IAF Pilot comments on Babur Missile

[Quwa]

Well the EADS-Indo AESA is another light fighter system to the list...

Like I said earlier, it shouldn't be too long before Thales reveals its light-fighter AESA...the export potential is strong and it can gain an immediate foothold in Pakistan.

 

[su-47]

Well the EADS-Indo AESA is another light fighter system to the list...

Like I said earlier, it shouldn't be too long before Thales reveals its light-fighter AESA...the export potential is strong and it can gain an immediate foothold in Pakistan.

i had no idea thales was working on a light-fighter AESA. i thought they were working on AESA for Rafale. please provide a link.

 

[Proud to be Pakistani]

i had no idea thales was working on a light-fighter AESA. i thought they were working on AESA for Rafale. please provide a link.

I agree with you!

Thales is working for AESA for Rafale only!

 

[Joodi]

Guys get back on track, this thread is for "IAF Pilot comments on Babur Missile" not for AESA radar possibilities for LCA and JF-17.

Any how instead of babur which is a surface launched cruise missile, i think it should be
"Raad" (an air launched cruise missile) which should be a matter of concern for this IAF pilots
and his comments.

 

[Joodi]

Guys get back on track, this thread is for "IAF Pilot comments on Babur Missile" not for AESA radar possibilities for LCA and JF-17.

Any how instead of babur which is a surface launched cruise missile, i think it should be Raad (air launched cruise missile) which should be a matter of concern for any this IAF pilots and his comments.

 

[KENT]

Guys get back on track, this thread is for "IAF Pilot comments on Babur Missile" not for AESA radar possibilities for LCA and JF-17.

AESA gona play a major role early warning of cruise missile and hence talk about AESA for LCA and JF-17.

Any how instead of babur which is a surface launched cruise missile, i think it should be Raad (air launched cruise missile) which should be a matter of concern for any this IAF pilots and his comments.

Nope, I haven't came across any level of concern express of any IAF pilot, and more so why should he get concern with that missile which is still in it early stage of the development and with only handful of test flights. Since India have already geared up for earlier on with induction of spyder sam, Akash sam and not its joint collabration with isreali for long range Barak-II as well short reaction missile in addition to homegrown AAD and PAD.

 

[EagleEyes]

A fighter plane is not sufficient enough to track cruise missiles and kill it. It would be lucky to get one down depending on the time and location.

 

[KENT]

A fighter plane is not sufficient enough to track cruise missiles and kill it.

I wasn't talking about fighter plane rather AESA equipped fighter plane which is itself an mini-awacs could be quite helpful in trackking and targeting cruise missile.

It would be lucky to get one down depending on the time and location.

Radar technology doesn't depends upon its fortune rather its tracking range and assiging the target to adjoining air to surface missiles. Since we already have long range radar like Green Pine, as well as DRDO version of Green pine as well as Rajendra radar in addition to several other existing operational long range radar which are optimum enough to foil in cruise missiles offensive intention.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Kent:

In the context of "tracking missiles", a fighter with the capability of acting as a "mini AWACS" is a bit redundant when you have dedicated AWACS with longer range radar that does not have to get as close to the enemy, as well as long range ground based radar. Given dedicated AWACS support, I fail to see a major advantage of being a "mini-AWACS" even in A2A combat.

 

[Samudra]

You can only deploy a small number of AWACS at a given time. They're very costly. They need escorts. AWACS can't be everywhere. AWACS cannot fire missiles at incoming cruise missiles.

Now, if the Su-30 MKI can detect, track and shoot down incoming cruise missiles the AWACS can be freed for other important duties such as Air Dominance. Besides, all forces are moving towards network centric operations. The aircrafts can feed and recieve feeds from other systems.

The more sensors you have out there - the better are chances of your survival.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You can only deploy a small number of AWACS at a given time. They're very costly. They need escorts. AWACS can't be everywhere. AWACS cannot fire missiles at incoming cruise missiles.

Now, if the Su-30 MKI can detect, track and shoot down incoming cruise missiles the AWACS can be freed for other important duties such as Air Dominance. Besides, all forces are moving towards network centric operations. The aircrafts can feed and recieve feeds from other systems.

The more sensors you have out there - the better are chances of your survival.

But a "mini-AWACS" due to the shorter range of radar, also exposes you to enemy A2A missiles, as well as their fighters, whereas the AWACS would not be in the same immediate danger - Either way you will have a number of fighters in the air, but when protecting an AWACS, they have the advantage of keeping their distance and still detecting the enemy.

Also, with the smaller range on a mini-AWACS, you would have to be pretty lucky to be in the proximity of a missile launch or flight path to detect it- so utilizing that capability for tracking missiles seems pretty iffy and left to chance.

Sensors are fine, but you are talking about redundancy, rather than a qualitative improvement in the data received, and at the risk of being within range of enemy fighters and ground based AAM's. Some of the newer missiles actually track the radar in AC, hence the desire to be able to fly your fighters "blind" while data linked to a dedicated AWACS platform that would not be under risk due to greater range. There does not seem to be any major advantage to having a "mini AWACS" that decent coverage from dedicated AWACS platforms cannot provide or surpass.

I'm looking at this in the context of the Indo-Pak theater - where, in order to detect any missile launches from Pakistani territory, Indian "mini-AWACS" fighters would have to come within range of the Eeriye, leading to detection and measures against the Indian fighters before any missile is even launched. You risk your fighters I would think, when the same detection, or even better, would have been performed by your Phalcons.

 

[Samudra]

But what is the point of merely detecting enemy missiles ? You need to shoot them down.A decent AAM would finish off a cruise missile easily.

In our case recollect that our big birds can carry almost a dozen AAM's and will comfortably engage any bandits - their lock on ranges against PAF targets are longer than PAF aircrafts lock on ranges. IAF has been practising BVR sniping against some of the best air forces of the world for this very reason.

So while bandits and IAF aircrafts both know about each others position IAF would be in a position to engage the bandits before the bandits.

You must remember the role of miniAWACS is not very important in the context of AWACS cover being available 24/7 - all over ones sensitive territory. Neither the PAF nor IAF can afford to pay for so many AWACS.

AWACS are also the biggest targets flying in the sky. IAF and PAF would be aiming to shoot them down in the first few days of the conflict. So the chances are either forces could lose an AWACS or two as well.

Its not being a miniAWACS, not much a fan of that term myself. Its about having a radar that can detect targets further away quicker than your target detecting you, track it and shoot it down.

The Bars radar on the Sukhoi is the most powerful beast Russian's ever built. It can do A2A and A2G mode simultaneously. It should detect a cruise missile comfortably from as far as 75-100 KMs away. The Russian BVR shots easily out range AIM-120. So the Sukhois theoretically can shoot down the cruise missiles and turn around to handle the bandits comfortably. Practically it would get a lot more tricky because BVR shots aren't truly effective at those extra long ranges quoted on brochures but then...that is all we know.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Samudra:

No question that in the absence of AWACS support the "m-AWACS" have superiority - which is why I qualified my comments in the context of the Indo-Pak theater, with the Eeriye and Phalcon available.

But I see your point - you are arguing that India may not have its Phalcons in the air at all times and therefore the m-AWACS provide some sort of cover during down times, even though it still leaves it to chance quite a bit, since you would have no way of knowing where a missile might be launched from and your coverage with the m-awacs would be nowhere close to comprehensive. Also consider that if your Phalcons are not up, a missile from Pakistan is being launched (war I imagine), and Pakistan's eeriye's are in service, the m-awacs are at a disadvantage compared to Pakistani fighters.

 

[Samudra]

The Bars have such a wide coverage - both range and angles that they can't miss a Erieye flying anywhere near 150-200 kilometers. Besides IAF ADGES would detect any AWACS flying 200 kilometers on the other side of the border. Remember the AWACS needs to be flying high and with escorts. They are very visible on ground based radars far away.

I believe a formation of Sukhois alone can handle a few cruise/A2A plus an AWACS complete with its escorts in a reasonable scenario.

The formation could easily deploy one or two Sukhoi aircrafts to handle the missiles and the rest two could comfortably handle an ERIEYE formation because the F-16/JF-17 is already in their LOCK ON range long before the PAF fighters can deploy their missiles.

So it finally boils down to who shoots first NOT who detects first. I would imagine knowing the positions of IAF aircrafts would help PAF position their aircrafts accordingly but then its really hard to imagine Su-30MKI's not detecting an ERIEYE size target for that long.

The ERIEYE aircrafts can really help in a defensive posture but it would be rendered useless beyond a point if it were used for offensive operations.

It's just an academic exercise - in a real war I'd imagine there are going to be so many clusters of sensors and shooters that all this would look like a joke.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The formation could easily deploy one or two Sukhoi aircrafts to handle the missiles and the rest two could comfortably handle an ERIEYE formation because the F-16/JF-17 is already in their LOCK ON range long before the PAF fighters can deploy their missiles.

So it finally boils down to who shoots first NOT who detects first. I would imagine knowing the positions of IAF aircrafts would help PAF position their aircrafts accordingly but then its really hard to imagine Su-30MKI's not detecting an ERIEYE size target for that long.

I imagine here you are referring to lock on ranges for missiles, rather than the radar itself - since PAF fighters data linked with the Eeriye would have a detection range advantage when put up against the m-awacs. So it all boils down to which side has the more effective, longer range A2A missile (in a theoretical sense as you suggested).