All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
NRao wrote:
Something called a MTCR? Brahmos cannot exceed 300 Kms? Even if you take it to the dealer and ask him to remove the governor.
Missed that memo, eh?
No sir,
i din consider the MTCR because as far I know.. we have a requirement to adhere to MTCR because of the N deal.. and supposedly the papers were signed..
since i din have the correct knowledge i din consider it..
I might not be updated regarding this.. If so kindly help me out..
NRao wrote:
Something called a MTCR? Brahmos cannot exceed 300 Kms? Even if you take it to the dealer and ask him to remove the governor.
Missed that memo, eh?
No sir,
i din consider the MTCR because as far I know.. we have a requirement to adhere to MTCR because of the N deal.. and supposedly the papers were signed..
since i din have the correct knowledge i din consider it..
I might not be updated regarding this.. If so kindly help me out..
Thank you..
KumarG ji:
MTCR and our signing of N deal are not related. (I believe it was joint stmt - informally but noting signed formally)Russia adheres to MTCR hence the limitation. AFAIK we have not signed the MTCR. Please read upon MTCR and update yourself. Lot of resources when you google.
KumarG wrote: so i was thinking of the tactical advantages or disadvantages with these specs "IF" the missile were to posses it..
also am not going off-topic.. IF the brahmos was a slower missile.. the weight might have decreased.. which is an advantage for the "Su".. more importantly.. if the Brahmos were to have more range.. the Pilot and the "Su" need not face the risk of going deep into hostile territory..
not every one in the world think in the same frequency.. no can help that..
Ah the lingual standards are getting more understandable. You could have explained that first time right? Now how about thinking in a slightly different frequency and ask what might be the advantages of a supersonic manoevering missile as opposed to a long range subsonic missile?
Everything is a trade off saar. They have arrived at a particular trade off for Brahmos and you are asking "Why this particular trade off?" There are very few counters to supersonic missiles. If you look at anti-missile systems - you find that the west is now trying to develop counters to supersonic missiles. Soon people will have an anti-Brahmos system in place that will appear on western ships and later be supplied to Pakistan and stolen by China. Hopefully by that time a hypersonic Brahmos will be there.
Is a Su 30 at risk by staying 300 km away from a target? You. tell me saar about how much risk it will face by staying 300 km from a target. I am sure you will be able to come up with a whole list of targets that the Su 30 cannot hit from 300 km away. After that we can talk about the targets that it can safely hit from 300 km away.
Last edited by shiv on 05 Jun 2010 22:18, edited 1 time in total.
India has no obligation to stick to MTCR. But since we are beggars and not choosers, others apply MTCR to us.
But this is off topic. Need to think on that frequency as well
shiv wrote:India has no obligation to stick to MTCR. But since we are beggars and not choosers, others apply MTCR to us.
But this is off topic. Need to think on that frequency as well
Im an Indian im not beggar
Im a buyer so India is buyer
it applies to every Indian in BRF
Emotions can take over and say what you want - it hurts, understand. Fact still remains WRT what Shiv posted. The next Brahmos will repeat the cycle. The "mos" needs to be dropped to get out of the "begging" cycle.
Emotions can take over and say what you want - it hurts, understand. Fact still remains WRT what Shiv posted. The next Brahmos will repeat the cycle. The "mos" needs to be dropped to get out of the "begging" cycle.
Bro it not emotion it the love/respect for our mother land, it very important to have it, cant just call ur mother land a beggar
RU will not just give it to free so it is not Begging
RU wants money we want weapons just buyer and seller
long term dukan wala (RU)
Better way to say
The "mos" needs to be dropped to get out of the "Buying" cycle
Nothing wrong with begging as long as one recognizes that the goal is "chooser". That "begging" phase will then be just that - a phase. BTW, the Russians also got their first engine from the UK. BUT, did not sit on it for too long. The US got its first radar from the UK too!!
Do not dwell on the "begger", dwell on the "chooser" and you will solve the problem. Else emotions take over and never reach the goal. "Begger" is JUST a phase.
Enough of this, the bottomline is that we are stuck with 300kms range as long as Russia is partnering in missile development. There is of course Nirbhay; of which, I have no news.
Let's come back to Sukhois.
babbupandey wrote:Enough of this, the bottomline is that we are stuck with 300kms range as long as Russia is partnering in missile development. There is of course Nirbhay; of which, I have no news.
Let's come back to Sukhois.
300 km. is not so bad either regarding pakistan. Considering at average pakhanastan width is 400 to 500 kms. Sukhoi 30 can stay well within indian border and yet take out most of porki targets.
babbupandey wrote:Enough of this, the bottomline is that we are stuck with 300kms range as long as Russia is partnering in missile development. There is of course Nirbhay; of which, I have no news.
Let's come back to Sukhois.
300km. is also not so bad regarding porkis, as most of pakhanastan width is average 400 to 500 kms. Sukhoi can stay well within indian border yet take out most of the porki targets.
Imagine a Su 30 mounted cruise missile that flies 5000 km at 200 kmph. (OK make it faster - any speed you like - even Mach 25) If you want Su 30s to be "safe" and not fly over any "dangerous areas" then you can keep them grounded and fire off all your cruise missiles at all targets within 5000 km from inside India onlee.
But suppose one day some bright spark wants to attack a target 6000 or 6500 km away? Then what? Then you will have to pull those Su 30s out of their storage, refuel them, wake up the pilots and make them fly 1000-1500 km possibly over hostile territory to hit that target.
So complaining by saying "Oh air launched Brahmos has only 300 km range and I want our Su 30s to be safe and not fly over hostile areas" is a statement that fails to ask how safe you want them to be. Safest is not to fly them at all. If you do not want to overfly hostile territory there is no need for combat aircraft.
If you have humongously long ranged missiles, you don't need Su 30s to launch them. If you want your aircraft to fly over only safe territory before launch, again you don't need Su 30. You can launch from say a suitably modified Avro. Is all this so difficult to figure out?
If Pakistan launches a barrage of subsonic cruise missiles at India, what is India going to do? Does India have defences against this? Subsonic cruise missiles can be shot down by current defences including CIWS that fill the air with a "wall of lead". But for that the cruise missiles need to be detected by some sort of surveillance system. Cruise missiles that hug the ground use terrain masking and are difficult to detect. But AWACS aircraft are useful here
We are not beggars. Our motherland does not beg. Ukraine voluntarily came forward and gave an Il 76 airframe to Israel, and Israel, out of its love for India voluntarily integrated a Phazotron radar on that Ukrainian airframe. The US out of deep respect for India stood by and watched this deal. India could have done all this on its own because we are not beggars. Afer all we can make those airframes and radars. We are not beholden to anyone. We just wanted to allow these nations to show their respect to us. But I digress.
Over the sea, cruise missiles are easier to detect. So ships have some chance of intercepting cruise missiles, especially if they are subsonic. A subsonic cruise missile flying at 500 kmph if detected - say 20 km from a target ship gives less than two and a half minutes reaction time to the ship (140 seconds). A Brahmos that is detected 20 km from a ship, flying at over 2500 kmph gives less than 30 seconds warning time.
So an Su 30 will be deadly (and safe) flying over international waters carrying a Brahmos missile and able to sink hostile shipping more than 1500 km away from Indian shores. Technically all Chinese ships can be sunk as they emerge from the straits of Malacca.
Why imagine that an Su 30 will be made to overfly 2000 km of hostile territory to fire at a target 300 km beyond that? For that we need to use ballistic missiles.
Last edited by shiv on 06 Jun 2010 07:34, edited 2 times in total.
300km. is also not so bad regarding porkis, as most of pakhanastan width is average 400 to 500 kms. Sukhoi can stay well within indian border yet take out most of the porki targets.
Correct, but as I said in my earlier post, if we are going to launch Brahmos from an aircraft that is flying over safe territory, we can launch that Brahmos from an Avro, or modified old Boeing 737. Why Su 30?
The reason why Brahmos is being fixed on Su 30 is that the platform has the capability to fly fast over hostile territory (with escorts if need be) to hit targets that Brahmos on Avro launched within India cannot reach. And the Su 30 has the capability of coming back after the mission. Too many people seem to forget that combat aircraft are designed for flying in and out of hostile territory. Some risk is always there. People seem to have forgotten (or don't even know) what the PAF did in 1971 when they wanted to avoid combat and stopped supporting their ground forces. How many people are talking about keeping Su 30s out of harms way? If you keep them totally out of harms way we don't need Su 30s at all.
Last edited by shiv on 06 Jun 2010 07:26, edited 1 time in total.
I am only an armchair marshal. But let me still stick my neck out and say how I will plan to use a two aircraft Su 30 formation carrying Brahmos to hit a target that is 1000 km inside hostile territory.
First I will ask if an Su 30-Brahmos mission is really required? Can the target not be hit by an Agni? How vital is the target that requires putting my Su-30 assets at risk?
Next I will look at the risk to my aircraft. What route can I use to fly to a point 700 km inside enemy territory? Can I use terrain masking or other means such as diversionary attacks to divert enemy air defences? Is there an indirect route that mimimizes flight over hostile territory(eg partly over the sea)?
When these things are planned I will then ask, "What if my plans fail? What if my Su 30s get pounced by enemy air defence fighters?" Will the Su 30s allow themselves to be shot down? Do they dump the Brahmos and run? No to both questions. I will have planned out alternate, closer targets along the way. If pounced, my Brahmos carrying Su 30s will launch their missiles at alternate targets along the way while they are protected by their escorts. Then all the aircraft will fly back along a pre-planned return route.
If I had the right software, I would pre-program the Brahmos launch routine in such way that the Brahmos is always aimed at some target or the other. As the Su 30 flies along its 700 km route, the missile's targeting will automatically change to be aimed at the nearest available target within 300 km until the Su 30 reaches the zone where it can hit the originally planned target. So at any time during the flight, if the heavily laden Su 30 is at risk, the Brahmos can be quickly launched at any one of the planned targets within 300 km range of wherever the Su 30 is in its flight. Avro cannot achieve this. Hence Su 30.
skaranam wrote:
KumarG ji:
MTCR and our signing of N deal are not related. (I believe it was joint stmt - informally but noting signed formally)Russia adheres to MTCR hence the limitation. AFAIK we have not signed the MTCR. Please read upon MTCR and update yourself. Lot of resources when you google.
well form what i read the N deal and MTCR are related and The U.S. Secretary of State and the External Affairs Minister of India signed the agreement on October 10, 2008, and the two countries continue to work toward full implementation.
of course not all the info put up in all websites are true.. any way here is my source
wonderful posts.. truly i guess all the possible views and situations u have explained..
@ India not being able to choose...
well its a painful fact.. we have not been able to choose.. but the trends are changing these days considering the offers from Israel.. the MMRCA deal and the joint development of the PAK FA/FGFA..
What Shiv stated, makes absolute sense.. what possible scenario can emerge, short of a full scale conflict that will require IAF's premier airborne platform to strike 1000 km inside enemy's territory.. and if, a full scale war is ever declared, would not lobbing a couple of IRBMs at such "deep" targets make more sense than the risk involved in sending fighters.. in my humble opinion, a lot more stands to be jeopardized than the safety of the fighters on such a mission.. given the importance of the MKIs to not just the mission capabilities of IAF but also to the psyche of its Pilots and the Brass, once the force starts losing a couple over enemy territory, the morale does get a flogging and the Brass starts getting a panicky shit-fit.. has happened in the past wars, where the top commanders went on a defensive after taking some losses, even when the brave pilots were roaring to keep having a go at the enemy
However, such a scenario is still a possibility only if all the Agni BMs carry nuclear warheads and no conventional strike role has been assigned to them.. what makes more sense is all the Prithvis and 700 km variant of Agni having a conventional strike profile, while the bigger boys ( 1500+ variants) being assigned to carry the nukes..
and this is something which is purely a matter of speculation because no one outside the top echelons of the defense establishment will have a clue about it..
Also, despite the MKIs, arguably being the most capable platforms in Asia in terms of both survivability & capability, now with the enemy having force multipliers like the AEW&Cs and better air-defenses, only future platforms like FGFA will provide a truly credible strike capability for deep target interdiction.. no other platforms including the venerable Sukhois can guarantee to return unscathed from such high-risk missions..
that said, surely the induction of Nirbhay ALCM will be a game changer..!!!!
wondering what range extension will the hypersonic Brahmos-II have over the currently operational variant..
rsharma wrote: in my humble opinion, a lot more stands to be jeopardized than the safety of the fighters on such a mission.. given the importance of the MKIs to not just the mission capabilities of IAF but also to the psyche of its Pilots and the Brass, once the force starts losing a couple over enemy territory, the morale does get a flogging and the Brass starts getting a panicky shit-fit.. has happened in the past wars, where the top commanders went on a defensive after taking some losses, even when the brave pilots were roaring to keep having a go at the enemy
Sharmaji you should read Jasjit Singh's book on Air Power. It is a masterpiece. Basically Air Forces (competent ones such as the IAF) do not think the way you have stated.
In a war the early phase is very risky - a time when you are trying to get air dominance. At that time there will be losses. In fact the losses can be so high that they will be unsustainable in the long term. But Air Forces (competent ones such as the IAF) plan for such high losses in the beginning knowing that once you have knocked out enemy air bases and radars, your loss rate will come down. Jasjit Singh has analyses various wars to show how things work, or not work depending on what is done.
It is important for a population that is unaware of the way wars are fought not to lose their morale by seeing the early losses in a war. That is why media control is important. Sorry OT.
rsharma wrote:and if, a full scale war is ever declared, would not lobbing a couple of IRBMs at such "deep" targets make more sense than the risk involved in sending fighters.. in my humble opinion, a lot more stands to be jeopardized than the safety of the fighters on such a mission..<SNIP>
However, such a scenario is still a possibility only if all the Agni BMs carry nuclear warheads and no conventional strike role has been assigned to them..
There is another point we need to consider even if you have a conventional Agni. You know your missile is conventional. But to the enemy a conventional Agni looks exactly similar to a Nuclear Agni. And once you launch one, they would not wait for it to explode before deciding whether to launch their missiles (nuclear for sure at that stage). This was one of the big issues faced by the US think tanks when they considered the conventional Tridents.
NAGPUR: Nagpurians residing near the airport heard a familiar roar in the skies on Sunday noon as a couple of Sukhoi aircraft flew over the city. The aircraft which took off from the Lohegaon airbase near Pune reached Nagpur at around 12.30 pm and encircled over the airport for a few minutes before flying back. Sources in the airport said that the city was the chosen destination as the air space over Nagpur is vacant during day time.
This allows space for such exercises. “There are chances that the aircraft may visit Nagpur once again on coming Sunday,” said an airport official. The Sukhois remained a major attraction during the air shows held in the city, especially because of the thundering sound they make. Flying enthusiasts were left disappointed when these planes did not feature in the last air show held over a year ago. The Sukhoi aircraft was procured from Russia in the mid 1990s and is among the frontline fighter planes of the
Indian Air Force (IAF). It is reported to be a highly flexible multi-role aircraft. The IAF has also obtained a licence for manufacture of the aircraft at the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s factory at Bangalore. So far, the IAF has received over 100 aircraft from Russia.
Last edited by SSridhar on 07 Jun 2010 09:53, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:Kumar, there is no need to post an entire article while a link will suffice. You can excerpt portions to highlight and add your comments, but an entire article is unwarranted and may violate copyrights.
kumarG is this article yours? Otherwise there might be copyright issues.It looks like an ausairpower article by carlo kopp.Just ask the moderators for the rules or just post the link if this is the case.
^^^^^
Well nope.. i know its from ausairpower since you've told me now..
it was posted in another community LONG back.. i had saved that info then and posted it now here...
Ill post the source now..
Thanks..
Last edited by kash on 07 Jun 2010 08:55, edited 1 time in total.
KumarG wrote:^^^^^
Well nope.. i know its from ausairpower since you've told me now..
it was posted in another community LONG back.. i had saved that info then and posted it now here...
Ill post the source now..
Thanks..
You must not cut and paste articles from anywhere without quoting a source. Posting entire articles involve copyright issues which get BRF in trouble just because you make an error.
Looking at the picture in Chacko's blog, it looks like the skin is torn off near the IRST. I wonder whether this is intended or it is due to high hours of flying put by this particular airframe.
sgopal wrote:Looking at the picture in Chacko's blog, it looks like the skin is torn off near the IRST. I wonder whether this is intended or it is due to high hours of flying put by this particular airframe.
It is psy-ops to tell the French that we are a poor country and that they should not overcharge us for anything we buy from them.
It does'nt look like a paint chip. There is a small crystal like piece in front of the IRST. What I see is a abberation in the black paint right next to the IRST and not in front of it.
i guess all the possible views and situations u have explained.. 
