Su-30: News and Discussion

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 10:15

No. I am concerned only with loiter of the tac jet over enemy territory. at the moment tankers can be employed very seriously and protected during conflict. Of course with the emergence of a J-20/R37 combination this may have to revisited.

You are of course welcome to feel what you feel - but I must point out that what you are saying goes beyond "inadvisable" to absurd. But it is funny because you can't be serious

Thank you. But it doesn't get dimmer than the following:

It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?

But if you don't know what we plan to use them for then why the hell do you think we would need more at all? Or are you going to hide behind the double negative? or agnosticism, because then you are at some level questioning the need for the tanker which is exactly the idea that you want to dispense with as implied by your last post which highlighted an initial post.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 10:51

D Roy wrote:
It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?
But if you don't know what we plan to use them for then why the hell do you think we would need more at all? Or are you going to hide behind the double negative? or agnosticism, because then you are at some level questioning the need for the tanker which is exactly the idea that you want to dispense with as implied by your last post which highlighted an initial post.

I understand your sentiment. You have indicated that you would like to have more tankers to send on pointless suicide missions so we do not run out of tankers as they get shot down one by one. You have not stated any other reason. I just disagree with that as a valid or effective utilization of tankers. I see them as assets. not sitting ducks. If you have any ideas other than suicide missions where the tankers have to fly hundreds of Km into enemy territory and loiter there trying to refuel planes sent on earlier suicide missions I would be happy to find out.

Meantime I will make out a mission profile of the type of suicide mission you advocate so you can pick holes in it.

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 02 Oct 2011 10:58

The Irbis(snow leapord in Russian) AESA :

The Irbis is a co-development between LRDE of India and Tikhomirov NIIP of Russia at a cost of US$160 million.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread174590/pg1

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 11:02

No I don't understand why you want to harp on the word 'suicide'.

We are dealing in a context where there are SSMs and aircraft. it could be that Fizzle ya can't mount a challenge in the air, but SPD takes out the base from which a pilot flew using CBW. Where does the pilot go then? The tanker comes in handy.

There is nothing suicide about this, because it did not begin as a suicide mission in the first place. during kargil Fizzle Ya stayed out of range because of the BVR aspect. even now with AMRAAM they'll still have to play a cat and mouse game if they have to take out a high value target like a tanker.

And I suspect they'll lose a lot trying to do it. Airspace is not some ground line. During war it is whatever you can defend.

You have not stated any other reason.

As disingenuous as ever. I have said from the beginning that there are a hundred operational scenarios and I just gave a few far fetched ones in response to your constant harping on how they are "difficult or impossible to employ during a high intesnity conflict". That high intensity conflict also has only one stage in your arguments- the opening stage - where the IAF is just about reaching air superiority. So please don't harp on the suicide mission thing which something you seem hell bent on raising.

Everything that requires extending endurance is where the tanker comes in and we need more. Some of your posts would suggest that the only think tankers are good for is faciliating long cruises over the Indian Ocean.

In any case let me remind you:

It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?

You don't know what the AF plans to use them for but still 'seemingly' support additional unit acquisitions.
I am sorry but you just seem to be covering your tracks by making statements all over the place. Like I said it doesn't get dimmer.

And you can't build scenarios only to suit your general comment.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 11:06

D Roy,

Agree with importance of tanking but regarding the CR of the LCA, would differ.

Based on current performance - that aircraft seems to be firmly in the CR of around 300-400 km class. Basically, the Bangalore to Jamnagar flight of 1800 km with 3FT (assumed) with 2 AAMs (standard) will not be significantly different if another 2 BVR AAMs are added (in terms of drag & performance). Overall, we are looking at 800 km one way range (even I remove 100 km for the addition of 2 more missiles and their associated drag). Take off around 50-60% of that for AirCombat, with rest for reaching the operational area, loitering at optimum cruising range, and you still have a combat radius of 320-400 km. Basically, the LCA seems to have slightly over provisioned fuel due to design conservatism on the part of the designers to account for possibly higher fuel burn than required (on the part of a new unproven Kaveri). By moving to the latest generation decent SFC proven Ge404 series, the LCA + engine combination has struck a winner. Comments like the "LCA is possibly the most frugal fuel consumption wise aircraft ever inducted by the IAF" etc would not otherwise be made.

Another interesting thing IMO, is the fact that our south bases are not yet developed in depth.

MKIs can buddy refuel - this to some extent reduces the need for dedicated tankers.

Ideally, the IAF would base many of its frontline assets far away from the border, and possible strikes by BM with limited warning times etc, take them to operational staging areas, attack and return to main base (which could be one of many). This would really make life miserable for the other side. However, the two challenges with this scenario - are the higher fuel burn requiring more provision for ATF, time taken (distance = time) and the fact that MAFI (air field modernization) has yet to be completed. Once it is done, it does offer us a wide range of more options, including continuing training down south, away from the prying eyes of PAF and PLAAF AEW&C.

There is also reaction time, closer the basing, faster IAF can react to developments in Pakistan. AWACS + aerostat mean we can see deep within and detect whatever is going on. Contrary to public perception Flankers can surge pretty fast.

I found this by googling around for Su-27 + launch times:

A poster called Ken writes:

A few quotes from Hans Halberstadt - author of 'Red Star - Fighters and Ground Attack' - published in 1994.

He visited the airbase at Kubinka and the book covers the then front-line types.

On the Su-27......

"The SAS (Stability Augmentation System) technology takes a great deal of the work out of flying any aircraft, and they are found in most modern high-performance combat types, both fixed- and rotary-wing.Even so, the flight controls are generally set rather more stiff than in western combat aircraft; the pilot of the Su-27 sets the amount of resistance to suit himself"

"It is a single-seat fighter, and at the 'man/machine interface' to which your butt gets strapped the author can report that its a hard seat, too"

"One difference pictures can't convey is the fact that these guys launch fast; they start engines and get airborne in less time than it takes the average F-15 pilot to do his preflight, and taxy speeds seem about twice as fast as on American bases."

"Russian flight equipment turns out to be well made and comfortable - the oxygen mask, in particular, is much pleaseanter to wear than the US type."

On the K-36 ejection seat... ("an excellent piece of equipment though cruelly hard on the posterior").......

" The handles are 'safed' by rotation to this configuration, (my note - they way you normally see them in photos) and 'armed' by rotating them 90 degrees so that the two segments lie parallel to the pilot's thighs. This is simpler than arming the equivalent Western seats, which require the removal of several security pins".

I can also add that the pilot in a K-36 seat doesn't need to attach his ankle gaiters - its all done automatically.

There's loads more - but my typing finger is getting sore......

Ken
Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
Flankers (& others) website at :-
http://flankers.co.uk/

Now at Red Flag to avoid FOD, since the IAF was operating far away from home base, and was carrying a limited amount of spares, they deliberately staggered the takeoff process for prudence's sake, increasing launch times. But operating at wartime within India, this is unlikely to be the case.

The one criticality remains around these base's vulnerability to CM & BM attacks. Both will be detected thanks to the aerostat + AWACS + BMD network to be set up.

I'd presume each of the MKI bases will also have a LRSAM bubble extending upto 70 km+, apart from the SRSAM. But the BMD network needs to be enhanced beyond planning for just metros & VAs. Perhaps this also explains repeated proposals to IAF for Patriot3 which the latter seems to have been interested in.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 11:12

Drishyaman wrote:The Irbis(snow leapord in Russian) AESA :

The Irbis is a co-development between LRDE of India and Tikhomirov NIIP of Russia at a cost of US$160 million.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread174590/pg1

Irbis is not an AESA nor is it being developed with LRDE. Its a PESA based on the Bars technology and lightweight antenna developed for the OSA (Wasp) radar.

NIIP has offered to codevelop AESAs with LRDE for the Su-30 MKI Phase 2 upgrade, FGFA and AMCA standardizing on tech being developed for the PAK FA (Russian 5G base on which the FGFA is being developed). Source: Yuriy Bely (NIIP) interview at Maks 2011 as reported by Russian media.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 11:32

As an aside, when the Tu 22 was first unveiled there was a scare in the US that the Soviets finally had a bomber that could fly to the US and back from the USSR. Soon it was realised that the plane did not have the range to do such a return trip. But that did not put off the people who were browning their pants in the US. The Soviets, being communists, will naturally send the Tu-22 on a one way suicide mission.

So the idea of sending a plane well so far into enemy territory so that it does not have fuel to return is neither original nor new. But the idea of sending a tanker and four escorts behind that plane to refuel it over enemy territory is certainly both original and new in terms of grave danger and putting one's own assets at risk. I can think of several safer and less suicidal options that still use some form of refuelling.

We speak of the agility of the Su-30 and its sensors and BVR weapons. The agility will avoid incoming missiles and beat other aircraft in WVR range dogfights. But what about that tanker? Surely it is better for an Su 30 to take a missile up its ass rather than avoiding it so the tanker is lost along with that poor pilot in an aircraft that was sent on a mission far beyond its range. The tanker is neither agile nor stealthy, and has to fly steady and high for refuelling.

Refueling is done at 20-25,000 feet - about 7 km high and at about 300-350 knots or 500-600 kmph. The fueller flies steady and level while the fighter closes in hooks up and refuels. At a high flow rate of say 1000 liters per minute the hook up and transfer of 5000 liters of fuel will have to be given at least 10 minutes of safe flying allowing for maybe a hit or miss of refuelling connection in a possibly damaged aircrfat. In that time the tanker will have flown a further 100 km over enemy territory.

Secondly, when you send a plane on a suicide mission with not enough fuel - you have to have some idea where the refuelling will take place. Imagine a MiG with a range of 800 km. The target is 600 km away and the MiG is to refuel at some area that is within 100 to 150 km of that target. That means that the refueller and escorts have to fly at least 500 km deep into enemy territory. Since the fighter flies faster, the refueller and escorts have to be sent to an area 100 km from the target some time before the actual attacking fighter goes there conveniently warning the Pakis/Chinese that something is up. If they are stupid enough not to engage the tanker the attacking Indian fighter will have to hope that he is not driven off course by interceptors or that the refueller is not driven off course by interceptors. Then they have to rendezvous and fly steady for 10 minutes within sight of every enemy radar within 400 km. And the tanker and escorts would have to be over enemy territory flying 500 km in, loitering 10 minutes for refuelling assuming there is no waiting and then returning another 500 km over enemy territory. At tanker speeds and altitudes this would be a two hour mission over enemy territory, at high altitude with a tanker sized aircraft as target. It is nothing short of suicide.

Sorry to sound like a wet blanket folks . This is just not feasible by any sane, non suicidal air force unless there is complete air dominance and there are no remaining Paki/Chinese interceptors. But if that is the case - then we can send even An-32s with bombs no? Why send a MiG on a mission from which it does not have enough fuel to return?

Drishyaman · Post by **Drishyaman** » 02 Oct 2011 11:38

Karan M wrote:
Irbis is not an AESA nor is it being developed with LRDE. Its a PESA based on the Bars technology and lightweight antenna developed for the OSA (Wasp) radar.

NIIP has offered to codevelop AESAs with LRDE for the Su-30 MKI Phase 2 upgrade, FGFA and AMCA standardizing on tech being developed for the PAK FA (Russian 5G base on which the FGFA is being developed). Source: Yuriy Bely (NIIP) interview at Maks 2011 as reported by Russian media.

Thanks for the correct info. Even, I was confused with the info provided in the link.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 11:41

D Roy wrote: In any case let me remind you:
It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?
You don't know what the AF plans to use them for but still 'seemingly' support additional unit acquisitions.
I am sorry but you just seem to be covering your tracks by making statements all over the place. Like I said it doesn't get dimmer.

And you can't build scenarios only to suit your general comment.

No I still don't know what the air force will use them for. But I am 100% certain that they will not use them in comical suicide missions. I have stated how I think they may be used and none of them include suicide missions , but you might not be interested in that.

I now note that there are "a hundred operational scenarios" that you seem to know about. Please tell me just one that is not suicidal like the one you have described and which I have dissected in detail for your benefit. I am harping on suicide because the one single scenario you described is pure suicide. No amount of covering up or changing your wording is going to change that. But I digress. Just one non suicidal scenario please where the tanker is not at grave risk of being shot down? No need for describing "one hundred" scenarios

I have to push the issue since you seem to think you know. It sounds less and less like that now.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 11:44

D Roy wrote: As disingenuous as ever. I have said from the beginning that there are a hundred operational scenarios and I just gave a few far fetched ones in response to your constant harping on how they are "difficult or impossible to employ during a high intesnity conflict". That high intensity conflict also has only one stage in your arguments- the opening stage - where the IAF is just about reaching air superiority. So please don't harp on the suicide mission thing which something you seem hell bent on raising.

Hey once we have air superiority we can
1. Send in An-32s with bombs
2. Send the tanker without escorts.

Your single scenario is incredible. Lets hear one of the other hundreds that you know about. Or the other 99 maybe.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 11:49

Yes yes please keep harping on suicide missions to divert attention from the following. There is nothing suicidal about the scenarios depicted by me they can happen during conflict. Just because you think they are "suicidal" doesn't make them so.

It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?

The whole discussion began because you did not know what tankers may be used for but support acquisition of additional units nevertheless.

In the beginning itself I said that I do not wish to get into a protracted discussion as there are enough case studies about tanker use over the years and you can use them to update your own knowledge.

Just because you suddenly feel the need to question something well established and want somebody to spoon feed you doesn't mean that the others don't know.

By the way you are resorting to disingenous tactics and diverting the discussion in a most dishonorable way. Don't think I haven't noticed that.

The discussion was and is really about the reasons why flankers are being deployed to Jodhpur. And a lack of refuellers is certainly one of them.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 11:54

Hey once we have air superiority we can
1. Send in An-32s with bombs
2. Send the tanker without escorts.

Your single scenario is incredible. Lets hear one of the other hundreds that you know about. Or the other 99 maybe.

No. We can do that only when we have Air DOMINANCE. But in an air superiority scenario we will definitely be able to set up a protective bubble around our tankers even if they are near our border.

Your puerile harping on suicide assumes that the tanker is right over pindi and loitering there.

I actually gave another scenario ( hint : need to loiter). But please do not expect me to give 98 others so that I can discuss them with you ad infinitum. that is exactly what I do not want to do.

But of course you simply will not be allowed to wriggle out of this by questioning my ability to generate tanker use scenarios:

It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?

This is what you began with and now you are trying your darndest to change the discussion to :incredible scenarios from the original - as to why refuellers are a reason for basing close to Jodhpur. Very dishonourable.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 12:01

shiv wrote:No I still don't know what the air force will use them for. But I am 100% certain that they will not use them in comical suicide missions. I have stated how I think they may be used and none of them include suicide missions , but you might not be interested in that.

I now note that there are "a hundred operational scenarios" that you seem to know about. Please tell me just one that is not suicidal like the one you have described and which I have dissected in detail for your benefit. I am harping on suicide because the one single scenario you described is pure suicide. No amount of covering up or changing your wording is going to change that. But I digress. Just one non suicidal scenario please where the tanker is not at grave risk of being shot down? No need for describing "one hundred" scenarios

I have to push the issue since you seem to think you know. It sounds less and less like that now.

Shiv, basically he made the point - before the acrimonious back and forth started - that the IAF may need to base its fighters closer to the border to make maximum use of their range, because it lacks enough supporting assets such as tankers. That's not exactly wrong. It may not be the only reason (as buddy refueling is possible) but it definitely could be one of the reasons prompting them to take such a step. Other reasons could be quick reaction - since we can now look deep into Pakistan, we can & should react earlier as well, circumstances depending. Another that the AFB infrastructure deeper within India is not adequately developed yet & staging them to the forward areas & then back again, during peacetime uses up precious ATF. I think what will happen at wartime is not exactly as is being reported by press currently, but technically, the reason he proposed for tanking being essential is a vital one.

Fuel is arguably the most precious asset available to a fighter pilot, and loiter will be an unavoidable necessity over Pak. I base this both upon CAS etc requirements to support the IA & also for doing things like missile hunting. So to maximize the range is a simple and effective way by basing them close.

The only caveat or rather problem is about protecting these from BM attacks. Thinking about this - its either CMs or SSMs. Unlikely the Pakistanis would use their limited stock of long range BMs (even on depressed trajectories) for conventional attacks. So for tackling this, we need systems like the LRSAM, Akash & SRSAM - all planned for & which can down CMs provided adequate warning is given (which is what aerostats & AEW&C are for), but the BM part is where I wonder what the IAF is planning. Either its the layered DRDO system - or a simpler version just using the AAD component.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 12:07

and loiter will be an unavoidable necessity over Pak.

And that was precisely the second scenario I gave. Dramatized of course because at that point things were really still in jest.

But now they are not. And I do not wish to give 98 scenarios just so that somebody thinks I am knowledgeable or not. Especially when that somebody starts with this:

It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?

A disingenuous "let me cover all bases" statement. Of course subsequently create an unnecessary argument which goes all over the place.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 12:10

Drishyaman wrote:Thanks for the correct info. Even, I was confused with the info provided in the link.

No problems - that entire Irbis is an AESA codeveloped by LRDE rubbish was started by Prasun Sengupta. Less said about that "gentleman" and his claims, the better. Even when he came up with that rubbish theory, it was widely known that Irbis is a PESA, developed as an upgrade to the Bars level tech, using many of the same systems and replacing some. But this chap went on making stuff up and continues to do so. Other whoppers are attributing almost all Indian radars and what not to license produced foreign designs, calling the S Band CABS AEW&C L band, calling it a PESA based on Rajendra and then changing his tune later on....the list goes on and on. The biggest gas generator on the internet, and if a compact design could have been made, India should have cloned him and put him in every missile tube instead of making dedicated gas generators to expel missiles and what not.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 12:44

Karan M wrote:
Shiv, basically he made the point - before the acrimonious back and forth started - that the IAF may need to base its fighters closer to the border to make maximum use of their range, because it lacks enough supporting assets such as tankers.

What he said is nonsense Karan. Fighters can be based a hundred or two hundred km in India , take off with very little fuel but a full load, get refuelled well within the border and go into enemy territory for a mission and then if necessary be refuelled again in safe airspace over sea or land. Even Wiki has this information. Needing more refuellers for that is fine. But certainly not for sending them over hostile territory with escorts.

Refuellers are precious assets. It is always good to have "more" of precious assets it they are used properly. How will they be used with regard to conflict with Pakistan or China? One thing I can tell you for sure they won't be sent to loiter over enemy territory.

With most Pakistani targets being within 300 km exactly how will "more refuelers" be used wrt to Pakistan? And how will "more refuelers, or (even the existing ones) be used over Tibet?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 12:52

D Roy wrote:
A disingenuous "let me cover all bases" statement. Of course subsequently create an unnecessary argument which goes all over the place.

That may be so Royji but you don't seem to know how refuelers will be used and are unable to educate me. What are you advocating all those extra refuelers for in the Pakistan or China context? So far you have only mentioned suicide missions of refuellers loitering over hostile airspace. How else can they be used? You may not want to admit it, but you don't seem to know.

You are simply saying "more refuelers needed" without actually having a coherent idea of what they will be used for (other than your suicide missions). Why are all those extra refuelers needed. What would they do? If you don't know I don't know either.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 13:00

-see later post-

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 13:05

Ok apart from suicide missions you have made these two statement. Could you expand and explain how existing tankers, leave alone more tankers would be used? Specifically where exactly would those tankers by flying to keep them safe from enemy air defences. Exactly how would be tankers employed by India to increase loiter time over Pakistan?

n war many suicide missions and dumb mistakes happen. which is why you plan for contingencies by bringing in systems and approaches like tankers.
And it may not be one Mig. It could be any number, but that would only reinforce the need to have more tankers. LOITER is important and while talking about combat radius, people forget all about time over target. That is precisely why strategic bombers that you so despise have never gone out of vogue.

We are dealing in a context where there are SSMs and aircraft. it could be that Fizzle ya can't mount a challenge in the air, but SPD takes out the base from which a pilot flew using CBW. Where does the pilot go then? The tanker comes in handy.

^^I admit that tankers "come in handy". Handy indeed.

But how would they have to e used to come in "handy"? What are SPD and CBW? Your explanations are not clear and sound unconvincing to me. Especially this "handy" business. You want more tankers because they are "handy"? You mean teh existing number are not handy enough?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 13:09

But certainly not for sending them over hostile territory with escorts.

Cut the bloody nonsense yourself. That is what you are harping on.

The tankers are in protected air space. In the initial stages that is further in. later it is further out. That is exactly what I have said in post after post. Nowhere have I suggested that they are right over Pindi. In fact in most of my posts they are within our airspace in a protective bubble of escorts. So please stop repeating something that I have not said.

You may not want to admit it, but you don't seem to know.

Oh I have a pretty coherent idea about refuellers and do not need your certificate.

It is you who is constantly talking about a scenario where the tankers are bang in the middle of hostile airspace. You are harping on that and are adamant that that is what I am saying. Please read all the posts and stop this disingenuous bullshit about what happens in your conception.

You are just diverting the discussion from this by focusing on only one aspect and then saying that it is I who did that.

Please stop being dishonourable and admit that it is rather you who doesn't know as epitomized by the following:

It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?

Moreover here is what I wrote earlier:

Mig XX takes off from A. It happily bombs Army Reserve North. In revenge, Pukis render A inoperable with a chemical strike. Now where does MIg XX go? nearest usable base is also under missile threat and may not be quite ready at the time.

The Mig XX pilot sees tanker guarded by four MKIs. Tops up, thanks his ancestors and lands safely at civilian airport out of Puki range.

And Another Scenario : Mig XX pilot goes to attack pre defined target in Puki land. Upon reaching there finds that target is not what it was said to be but is instead a goat rearing facility. Intel insists that target is in the vicinity .. Pilot decides that he can LOITER a little bit, because once he crosses back into his own airspace a nice tanker is waiting to help him get back to base.

Neither of these suggest that I am talking only about the tankers being over Pindi or some other completely hostile place. And they could well refer to a time of conflict which is different from the one that you are focused on. And that is something I pointed out in an earlier post when I said only the opening stages need not be considered. You are going all over the place and you won't admit it.

Before this I posted:

In this entire discussion one obvious thing that people seem to forget is that tankers will allow your shorter legged jets to be based in the rear AAAlso Naa? thereby obviating the need to base them say at Barmer. Tankers are needed. The IAF has felt the need for a long time, but couldn't do it because of cost and the 'targets are in 300 km onlee" mentality.

But the said person is harping on only one aspect - a scenario contrived wholly in his own mind and at a stage of conflict only of his own choosing.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 13:14

Hainji, you hang on words like SPD and CBW now ji ?

I thought as an old BR hand you would know these things?

SPD - strategic Plans division. CBW - Chemical Biological warfare.

Could you expand and explain how existing tankers, leave alone more tankers would be used? Specifically where exactly would those tankers by flying to keep them safe from enemy air defences. Exactly how would be tankers employed by India to increase loiter time over Pakistan?

Aah you are back to square one. Only your own scenario. Anyway these have been answered enough times now and the time of conflict is different from the one you have envisioned.

I will answer this further when you can explain to me what is the difference between air dominance and superiority to my satisfaction, comprende?

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2011 13:15

Well we definitely need more tankers ; we have 6 in service and more 6 on order . Assuming 100% availability (which is rarely the case ) we still are running a very low ratio of tankers to M2K+MKI combine in service, this ratio will get skewed even more with more MKIs and MRCAs in the pipeline. If I were to throw a number I would say anywhere between 20-30 would be good to begin with.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 13:36

Oh and furthermore SSM = Surface to Surface missile. In case that was also lost on somebody.

Anyway at least some posters understood my point about refuellers and basing at Jodhpur. The subsequent nonsensical discussion about operational tanker employment is ultimately incidental ...

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Oct 2011 13:38

Well we definitely need more tankers ; we have 6 in service and more 6 on order

Is the 6 more on order confirmed?

IIRC, the IAF had chosen the A-330 for their next round but Fin Min shot it down and no word on further tankers has been heard since..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 13:44

D Roy wrote:H
I thought as an old BR hand you would know these things?

SPD - strategic Plans division. CBW - Chemical Biological warfare.

I will answer this further when you can explain to me what is the difference between air dominance and superiority to my satisfaction, comprende?

Thanks.

Air dominance - you send your tanker to loiter over Pakistan.
Air Superiority you do not send your tanker over Pakistan on a possible suicide mission.

I see you have edited the original post that started this controversy. Naughty naughty! It is my fault for not quoting your entire post. You do admit that tankers will not be flying over Pakistan or China minus air dominance? You keep tankers with escorts flying inside India to allow a fighter that re enters India to refuel over Indian airspace to return safely to an alternative air base because all preplanned alternative air bases are inoperative. But as long as the tanker is in Indian airspace that tanker will be useless in extending the range of Indian fighters into Pakistan. How will more tankers help? After the first 15 forward air bases are taken out by Pakistan (in the early stages of the war) Indian fighters will all have to operate from deep within India. And refueling is taking place in India. So they cannot penetrate any deeper into Pakistan with or without AAR. What is the use of more refuellers?

A "bubble of Sukhois" and air superiority is a bubble of high hopes if you are talking about refueling over enemy territory

Now tell me, how are tankers on the Indian side of the border, safe from AAMs fired from across the border (assume a mere 50 km inside are going to be used to increase loiter time ) over Pakistan? They have to stop loitering and return to refuel no?

All those "extra tankers" will be used for refuelling well inside India. They will not increase the range of Indian fighters over Pakistan or China except the marginal improvements you get by taking off and topping up. And they cannot phyically increase "loiter time" over Pakistan if fighters return to Indian airspace to refuel.

Yes I am sure we need extra tankers. But I say so only because the IAF wants them. I still don't know why they want them.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2011 13:47

Oh no Sum; it's just that today I am in a very good mood.

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Oct 2011 13:49

negi wrote:Oh no Sum; it's just that today I am in a very good mood.

Dammit..

Was hoping ( against hope) that your words were true... Guess we will be stuck with 6 refuellers for a long, long time..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 13:52

negi wrote:Well we definitely need more tankers ; we have 6 in service and more 6 on order . Assuming 100% availability (which is rarely the case ) we still are running a very low ratio of tankers to M2K+MKI combine in service, this ratio will get skewed even more with more MKIs and MRCAs in the pipeline. If I were to throw a number I would say anywhere between 20-30 would be good to begin with.

Negiji, what would the IAF do with 20-30 tankers? Can anyone explain how they would be used?

It could be that a desire to "have more" could be he only reason? The navy needs tankers.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 13:56

I see you have edited the original post that started this controversy. Naughty naughty!

Aah an allegation. Unsubstantiated too because of incompetency in dealing with fast moving forum formatting...

Cut the bullshit. You just went through the posts and found nothing. So you are changing the goal posts again. Very bad piskology hakeem ji and the old open fly torn shirt nonsense comes to mind.

Many posters have clearly understood my point about refuellers and Jodhpur basing and that is what this discussion is about.

You have not answered my question to satisfaction. because if you could you wouldn't ask this in the first place:

Now tell me, how are tankers on the Indian side of the border, safe from AAMs fired from across the border (assume a mere 50 km inside are going to be used to increase loiter time ) over Pakistan? They have to stop loitering and return to refuel no?

and this observation and question is plain stupid

But as long as the tanker is in Indian airspace that tanker will be useless in extending the range of Indian fighters into Pakistan. How will more tankers help?

If I have time and feel like it I might just take up this discussion in the Newbie thread sometime. But only after you admit that:

It's not that we don't need more refuellers but what do we plan to use them for?

You are out of your dept .. sorry airspace.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 13:56

shiv wrote:What he said is nonsense Karan. Fighters can be based a hundred or two hundred km in India , take off with very little fuel but a full load, get refuelled well within the border and go into enemy territory for a mission and then if necessary be refuelled again in safe airspace over sea or land. Even Wiki has this information. Needing more refuellers for that is fine. But certainly not for sending them over hostile territory with escorts.

We can send refuellers over Pakistan provided we manage to secure Air Dominance but its definitely a risk, hoping the PAF does not get some mobile SAMs into the area.

Refuellers are precious assets. It is always good to have "more" of precious assets it they are used properly. How will they be used with regard to conflict with Pakistan or China? One thing I can tell you for sure they won't be sent to loiter over enemy territory.

With most Pakistani targets being within 300 km exactly how will "more refuelers" be used wrt to Pakistan? And how will "more refuelers, or (even the existing ones) be used over Tibet?

It doesn't matter if Pakistani targets are within 300 km or not because more fuel available = more loiter as I mentioned. More loiter time available = more responsive air power on call. This could be to the sectional level for supporting infantry - the French & US have adopted this system called Rover, which allows them to directly link with fighters on station (since we are getting either the EF/Rafale for MMRCA the tech is not out of our reach).

And another - missile busting. Personally, I believe the IAF should seriously start looking at the latter if it already has not. This is the single reason why personally I support the Rafale over the EF though I like the latter far more. The former aircraft has significantly more endurance & hence loiter. Basically persistence over a combat zone is the way to dominate the enemy, the more endurance it has, the less sorties one needs to surge to achieve any sort of reasonable coverage over the combat area. For a two front scenario, if it ever occurs, with fewer airframes available, this will be even more critical.

By conventional standards, and most of its peer fighters the Sukhoi is indeed very long legged, making it a quasi-strategic asset. But the oft quoted 3000 km range comes with some significant caveats.

http://sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/lth/

Maximum flight range (with rockets 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
- at sea level, km 1,270
- at height, km 3,000

Note the limited payload & that its launched (reducing the drag) at half the distance giving a max range of 1500 km.

If we actually maintain a heavy CAP (with the aircraft armed to the teeth - it can carry upto 12 AAMs) or an escort, or for that matter a mixed package, say a mix of dumb bombs, LGBs, A2G missiles and some 4 AAM for self defence, plus EW pods - the fuel burn will be much higher. Especially considering aircraft has to be at military power to reach the area of operations quickly & then settle into a slower circuit but probably not as optimal as cruising speed.

Basically - we do need tankers, more fuel - the problem is the more the internal fuel, the bigger the plane & lesser the aero performance, you know this. For fighters, the way around this - to increase the fuel fraction without compromising on the performance too much - is to add fuel tanks. But even there, its a slope. Add too large tanks - and a portion of the fuel goes in having these tanks to begin with (drag). So the new wisdom - CFTs (which compromise fighter performance) and tankers. The last are evergreen and hence why the USAF - which truly believes in air dominance and lives and breathes it (their ground forces don't have as significant SAM defences) stresses so much on tankers. Its all about persistence.

The other problem is fancy stuff apart, fighters themselves are not the answer by themselves - they have to be tied into a sensor network with other aircraft with large radars with A2G modes (a fighter radar has limited FOV) - eg SAR, GMTI (to detect moving targets) and geolocation - to get the kind of wide area coverage of targets - that fighters can then attack. By acquiring UAVs and gradually moving up the value chain, adding the sensor -data exchange networks (IACCS, AFNET) the IAF is moving towards this arena. But this complex process means that the fighter has to be around a long time, again loiter. It has to wait till it gets the data it needs.

This is how war is increasingly being fought and its a big issue for us, because we face persistent threats that make even what the US faced as simple. We need high endurance fighters with excellent sensors and a NCW approach running, with as many force multipliers as possible. Since all this is not possible (we only have a handful of tankers, handful of AWACS), the IAF is doing what it can - close basing, choosing aerostats (cheap alternative to AWACS albiet with disadvantages) etc.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 14:00

negi wrote:Well we definitely need more tankers ; we have 6 in service and more 6 on order . Assuming 100% availability (which is rarely the case ) we still are running a very low ratio of tankers to M2K+MKI combine in service, this ratio will get skewed even more with more MKIs and MRCAs in the pipeline. If I were to throw a number I would say anywhere between 20-30 would be good to begin with.

We have six more on order? My mood got better. Any links?

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2011 14:00

Shiv ji scenario building has never been my forte but how about a case where we are caught napping (yet again) with say our major airfields in NW bombed out by the Chipanda; in that case tankers would play a key role in allowing us to launch a counter attack from airfields deep within the country .

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2011 14:03

Karan sorry I should have said planned/proposed .

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 14:06

Karan M wrote: It doesn't matter if Pakistani targets are within 300 km or not because more fuel available = more loiter as I mentioned. More loiter time available = more responsive air power on call. This could be to the sectional level for supporting infantry - the French & US have adopted this system called Rover, which allows them to directly link with fighters on station (since we are getting either the EF/Rafale for MMRCA the tech is not out of our reach).

Karan This is the only part of your post that states a concept that I am questioning. An Indian fighter that is fully topped up with fuel just inside Indian territory has only X amount of loiter time over a given area. That loiter time can only be increased by refueling over safe airspace. If Indian refuellers cannot fly over Pakistan we cannot use refuellers to increase loiter time. In the case of Libya and Afghanistan there is air dominance and the tankers can themselves fly over "enemy" territory. But loiter time over Pakistan cannot be increased by returning to refuel over Indian territory.

negi · Post by **negi** » 02 Oct 2011 14:11

Sala it's already past 5am here; I have to hit the sack.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 14:12

shiv wrote:Negiji, what would the IAF do with 20-30 tankers? Can anyone explain how they would be used? It could be that a desire to "have more" could be he only reason? The navy needs tankers.

Provide its tactical assets more persistence.
For pilots speed and fuel are life. The former is self evident - energy states, acceleration etc being the nuances or actual parameters - but fuel is persistence. No plan as they say, survives contact with the enemy. Which means that if the IAF planned its strike package to strike x target at y distance and return by z route, the aircraft may end up getting into all sorts of tangles and return by m route. In this scenario, for a pilot to know he has an orbiting tanker which is able to top him up when he is running out of fuel, is a huge psychological boost not to mention that much more of a plus regarding the mission effectiveness itself. You can bypass heavily defended areas to attack targets by other routes, because you have that much more "sparing factor" when it comes to fuel.

One thing about almost all our deep strikes in previous wars - at least those I know of - are how it was fuel that was always the deciding factor for our pilots in getting back home. It made mission planning so much harder for them.

Since the IAF is an offensive AF and will take the fight to Pakistan (or even China), its pilots need every bit of endurance that they can get. Unfortunately, the idea of a super Zerstorer with umpteen missiles, Canberra style airframe, huge fuel fraction like the kind the likes of Prodyut Das talk about cannot by themselves fulfill all the functions required, because they will lack the agility (ability to rapidly transition energy states) and maneuverability (all the ITR, STR stuff) combination that close in fighting requires. Which means a fighter has to compromise between WVR and BVR, limiting the onboard fuel, and a Flanker/F-15 sized airframe is about the maximum you can get before the tradeoffs really start affecting you. So limited onboard fuel - you either add CFTs (and make the plane a dog in a turning fight) or add fuel tanks (where there are limitations again) or get tankers a plenty, to support you as and when required. The last is the most "expensive" option but the one that gives the most flexibility as well.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 02 Oct 2011 14:18

A tanker simply changes the BINGO fuel for any tac fighter operation. Earlier I would have had to have x amount BINGO as base was z km away. Now I can go down to x-a before I move out of loiter because a tanker will meet me midway between the target and my base.

Now after having been topped up, I still have some weapons left and have suddenly been directed to another sector. where I ingress once more into enemy territory after having been topped off inside mine.

There's no rocket science here.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 14:21

negi wrote:Shiv ji scenario building has never been my forte but how about a case where we are caught napping (yet again) with say our major airfields in NW bombed out by the Chipanda; in that case tankers would play a key role in allowing us to launch a counter attack from airfields deep within the country .

Fair enough. The only point I have been trying to make is that no matter how many tankers we have they are unlikely to be used to "extend the range" of Indian attacks into Pakistani or Chinese territory unless we indulge in some innovative things. For Pakistan we could fly over the Arabian sea, refuel there - hit targets in the extreme west (Baluchistan) and return to be refueled again over the sea. But I believe that this would be unnecessary in the case of Pakistan. Everything is within reach

It would be interesting to quietly refuel over Myanmar and attack distant south-east Chinese targets.

In fact the concept of refuelling over Pakistan or China is a good one if we had air dominance. What we need is assets for air dominance. That means more AWACS and radar cover, and space based assets. Refuellers per se may certainly be vital in the sort of defence scenario you have quoted, but if we are talking of going on the offensive then it is not more refuelers we need in the China/Pakistan context. It is the ability to achieve dominance by taking out their air defences. I do not see a huge role for large numbers of refuelers there because of the distances we are talking about.

Ultimately air dominance over China may be a pipe dream, but robust local air superiority translates into some sort of local "air dominance". But we must get assets for that into place. If we can do that then more refuellers would be icing on the cake.

But for the navy, I think they need to get into the refuelling business now.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 02 Oct 2011 14:25

D Roy wrote:A tanker simply changes the BINGO fuel for any tac fighter operation. Earlier I would have had to have x amount BINGO as base was z km away. Now I can go down to x-a before I move out of loiter because a tanker will meet me midway between the target and my base.

Now after having been topped up, I still have some weapons left and have suddenly been directed to another sector. where I ingress once more into enemy territory after having been topped off inside mine.

There's no rocket science here.

What is BINGO?

You say

I can go down to x-a before I move out of loiter because a tanker will meet me midway between the target and my base.

If x-a is over Indian territory then the loiter has ended. If x-a is over enemy territory you must have air dominance for the tanker to be safe. Or we are once again talking soosai.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 02 Oct 2011 14:25

shiv wrote:Karan This is the only part of your post that states a concept that I am questioning. An Indian fighter that is fully topped up with fuel just inside Indian territory has only X amount of loiter time over a given area. That loiter time can only be increased by refueling over safe airspace. If Indian refuellers cannot fly over Pakistan we cannot use refuellers to increase loiter time. In the case of Libya and Afghanistan there is air dominance and the tankers can themselves fly over "enemy" territory. But loiter time over Pakistan cannot be increased by returning to refuel over Indian territory.

That's not how it works. Basically a fighter has a finite endurance based on three things:
- Fuel & aviation lubricants
-Onboard equipment (MTBF, MTBO)
-Human factor (a human body - as you'd know better than us can only do so much for so long)

What the tankers do is basically provide a scenario where they can return to the tanker itself without going through the whole landing/takeoff cycle and return to the fight.

The rough rule of thumb that I have read is that tankers are basically around 100-150 km behind the TBA (tactical battle area). They too require escorts - which flank them. But as long as the tanker is there, the endurance of a fighter can be extended to much more than the usual couple of hours.

This basis of returning to the tanker and then going back to Pakistan which is say 150 km away, is still faster & more effective than having a new bunch of fighters reach the TBA and start all over again. Pilots need mission planning, need to see the zone, make their choices. A Su-30 MKI class aircraft can carry 12 pylons worth of ammunition.

What will happen when fuel is an issue is that you would not load all twelve pylons to maximize endurance. Not having enough munitions means that after expending these you have to return. Even if the pilot can sustain a couple more hours, is more aware and hence more clued in than a fresh bunch being sent to the area, and the onboard avionics can go on for several more hours.

Tankers give you the ability to send a plane up with full warload, and not worry too much about the persistence angle. Its a huge psychological plus for the pilots to know, that on their "way back" - if things go pear shaped regarding fuel management, they can top up. And on the way to topping up, if some target of opportunity pops up, they can actually go back and re-engage it.

There are basically two ways to take out air defences. SEAD and DEAD. Both require persistence. Best part about having tankers & a platform like the MKI is that you can combine each aircraft's strengths. The latter;s range of capabilities (the French call this polyvalence, that they can fulfill multiple roles in one mission) and the former's safety factor - which adds fuel as required.

Also, it takes away the timing factor. As you'd know, mission planning is a huge pain. If you have aircraft going in & out , some have different endurance than the others, AWACS need escorts, without tankers - what you need to do is coordinate all this so there are always fighters available. For safety's sake, if you move to AFB even further behind, its a big pain. Basically a lot of time spent in getting there. In contrast, tankers, even 150 odd km behind the TBA can offer relatively better options.

Basically tankers and AWACS are what are true force multipliers for any AF & worth their weight, so to speak, in gold. And of course, special mission aka EW aircraft - though with aircraft getting more and more EW suites, thats less of a worry than before (electronics earlier were very bulky).