cruise speed let alone go supersonic. Their escorts can, and I have covered that. How much time do you think an F-16/LCA takes to go from 0.85 M cruise speed to say 1.4 M flying level (1.4 M to 1.6M is deadly slow. Let's not even bother about that). Will the opponent who is tracking not know what is happening. Albeit!
3. Not just IAF, but any AF will ask its pilots wait for numbers when outnumbered 2:1 against same quality of aircraft if that alternative is open. It is not cowardice. It is how you fight smartly and guarantee maximum exchange ratio. The alternative is not always open, for example if the F-16s are too close to an airfield, or important establishment, or carrying a strike package. Once again, I have covered that too. Minty Agarwal told us that the IAF now has the capability to ascertain the payloads of the aircraft from the RCS at decent distance.
4. You can shoot from distance. If you shoot from 80 km away, you won't bother most pilots in modern aircrafts. This was also unraveled in the recent skirmish. None of the Su-30s where even remotely in danger. They were not even in much of a disadvantage. The f-16s did not just decide to go home from a very advantageous position. And the Su-30s did not fire back at that range. It is a waste of a missile at those ranges.
5. When fighting well trained pilots in capable aircraft, one uses a BVRAAM to get into an advantageous position when entering the WVR. That is what the history of usage of BVRs has taught us. If you carry too many missiles on a light aircraft which remain unused, then you fly and fight with that burden at close quarters.
6. One thing that you guys probably don't appreciate is how much time pilots of lights aircrafts have to fight with AB on. At full AB, the 404IN is guzzling over 17 tons of fuel per hour, i.e. 0.3 tons per minutes. These aircraft don't have enough thrust to go supersonic with large tanks on. LCA can go supersonic with 725 litre supersonic tank. So at best it have less than 3 tons of fuel to begin with. You guys do the math. E.g. scramble sorties of Mig21s with SS drop tanks last less than 15 minutes.
7. When you have a bigger aircraft you have more time to have prolonged air battles and potentially use up more BVR AAMs. Not so on light aircrafts.

I was one of those who vociferously asked for dual pylons on Mk1 for BVRAAMs. I have changed my opinion after speaking to pilots and designers of light aircraft. It will take some convincing to change my opinion back. I recognize my stubbornness on this and will humbly bow out of this conversation.

[Aditya_V]

I think what we need is Metoer/ RVV BD or NGRAM, with extreme long range next time we detect F16 flying supersonic for BVR launch to target the group SAAB Erieye, with suitable ROE for it. And then start going after the rest of the Package. That will make sure PAF temporarily will vacate all airspace to the IAF and IA drones etc, to target the PA, Pakis need not admit thier losses but Paki miltary leaders will know non state actors put them in danger.

[Kartik]

Agree with you Karan. I am really surprised that anyone would think that 2 BVRAAMs + 2 CCMs is fine for a platform that CAN carry more, but somehow the same argument will no longer be made when talking about a Mirag-2000 or MiG-29 or Su-30.

The assumptions of a cooperative enemy that will only do what we predict is disingenuous, IMO. All it shows is that the lessons of Feb 27th are not being learnt. I just hope the TACDE and some squadrons try to simulate such a scenario with different types and then arrive at what is the ideal number of BVRAAMs and the best tactics to be used.

[khan]

I think the point Indranil is making, is Tejas doesn’t have enough gas for doing more than one cycle of going supersonic & launching BVR AAM & 2 BVR missiles are enough for that.

Bigger planes can do this more often & therefore it makes sense for them to carry more BVR missiles. Tejas will just have to pit-stops on forward air bases, be replenished & take off again. This is what the plane was designed to do.

[Kartik]

3. Not just IAF, but any AF will ask its pilots wait for numbers when outnumbered 2:1 against same quality of aircraft if that alternative is open. It is not cowardice. It is how you fight smartly and guarantee that maximum damage. The alternative is not always open, for example if the F-16s are too close to an airfield, or important establishment, or carrying a strike package. Once again, I have covered that too. Minty Agarwal told us that the IAF now has the capability to ascertain the payloads of the aircraft from the RCS at decent distance.

You don't fight smartly if all you're doing is going on the defensive while a strike package that is using a 100 km standoff weapon is free to do what it wants to do while it's escorts keep shooting long range shots or maneuvering to shoot while you keep going cold, while waiting for reinforcements to arrive.

4. You can shoot from distance. If you shoot from 80 km away, you won't bother most pilots in modern aircrafts. This was also unraveled in the recent skirmish. None of the Su-30s where even remotely in danger. They were not even in much of a disadvantage. The f-16s just did not just decide to go home. And the Su-30s did not fire back at that range. It is waste of a missile at those ranges.

Then why are we continuously harping about a 150 km class BVRAAM or 100 km class BVRAAM? What is the point of a long range BVRAAM if it cannot even be used to put yourself into an advantageous position or kill a strike mission? This assumption that it was a cake walk to avoid the AMRAAMs that were fired at the Su-30s is dangerous to say the least. We simply do not know just how close any of those 5 AMRAAMs came to finding their mark.

5. When fighting well trained pilots in capable aircraft, one uses a BVRAAM to get into an advantageous possible when entering the WVR. That is what the history of usage of BVRs has taught us. If you carry too many missiles on a light aircraft which remain unused, then you fly and fight with that burden at close quarters.

You want to avoid getting into WVR. That is the least survivable area and the move towards longer range CCMs like the ASRAAM indicates that. If you advocate living to fight another day then the closest you want to get to an enemy fighter is 25-30 kms unless you're pursuing them and even then there is no guarantee that you're not getting into an ambush.

6. One thing that you guys probably don't appreciate is how much time pilots of lights aircrafts have to fight with AB on. At full AB, the 404IN is guzzling over 17 tons of fuel per hour, 0.3 tons per minutes. These aircraft don't have enough thrust to go supersonic with large tanks on. LCA can go supersonic with 725 litre supersonic tank. So at best it have less than 3 tons of fuel to begin with. You guys do the math. Scramble sorties of Mig21s finish in less than 15 minutes.

The very reason that IFR is being introduced on the Tejas is to allow for longer missions, if tanker support is available. Obviously the Su-30 and Rafale are best suited to the CAP mission, both defensive and offensive thanks to the longer loiter time, but there will be situations where they are not available nearby and the role has to be assumed by other squadrons with Tejas fighters.

What you're doing is you're basically ruling out the LCA as a good candidate for CAP, OCA or escort missions and best suited to point defence and ORP.

If OCA, DCA and CAP are all missions better handled by bigger class of fighters then I'm afraid this only buttresses the IAF's argument for more Rafale and Mirage-2000 class fighters as I see it. No wonder why the IAF doesn't want more than 123 Mk1 and Mk1As and wants to move on to the MWF and Rafale/MRCA.

[Kartik]

I think the point Indranil is making, is Tejas doesn’t have enough gas for doing more than one cycle of going supersonic & launching BVR AAM & 2 BVR missiles are enough for that.

Bigger planes can do this more often & therefore it makes sense for them to carry more BVR missiles. Tejas will just have to pit-stops on forward air bases, be replenished & take off again. This is what the plane was designed to do.

It isn't as short legged as a MiG-21 and is IFR capable. and the MiG-29 doesn't carry that much more fuel considering that it has 2 RD-33s to feed. While a Tejas can't loiter for more than say 30-40 minutes with drop tanks (assuming 10+10 minutes to get to-and-fro the CAP zone) and probably lesser time without them, consciously restricting it's BVRAAM loadout to 2 with DTs is handicapping it based off of spurious assumptions.

[Gyan]

I think LCA should be equipped to carry 6 missiles with DTs, and IAF can always choose whether to carry them or not. Due to excellent info from Indranil we know LCA can carry weight of:-

2 WVR = 300kg
4 BVR = 700Kg
1 jammer = 200kg
DTs = 725x 3 = 2175 or 1200 x 2 = 2400kg
& extra weight of dual pylons.

To my limited knowledge after Vietnam war, no classic dog fight has taken place. The fighter which is better situated due to AWACS or Radar, awareness, better EW & Missiles wins. Classic turning dog fighting ability is not a decider. Though maneuverability, speed etc is required to get into position of advantage.

Very difficult to accept Indranil scenario that Fighter will try to get into WVR fight even if aware about adversary from 100+ km away.

[Indranil]

3. Not just IAF, but any AF will ask its pilots wait for numbers when outnumbered 2:1 against same quality of aircraft if that alternative is open. It is not cowardice. It is how you fight smartly and guarantee that maximum damage. The alternative is not always open, for example if the F-16s are too close to an airfield, or important establishment, or carrying a strike package. Once again, I have covered that too. Minty Agarwal told us that the IAF now has the capability to ascertain the payloads of the aircraft from the RCS at decent distance.

You don't fight smartly if all you're doing is going on the defensive while a strike package that is using a 100 km standoff weapon is free to do what it wants to do while it's escorts keep shooting long range shots or maneuvering to shoot while you keep going cold, while waiting for reinforcements to arrive.

Please read what I have written. The bolded part clearly says that you don't play the waiting game when the opposition is on a strike attack. Here's what I had written in my first post.

When the F-16s have been deemed as hostile, the next step is to ascertain what these guys are up to. Are they on a strike role or are they here for an aerial fight. The LCAs will have to challenge these F-16s, there is no other way. ... Back in the air, as the separation between the aircrafts decrease, it can be ascertained what the F-16s are carrying based on the RCS. The other tell tale sign is the response of the F16s to the LCA challenge. If they also start accelerating, then it's not a strike package. The two LCAs will vector to a location (of safetly) where the reinforcements can join them at the earliest, probably 5 minutes away from where they are now.

If it is a strike package, the objective of the LCAs will immediately change from aircraft kills to mission kill. The most likely scenario is that 2 F-16s are carrying strike ammunition and two are escorting them. As the engagement closes in, BVRAAMs will be shot. But not at 80 kms, at less than 1 Mach launch speed and 35k launch altitude. If they are, the LCAs don't have to worry much. These missiles won't have much energy by the time they reach the LCAs. More liklely than not they will not fire any Astras. They are going to change their vector by 90 degrees and start climbing. The DTs will be immediately emptied and let go off as soon as that is achieved. The LCAs task now is to shake off the BVRAAMs and soon thereafter identify and engage the F-16s with the strike package. Alternatively, if they see that (some of) the F16s are accelerating beyond supersonic speed and gaining altitude, then they would do so too. But now, both sides are closing in at over 2,400 kms per second. They will be in WVR territory in just over a minute. By the way, getting to 1.4ish mach would take tens of seconds on both sides. But both of them would know that the other side no longer has their DTs and is on AB. There is about 10 minutes of fight left in either of them. Again, I can't see the need for 4 BVRAAMs

Where have I said that the LCAs will wait for reinforcements when the opposing flights are on a strike attack? Once again, the very first thing that LCAs and ground handler will do is ascertain what is the role of the opposing party. Only when it is ascertained that the opposing aircraft are in A2A role may LCAs wait for reinforcements to arrive. And why is waiting for reinforcements to arrive a defensive ploy? It is the preparation to give the bloodiest nose.

4. You can shoot from distance. If you shoot from 80 km away, you won't bother most pilots in modern aircrafts. This was also unraveled in the recent skirmish. None of the Su-30s where even remotely in danger. They were not even in much of a disadvantage. The f-16s just did not just decide to go home. And the Su-30s did not fire back at that range. It is waste of a missile at those ranges.

Then why are we continuously harping about a 150 km class BVRAAM or 100 km class BVRAAM? What is the point of a long range BVRAAM if it cannot even be used to put yourself into an advantageous position or kill a strike mission? This assumption that it was a cake walk to avoid the AMRAAMs that were fired at the Su-30s is dangerous to say the least. We simply do not know just how close any of those 5 AMRAAMs came to finding their mark.

This is a public forum so that is as much as I will go. Regarding why we want really long range AAMs. Every airforce wants longer range AAM. With a 100km max range BVRAAM, 40-50 km range shots are damn effective. With a 160 km range BVRAAM, 70-80 km range shots would be effective. But if you are firing 2 BVRAAM simultaneously at 2different targets then you have to the have capability to track both your targets and missiles, handle communications with your missiles, and present a coherent scenario to your pilot simultaneously so that he can strategize his next moves. Very few aircrafts have that computing ability today. On paper, ofcourse everything looks nice.

5. When fighting well trained pilots in capable aircraft, one uses a BVRAAM to get into an advantageous possible when entering the WVR. That is what the history of usage of BVRs has taught us. If you carry too many missiles on a light aircraft which remain unused, then you fly and fight with that burden at close quarters.

You want to avoid getting into WVR. That is the least survivable area and the move towards longer range CCMs like the ASRAAM indicates that. If you advocate living to fight another day then the closest you want to get to an enemy fighter is 25-30 kms unless you're pursuing them and even then there is no guarantee that you're not getting into an ambush.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am advocating "living to fight another day". Please read what I have read more carefully.

6. One thing that you guys probably don't appreciate is how much time pilots of lights aircrafts have to fight with AB on. At full AB, the 404IN is guzzling over 17 tons of fuel per hour, 0.3 tons per minutes. These aircraft don't have enough thrust to go supersonic with large tanks on. LCA can go supersonic with 725 litre supersonic tank. So at best it have less than 3 tons of fuel to begin with. You guys do the math. Scramble sorties of Mig21s finish in less than 15 minutes.

The very reason that IFR is being introduced on the Tejas is to allow for longer missions, if tanker support is available. Obviously the Su-30 and Rafale are best suited to the CAP mission, both defensive and offensive thanks to the longer loiter time, but there will be situations where they are not available nearby and the role has to be assumed by other squadrons with Tejas fighters.

What you're doing is you're basically ruling out the LCA as a good candidate for CAP, OCA or escort missions and best suited to point defence and ORP.

If OCA, DCA and CAP are all missions better handled by bigger class of fighters then I'm afraid this only buttresses the IAF's argument for more Rafale and Mirage-2000 class fighters as I see it. No wonder why the IAF doesn't want more than 123 Mk1 and Mk1As and wants to move on to the MWF and Rafale/MRCA.

No sir, I am not ruling out LCA from CAP or OCA. I am ruling out those ideas which make a light fighter like LCA fight with the same strategy as a medium/heavy weight fighter. If you want to fight with light fighters, the flexibility comes from the ability to field more fighters, not field more missiles per fighter. You can speak to any retired pilots about strategies. They know what they can reveal and what they cannot. You can talk to TPs too. In fact, a well-known acting TP and retired TACDE instructor have already spoken on this, but you all want to believe what you want.

I regard you highly and got sucked back into replying. I am really out of here now

[nachiket]

Nachiket,

I am sorry it took me so long to reply to this. I did not want to reply in a hurry.

Thanks for your response. I think my thoughts are mostly in line with what Karan and Kartik have said. Just want to clarify a couple of things from my earlier post.

I am considering that all 8 F-16's facing us are armed for air-to-air. They are not mixing strikers and escorts. It is more of a fighter sweep using local numerical superiority, thereafter followed by the strikers ingressing close behind. In such a situation, waiting for reinforcements is risky. The only reinforcements available close by are 2 QRA LCA's at Srinagar. 5 mins to scramble and further time to reach station. Even after they reach, we will be outnumbered.

Secondly, I question the ability to differentiate a strike configured F-16 from an air-to-air armed F-16 based on the RCS. Will the RCS of an F-16 carrying CFT's, centerline tank, six AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders be that much different from that of an F-16 carrying 2 JDAMs or Paveways instead of all those AMRAAMs, everything else remaining the same.

[Karan M]

Karan,

1. There are so many variables that assumptions are invariable. In fact IAF (and any AF) will change tactics everyday of the war to maintain the element of surprise.
2. I don't know how F-16 carrying strike packages can accelerate much above cruise speed let alone go supersonic. Their escorts can, and I have covered that. How much time do you think an F-16/LCA takes to go from 0.85 M cruise speed to say 1.4 M flying level (1.4 M to 1.6M is deadly slow. Let's not even bother about that). Will the opponent who is tracking not know what is happening. Albeit!

The biggest assumption made here is that an aircraft on a strike package can't go supersonic. Why would you think it would be so heavily loaded as to be sluggish? This is a classic case of underestimating the opponent, which we should be very very careful of. The opponent can split his 1000 lb PGMs across multiple aircraft!

3. Not just IAF, but any AF will ask its pilots wait for numbers when outnumbered 2:1 against same quality of aircraft if that alternative is open. It is not cowardice. It is how you fight smartly and guarantee maximum exchange ratio. The alternative is not always open, for example if the F-16s are too close to an airfield, or important establishment, or carrying a strike package. Once again, I have covered that too. Minty Agarwal told us that the IAF now has the capability to ascertain the payloads of the aircraft from the RCS at decent distance.

Sorry, but this is not borne out by any evidence, because the situation can be very desperate and also time constrained. The fact is that if a strike or even an intercept package is headed your way, you will have to engage and its a rare chance for you to avoid. You wait and assume the strike package is not there, and the opponent can launch glide munitions or CMs from 100km away.

I'd like to see what Minty Agarwal said, but its incorrect to state that one can reliably estimate the payload via RCS. For that, you'd need imaging radars. At best you can make out its loaded, but the RCS spike could be as much due to Drop Tanks.

Whether Nirmaljit Sekhon or the IAF pilots on Feb 27th, nobody has the luxury of playing a wait and watch. At best an ORP is scrambled to reinforce.

4. You can shoot from distance. If you shoot from 80 km away, you won't bother most pilots in modern aircrafts. This was also unraveled in the recent skirmish. None of the Su-30s where even remotely in danger. They were not even in much of a disadvantage. The f-16s did not just decide to go home from a very advantageous position. And the Su-30s did not fire back at that range. It is a waste of a missile at those ranges.

You are completely mistaken here, no offence, as you may have not been following what happened during that event. The Su-30s were in danger and they headed it off via smart tactics, plus one Su-30 was in danger several times over. The F-16s went home because Avenger-1s dashes were something they were not comfortable with, and the other F-16s had completed their strike.

5. When fighting well trained pilots in capable aircraft, one uses a BVRAAM to get into an advantageous position when entering the WVR. That is what the history of usage of BVRs has taught us. If you carry too many missiles on a light aircraft which remain unused, then you fly and fight with that burden at close quarters.

Indranil - this is a very mistaken view which ignores the details at all about how effective BVR weapons have been in the right hands at the right time. Please see the below.

How good was the Phoenix and what was your experience with the weapon systems?

“It was flawless. As far as I can recall, out of some 167 launched AIM-54A missiles, only in one instance did the missile malfunction. Our investigation and pilot record showed that the missile’s own engine didn’t ignite on time, and when it did, the missile actually followed the Tomcat. This missile was a successful weapon. And quite frankly since the AIM-54A Phoenix was the only standard missile received by the Iranian air force for use on the F-14, it was standard operating procedure to launch it from 20-25 miles out to ensure higher hit rate and also to keep our own F-14 jets safe from enemy air-to-air weapons.

As for my personal experience with it, I must say that I fired eight rounds of Phoenix missiles in total, from different positions and angles, which all hit their targets. My first experience firing the missile, was chasing a MiG-21 with enough speed to overtake it at 11 miles towards its aft hemisphere. This was September 1980.”

“I had eight aerial kills with the Phoenix missile, two kills with the Vulcan M61A gun, and one kill with the MIM-23 Hawk missile that we ended up using on our fleet of F-14 jets due to severe missile shortages in late stages of the conflict. On top of that I reportedly can claim five manoeuvre kills from two separate engagements.

https://hushkit.net/2020/02/27/flying-f ... ghter-ace/

How good was the AIM-54A, what was your experience with the weapon system?

“As you know, the origins of AIM-54 dates back to the missile system that was envisioned for the A-12/YF-12 supersonic interceptor. And we all know the F-111B story. Then it morphs into, and gets finessed to what we now know as the AIM-54A and C variants of the original concept. So it began its journey as a powerful, heavy long-range missile that was to intercept Russian long range bombers threatening US Navy carrier strike groups. But what gave it the lethal punch was the combination of then the AWG-9 system with the missile itself. I personally believe the Iranian kill rate using the missile was above 90 percent. A handful malfunctioned on launch and dropped off the jet cold. Overall it was a reliable and effective weapon system.

Let me add an important note to this whole thing. Our air force’s maintenance squadrons with their highly capable weapons and armament shops (which I might add were all US-trained) provided us with reliable missiles and systems to use in combat. All this could not have been achieved without their dedication in eight years of conflict with Iraq. I personally launched four of those AIM-54A missiles at enemy aircraft. Three performed flawlessly and scored hits giving me three confirmed kills. But the fourth one is most likely a probable. I could not see what it did and so I can not take credit for it. Although after we had landed, our intelligence reported a heightened radio traffic on the enemy side and our SIGINT/ELINT units confirmed search & rescue activity in the area of the probable hit, but I could not visually confirm anything. In order to increase the chance of a hit, we were instructed to launch within 40 miles. It was a proven lethal long range platform. Our F-14A kill ratio is still jaw-dropping. A few Tomcats brought down by friendly fire but that is for another day. ”

Now, how close can an AMRAAM type missile be used? As you yourself correctly state, a 20-30 km shot would give you high Pk. So why wont you use even BVR weapons at such ranges? Its not like you 'll just enter the WVR knife fight zone. Before that, these weapons would be used, even if the target is 10km away from you.

6. One thing that you guys probably don't appreciate is how much time pilots of lights aircrafts have to fight with AB on. At full AB, the 404IN is guzzling over 17 tons of fuel per hour, i.e. 0.3 tons per minutes. These aircraft don't have enough thrust to go supersonic with large tanks on. LCA can go supersonic with 725 litre supersonic tank. So at best it have less than 3 tons of fuel to begin with. You guys do the math. E.g. scramble sorties of Mig21s with SS drop tanks last less than 15 minutes.

You are again making a critical assumption here that everyone will fight supersonic only. If the other guys want to launch lances at speed, they will go supersonic, but thereafter they might well throttle down. They dont want to waste fuel, and want to maintain distance from the target while ensuring radar maintains guidance on my intended target. Point is there are so many tactics.

You can go supersonic and start trying to bleed the opponent's missile energy or remain afar and do the same!

Why would you think the LCA is getting an AESA radar but for the fact it can see further, which gives it more range to guide weapons in, and also use more tactics like flanking potential targets.

Regarding aircraft on afterburner, now think about whether fighters have the time to loiter around waiting to discern if the incoming formation is a strike/CAP or any such thing when your opponent is supersonic. You have to react equally fast, as happened on Feb 27th.

A standard USAF tactic is to go full-wall on afterburner and launch, max radar coverage as emulated by many NATO AF which practice staggered formations going supersonic to give their weapons max range.

Gripen Pilot:

I think max speed is more important since a higher speed means a lot in BVR combat. You can fire your weapons at longer distances and go further into an enemy’s WEZ if you have a higher speed.”

7. When you have a bigger aircraft you have more time to have prolonged air battles and potentially use up more BVR AAMs. Not so on light aircrafts.
I was one of those who vociferously asked for dual pylons on Mk1 for BVRAAMs. I have changed my opinion after speaking to pilots and designers of light aircraft. It will take some convincing to change my opinion back. I recognize my stubbornness on this and will humbly bow out of this conversation.

You are welcome to bow out of this conversation of course that's your privilege, but IMHO your claims are mistaken.

The IAF will not have the luxury of sending up LCAs to fight only JF-17s.

If a LCA goes up against a F-16 formation or even others, it has to be able to sustain the fight for as long as it can, and launch as many weapons as it can. It does not have the luxury of standing on the side and waiting for the IAF to send up "better" aircraft.

Here is one view from across the border on "light aircraft" and the limitations observed after actual exploitation.

https://hushkit.net/2019/07/19/flying-f ... ter-pilot/

What is the best and worst thing about the JF-17?

“Best thing: Continuous upgrades of indigenous and Chinese weapons/electronic counter-measures suites, standoff capabilities of exceptional range i.e REK/IREK,CM-400,C-802AK etc. Worst : limited BVR load-out.”

On "light fighters won't face heavier aircraft"

What has been your most memorable mission & why was that?

“One mission took place in the days following the Indian Air Force’s attempted strikes in Pakistan border region- at five in the night I took off in rain and low cloud with TS in the vicinity. Clouds were from 4,000 till 33,000 feet. Got out of clouds and controller reported two Su-30s ‘across the fence’. I targeted them at ranges beyond 50-60 NM but didn’t get authorisation to engage from controller, continued to grind above 32,000 flowing hot and cold 20-30NM from fence targeting the Su-30s. The IAF scrambled a total of six more Su-30s and finally I had eight Su-30s in front. Would turn hot and target each one in sequence from north to south (just spike them seeing whether they get lured in or not).

Anyone can discern the Su-30s were at 50-60nm from the JF-17, i.e. 110km away. I leave you to discern how much risk the JF-17s were at. Also gives a good idea of the JF-17s radar acquisition capability. They had to get in that close to "see" the Su-30s which likely had them on radar from far earlier.

He goes on to say he considers the Su-30 the most dangerous IAF aircraft. Why do you think that is?

Here is the IAF.
https://hushkit.net/2019/09/25/flying-f ... 000-pilot/

As regards BVR missions, two things are very important, one is look (AKA ‘radar range’), next is the weapon that can hit far (AKA ‘weapon reach’). On paper and in real IAF scores over Pakistan in both. With inclusion of Astra, IAF has acquires indigenous capability too, which has pushed this divide between ‘haves and have nots’ even further.”

If the IAF intends to use the LCA seriously, there will come a time when they have to start expanding the load-out as well. More BVR missiles make sense.

Sticking to some arbitrary claims of "BVR is only good for getting to WVR" is IMHO mistaken and AFAIK IAF doesn't train to such a belief system, they would train for WVR in case BVR fails but that's not the same as BVR will always fail and hence WVR will always result.

[Karan M]

This is a public forum so that is as much as I will go. Regarding why we want really long range AAMs. Every airforce wants longer range AAM. With a 100km max range BVRAAM, 40-50 km range shots are damn effective. With a 160 km range BVRAAM, 70-80 km range shots would be effective. But if you are firing 2 BVRAAM simultaneously at 2different targets then you have to the have capability to track both your targets and missiles, handle communications with your missiles, and present a coherent scenario to your pilot simultaneously so that he can strategize his next moves. Very few aircrafts have that computing ability today. On paper, ofcourse everything looks nice.

The Su-30 MKI can target 4 targets in its ESA area with R-77s. The F-16 can target up to 6 targets in TWS mode, ripple firing them. The RDY-3 on the Mirage 2000 can target 4 targets simultaneously. The Rafale can likely target much more than that number.

The limitations are not on the computing side which has been cracked a long time back with the widespread adoption of digital electronics and time sharing algorithms but on the radar mechanics side where with gimbal arrays its hard for mechanical scanned arrays to keep track of maneuvering targets. However, all this including guiding multiple missiles, was repeatedly demonstrated by fighters like the F-14 ages ago. Why exactly do you think the world is moving on to AESA radars which can guide beams near instantaneously throughout their field of view?

Even for mechanical radars, such as the Mirage 2000s RDY series:

The processing capacity of the RDY is eight track simultaneous TWS, like its American counterparts. However, in the case of the RDY, this capacity is genuinely available to the pilot, since the tracks are positioned automatically. Once the track-while-scan mode is engaged, the radar evaluates the threat represented by each track (according to its range and speed), in order to produce a firing scenario for the pilot. For the four tracks with the highest threat priority, antenna scanning is configured automatically to avoid losing these tracks in the event of evasive manoeuvres or closing, which could move them out of the angular detection field.

No sir, I am not ruling out LCA from CAP or OCA. I am ruling out those ideas which make a light fighter like LCA fight with the same strategy as a medium/heavy weight fighter. If you want to fight with light fighters, the flexibility comes from the ability to field more fighters, not field more missiles per fighter. You can speak to any retired pilots about strategies. They know what they can reveal and what they cannot. You can talk to TPs too. In fact, a well-known acting TP and retired TACDE instructor have already spoken on this, but you all want to believe what you want.

I regard you highly and got sucked back into replying. I am really out of here now

If you don't have enough fighters available to surge, you will have to deploy more weapons per fighter. I don't know why common sense should be seen as such a big deal.

[MeshaVishwas]

Deb Rana magic

[nachiket]

Deb Rana never disappoints. What a fantastic picture.

[ArjunPandit]

the second most delighting shot.... are the 11 rings in the exhaust unedited? dont know about the implications but they really look good..might be good example for some physics/engineering problems

[Indranil]

They are unedited. I don't understand the rest of your post.

[Manish_P]

the second most delighting shot.... are the 11 rings in the exhaust unedited? dont know about the implications but they really look good..might be good example for some physics/engineering problems

I think you are referring to 'Shock Diamonds' or 'Mach Diamonds'

If so, then yes, there is a fair bit of physics/science involved

[Indranil]

I can take some credit in this picture coming out. It appeared in the ADA calendar last year, which is not available online. There are only 2 pictures of Tejas with the shock diamonds that I know of. So, I requested this picture be published.

I am on a hot trail to get some eminent people from the program to join BRF. They can't till they are govt. employed.

[MeshaVishwas]

There are only 2 pictures of Tejas with the shock diamonds that I know of. So, I requested this picture be published.

My heartfelt thanks to your effort!
And dhanyavad for the kadak Chai that your Chaiwallah has been blessing us with, over the years.

[Kartik]

I can take some credit in this picture coming out. It appeared in the ADA calendar last year, which is not available online. There are only 2 pictures of Tejas with the shock diamonds that I know of. So, I requested this picture be published.

I am on a hot trail to get some eminent people from the program to join BRF. They can't till they are govt. employed.

Oh would love to see the rest of the pics from that calendar.

Could you try to get Cmde. CD Balaji to join BRF?

[ranjan.rao]

the second most delighting shot.... are the 11 rings in the exhaust unedited? dont know about the implications but they really look good..might be good example for some physics/engineering problems

I think you are referring to 'Shock Diamonds' or 'Mach Diamonds'

If so, then yes, there is a fair bit of physics/science involved

thank you ...

[Rahul M]

I can take some credit in this picture coming out. It appeared in the ADA calendar last year, which is not available online. There are only 2 pictures of Tejas with the shock diamonds that I know of. So, I requested this picture be published.

I am on a hot trail to get some eminent people from the program to join BRF. They can't till they are govt. employed.

I don't know why they think so but there is absolutely no rule barring govt servants from joining an online discussion forum. We have serving IFS, IAS and military people on board that we know of.

[SidSoma]

In the very first wave we have to overwhelm PAF in sky and destroy their bases all in one go. It's a bit like Mitsubishi Zero fighters launching attack on Pearl Harbour .... like a locust invasion. For that we need massive number of Tejas variants.

This is something we cant do with missiles and need to risk the lives of pilots..... really in this day and age we are relying on WWII tactics. Nice

IAF has already decided how many aircraft it needs, to meet these numbers, a good number of Tejas will be inducted. We are certain this number is at least 123. I am sure that once MMRCA gets delayed more and Rafale becomes too expensive, this number will go up. Another thing that will push these numbers up is Astra II and SFDR being operational.

We should arm twist (as we are such large Oil buyers) the Qataris or Saudis to buy Tejas ("Export Version" with French/US avionics and weapons package would prefer them buying the Arjuns tho) to aid development of new production lines. This will also aid in bringing down the cost per unit

[Karan M]

So went back and checked - and yes, my assumptions about tactics were correct. Shaw (USAF FP) on missile firing:

On why more missiles are better, fired in salvos for Pk, give the ability to force the opponent on the defensive. Note seeker mix diversity, you can understand why a long reach ASRAAM is helpful, and how the R-27 TE complements the R-27ER/R-77/Astra (you might fire the heat seeker first):

However, a missile in the air has an uncanny ability to attract the attention of the pilotin the target aircraft, often causing him to forget all about launching his own weapon. Because of this psychological factor missiles are sometimes"fired for effect" even when the shooter knows there is little chance for success. The target's defensive reaction may place the shooter in a much more favorable position. In some cases it may be advantageous to fire one missile at maximum aerodynamic range, or even beyond, for effect, and follow it with another at maximum relative range. This is often possible with radar missiles, but a second heat seeker may conceivably guide on the tailpipe of the first one, limiting the usefulness of this tactic with heat-seeking missiles. Missiles of two different types are often fired together,since target defensive countermeasures employed against one may be ineffective against the other.

Maximum F-pole normally can be increased by firing the missile at higher aircraft speed (which in turn increases the missile's velocity), and then slowing the launching fighter as much as practical, allowing the weapon to gain greater separation. The firing fighter may also be able to turn away from the target by some amount after launch/ further increasing target range at missile intercept. Slowing down and turning away from a target in the forward hemisphere also tends to reduce the opponent's effective firing range.

So, you wish to enhance maximal range between you and your target, post launch. Range difference between a transonic launch and a supersonic launch is of the order of 15%, thats substantial.

On the contrary, accelerating for a strike mission is mostly wrong.

Most strike attacks for existing weapons bar the occasional SDB type munition which significantly benefits from the PE/KE, will take place at high subsonic, because that's what the strike weapon envelopes are qualified for or you want maximal stability for your platform's optical/sensors to acquire, designate the target.

In contrast, you go for height.

At Mach 0.9 (say) and a substantial height, it is the latter plus the speed which adds additional range to the PGM allowing the platform to stay out of coverage of MANPADS and SAMs. Hence, Lo-high-Lo wherein you pop up to acquire the target properly, launch PGMs, and then again go back to Low level for egress.

Increased stand-off distance is also valuable in that it may allow assessment of the results of the first missile and, if necessary, permit the firing of another before minimum range is reached. Under almost any imaginable circumstances, missiles with launch-and-leave capability are preferable to semi-active types with about equal range, since the former do not restrict the shooter's maneuver capability after launch.

Explains the bow-shaped contrails of the F-16s after firing the AMRAAMs on the 27th of Feb. They were either fired in inertial only mode or guided in by the SAAB AEW&CS, either ways some of the F-16s chose to maneuver after launch.

Note the part in bold - if you have two missiles, a SARH and an ARH and former is of greater range, and it is conceivable that it reaches you first before your opponent's goes active, then its still worthwhile. Also, helps in closer range shots for fighting ECM.

[nachiket]

However, a missile in the air has an uncanny ability to attract the attention of the pilotin the target aircraft, often causing him to forget all about launching his own weapon. Because of this psychological factor missiles are sometimes"fired for effect" even when the shooter knows there is little chance for success. The target's defensive reaction may place the shooter in a much more favorable position. In some cases it may be advantageous to fire one missile at maximum aerodynamic range, or even beyond, for effect, and follow it with another at maximum relative range. This is often possible with radar missiles, but a second heat seeker may conceivably guide on the tailpipe of the first one, limiting the usefulness of this tactic with heat-seeking missiles. Missiles of two different types are often fired together,since target defensive countermeasures employed against one may be ineffective against the other.

I agree with all of what you wrote but I have a question here. The "missile attracting attention of the target" is only possible if it is fired in STT mode right? A TWS launch will not be detected by the RWR (can it?). RWR warning will sound only when the missile's own seeker acquires the target.

Unless of course the newer RWR's are sophisticated enough to detect that an enemy radar is tracking you in TWS mode. Or the AWACS providing coverage detects the missile on its radar and alerts the pilot.

[Indranil]

Could you try to get Cmde. CD Balaji to join BRF?

I have tried earlier. Did not work. I suppose too much to lose and not so much to gain for these guys. I will keep trying.

I don't know why they think so but there is absolutely no rule barring govt servants from joining an online discussion forum. We have serving IFS, IAS and military people on board that we know of.

It is not about the rules. It is frowned upon in many organizations. "What is the need?" Imagine Mao sir joins and speaks his a piece of his mind. It may get used against him in internal meetings. These guys have enough of nonsense to deal with anyhow.

[brar_w]

A SAAB AEW&C guiding a PAF AMRAAM-C5? That is the capability, apparently with the PAF, that even the USAF doesn't have.

[Indranil]

And dhanyavad for the kadak Chai that your Chaiwallah has been blessing us with, over the years.

Chaiwalla, paanwalla, gutkhawala, zardawala. They are very good people. They know what they can say. I am learning what I can ask

But in general, one finds the people of one's bent. I am interested in aviation, so somehow I seemto find a lot of friends related to aviation. Yesterday, I went fishing and there was another guy there. Turned out to be an ex F15 instructor pilot. So much to learn from these folks.

[Indranil]

Karan,

I know what you are talking about. That is what I meant by pilots use BVRAAMs to get to an advantageous position while entering the WVRs. With today's BVRs, you can expect to fire at >60 km and cause trouble. However, I hadn't thought of the psychological aspect of fire at 100 kms and may be your opponent makes an error.

Anyways, I went back to have some more chai. For Mk1 and Mk1A they are seriously considering 4 BVRAAMs + 2CCMs + centerline tank. But that is nothing new. That config has been on static display. No talks of dual racks. At least that flavor of chai was unavailable to me.

[Karan M]

I agree with all of what you wrote but I have a question here. The "missile attracting attention of the target" is only possible if it is fired in STT mode right? A TWS launch will not be detected by the RWR (can it?). RWR warning will sound only when the missile's own seeker acquires the target.

Unless of course the newer RWR's are sophisticated enough to detect that an enemy radar is tracking you in TWS mode. Or the AWACS providing coverage detects the missile on its radar and alerts the pilot.

TWS will also provide a regular scan. Basically, if your radar operates, the RW is meant to pick it up.
Only that a STT will provide a regular tone - designed to alert the pilot.

[nachiket]

TWS will also provide a regular scan. Basically, if your radar operates, the RW is meant to pick it up.
Only that a STT will provide a regular tone - designed to alert the pilot.

Yes, but how will the RWR distinguish between a regular scan and a TWS lock? The pilot will not know a missile has been launched at him. I alluded to this when I cooked up the scenario. You are 80km away from the enemy who is painting you with his radar which your RWR informs you. Knowing that he can launch on you in TWS mode, you can never be sure if he has launched or not since the RWR indication may not change. At that point do you decide to launch yourself, assuming that he has or wait till you get closer and then launch to improve pk? I guess one way to be sure is if you see him cranking.

[Karan M]

Karan,

I know what you are talking about. That is what I meant by pilots use BVRAAMs to get to an advantageous position while entering the WVRs. With today's BVRs, you can expect to fire at >60 km and cause trouble. However, I hadn't thought of the psychological aspect of fire at 100 kms and may be your opponent makes an error.

There are multiple reasons why low Pk BVRs can be fired:
1. To put the opponent at a starting disadvantage
2. Unnerve the opponent during the fight
3. Break up a formation to cause loss of situational awareness and launch a second BVR
4. Force a maneuver kill (a low flying opponent is forced to multi-task between evading a missile and piloting)
5. Break the opponents missile lock (if the opponent is yet to achieve terminal guidance and is unwilling to risk your missile, he has to break lock and his missile goes awry)
6. ...

Point being the more you carry, more you can afford to "waste" them . Of course, there are trade-offs as you have pointed out. The pylons, the missiles all come with drag, and every pylon on a missile is a pylon without fuel. Which is why as a bridge between Mk1A and MWF i seriously wanted the HAL guys to take a look at EFTs too, in case they needed a longer ranged bird w/fewer modifications to make up for the retiring Jags, and couldn;t give up pylons either.

Anyways, I went back to have some more chai. For Mk1 and Mk1A they are seriously considering 4 BVRAAMs + 2CCMs + centerline tank. But that is nothing new. That config has been on static display. No talks of dual racks. At least that flavor of chai was unavailable to me.

Gripen C also carries 4 BVR + 2 CCM + centerline tank. It is basically the "sweet spot" as far as light fighters are concerned for a max A2A payload. Even the MiG-29 IIRC manages with a similar load-out. Per se, the above load-out is sufficient.

Only thing I'd point out though, is that it would be good to have more flexibility via dual racks - i.e. you can asymmetrically carry the above 4+ BVR loadout while also carrying a SPJ.

IMHO, that will be a gamechanger.

[nachiket]

Anyways, I went back to have some more chai. For Mk1 and Mk1A they are seriously considering 4 BVRAAMs + 2CCMs + centerline tank. But that is nothing new. That config has been on static display. No talks of dual racks. At least that flavor of chai was unavailable to me.

What will be the range/endurance in that config? This is the same config as we would see on a Mig-29 UPG. Now the Mig-29 carries a lot more fuel but it also has two thirsty RD-33's to satisfy. Would I be wrong in guessing the values may not be too far from each other? Would be great if they can develop that oval cross-section centerline tank with more capacity that you had talked about for the Mk2 for the Mk1 as well.

[Karan M]

TWS will also provide a regular scan. Basically, if your radar operates, the RW is meant to pick it up.
Only that a STT will provide a regular tone - designed to alert the pilot.

Yes, but how will the RWR distinguish between a regular scan and a TWS lock? The pilot will not know a missile has been launched at him. I alluded to this when I cooked up the scenario. You are 80km away from the enemy who is painting you with his radar which your RWR informs you. Knowing that he can launch on you in TWS mode, you can never be sure if he has launched or not since the RWR indication may not change. At that point do you decide to launch yourself, assuming that he has or wait till you get closer and then launch to improve pk? I guess one way to be sure is if you see him cranking.

Exactly, you have to assume that moment he entered the theoretical WEZ - he has launched on you. That's what has made this BVR game so vicious. Moment the chap has you on TWS or even RWS, chances are you can be fired on. And if the Turks using their AWACS as FCR replacements (the F-16 only provides guidance), things are even worse.

[Karan M]

Brar_W see your DM.

All OT posts deleted, please focus on the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A

[SidSoma]

Brar_W see your DM.

All OT posts deleted, please focus on the Tejas Mk1/Mk1A

Karan, request you to move the posts to another thread (may be Radar thread)

Most facinating discussion, please continue in the forum so that others can add to. (humble request).

[Karan M]

Sorry Sid - saw your message late, I deleted the posts. Perhaps, next time.

[nam]

Yes, but how will the RWR distinguish between a regular scan and a TWS lock? The pilot will not know a missile has been launched at him. I alluded to this when I cooked up the scenario. You are 80km away from the enemy who is painting you with his radar which your RWR informs you. Knowing that he can launch on you in TWS mode, you can never be sure if he has launched or not since the RWR indication may not change. At that point do you decide to launch yourself, assuming that he has or wait till you get closer and then launch to improve pk? I guess one way to be sure is if you see him cranking.

Although I don't have any material on me, I believe modern radars are powerful enough to detect a small rcs body(with fins) like BVR. Even if it gets hidden in the clutter, it is a case of the algo looking out for a low rcs body flying at Mach 3-4.

There is nothing flying in the sky at Mach 4, other than a A2A missile. Similar to B2's claim to have a RCS of a bumblebee, but bumblebee's don't fly at 900KMPH!

I will be surprised if the radar designers haven't thought of this already.

Generally there is always an attempt to launch BVR outside the radar envelope. You have the best chance of hitting a target, if the target doesn't know what hit him.

This is what has happened in previous BVR fights. Most of the target's didn't know what hit him.