Possible steps to counter the rising threat from IAF ?

[Myth_buster_1]

also i bet you know that usa is offering us f-35 in future if f-16in is selected which acc.to me is very much comparable to f-22 . so you loose another point .
and i said that fighter aircrafts are compared on neutral ground not awacs .

dont get hyper . its a healthy debate .

IAF can only afford to operate one type of heavy role stealth fighter and that is PAK-FA or F-35... its not the financial factor but lack of well capable pilots, not capable of absorbing multiple high tech technologies, and also restriction from both parties as they will not prefer their rival plane parked side by side... americans would love to take a peek or more than that.... and so will the russians... and dont tell me that indians are more trust worthy...

 

[ironman]

Welcome kid....can you tell me which BVR the MKI will be using from 250km?

Did you know we are talking about A2A fight and Brahmos is not a BVR? Heck, do you even know that the Brahmos cruise missile won't enter service in IAF before 2012 at the earliest?

You are right... Su-30 MKI firing the Brahmos is just a concept.

The Ra'ad cruise missile that can be fired from Mirage and JF-17 has a range of 350 km

BrahMos underwater launch in 2008, air-to-air launch in 2009

BrahMos underwater launch in 2008, air-to-air launch in 2009,Security Issues, News Analysis, India News Online

BrahMos underwater launch in 2008, air-to-air launch in 2009- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

CHENNAI: The next two stages of the BrahMos missile programme would be completed by 2009, with its underwater launch likely this year, a Defence
Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) official said here on Wednesday.

The BrahMos category missile capable of being launched from underwater would be test fired in 2008, said A. Sivathanu Pillai, scientist and chief controller (R&D) and in charge of the programme at DRDO.

"The missile is fully ready," he said on the sidelines of the Nanotechnology Conclave 2008, sponsored by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).

The universal launch platform that will be used underwater to stage the missile is, however, yet to be found, he said.

It could be a platform supported by a submarine or it would have to be a portable platform, to be built, carried and submerged at a pre-determined location, said Pillai.

As the Brahmos are cruise missiles, "their velocity does not change" and they cannot weigh more than three tonnes, the scientist said.

India is also bound by the international Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR - imposed by the five nuclear powers) and cannot go beyond the 290 km/500kg range for the BrahMos category of missiles.

DRDO's BrahMos group and the Russians are negotiating underwater launch mechanisms.

The air-to air version of the Brahmos missile is also in its finishing stages and is expected to be tested in 2009, Pillai said.

"There is need to reduce the weight of the booster engines," he explained, adding, "We are also still working on the avionics."

Pillai also said that India was now looking at hypersonic technology - five times the speed of sound and therefore faster than supersonic.

On March 5, India successfully tested the ship-to-shore version of the supersonic BrahMos missile, firing at an uninhabited island in the Andaman & Nicobar group. The missile had a range of more than 290 km and was launched from the Russia-acquired missile destroyer INS Rajput.

This was the 15th test of the missile jointly developed by Russia and India. The launch-and-strike time for BrahMos is much less than any other missile, giving it a distinct advantage as a weapon.

Indian and Russian scientists have already carried out successful tests of four versions of the Brahmos, said to be the only "supersonic" cruise missile system in the world - the technology shared by India and Russia.

"All other countries, including the US have subsonic systems," Pillai said.

The ship-to-shore test added to India's arsenal of ship-to-ship, land to ship and surface-to-surface versions of the multi-role missiles.


Sometimes you will have to learn lessons from a kid

 

[ironman]

Firstly, no it is not a good concept, it is reality as of next year.
If you don't even realise that 2300kg fuel is internal tanks only, i.e. no external fuel tanks, that is your problem.

That means you will have to sacrifice the payload isn't it?? comparing with other single engine aircrafts such as gripen,f-16 etc there is much confusion arises thats why I am saying . I think better ask to Murad sir..

 

[mean_bird]

Welcome kid
....
Heck, do you even know that the Brahmos cruise missile won't enter service in IAF before 2012 at the earliest?

The air-to air version of the Brahmos missile is also in its finishing stages and is expected to be tested in 2009, Pillai said.

Sometimes you will have to learn lessons from a kid

do you know the difference between "test" and "entering service"?

You wrote that essay to tell me it will be tested in 2009...which I know quite well?
The first "test" flight of LCA was in 2001 and the first "test" flight of JF-17 was in 2003. Neither has entered service as yet ( the JF-17 will enter within a few months and the LCA by 2010-11).

Just to let you know, the Brahmos (air version) is currently in development. The aircraft that is supposed to fire it, the Su-30mki, has been sent to Russia for making it capable of firing it. If everything goes well, it will be tested in 2009. Again, if everything goes well, it will enter service in 2012.

Now, be a nice kid and tell me which BVR will you be firing from the mighty SU-30mki from 250km away

 

[saiko]

Can you explain why JF can never get Su-30 into its frontal aspect? The way I see it, JF has enough thrust and turn rate to at least do that. The latest IR missiles can't be avoided by the Su-30 once they're on their way, no matter how good its TWR or TVC may be.

Well there are an unlmiited number of merge scenarios and I can't cover them all. It would be better for you to give me a merge scenario where the JF-17 can get a missile shot on the Su-30 and I can show you why a smart Su-30 pilot will never let that happen.

In general though, the real problem the JF-17 has in this matchup is that the instantaneous turn rate of the Su-30 is superior (I don't have turn rate figures for the JF-17, but I am assuming it is not superior to the F-16, any block, in instantaneous turn rate) and the TWR of the Su-30MKI is significantly higher.

Lacking parity or an advantage in at least one of these two areas the SU-30 pilot will be the one dictating the flow of the fight. The JF-17 pilot would effectively have to make no mistakes and wait for the Su-30 pilot to make one to exploit.

A smart PAF pilot will avoid WVR combat with a Su-30MKI if at all possible. There are times that they wont' be able to - perhaps they are protecting crucial assets and can't flee or the SU-30 is determined to get them (it is the faster airplane afterall) and they will be forced to engage, but without knowing what kind of pilot is in there that's not an ideal situation for the JF-17 pilot. It will stack up much better in WVR with India's other fighters, but not the Su-30MKIs.

Now the F-16 and the SU-30MKI is a fun matchup in WVR. TWR are almost the same, instantaneous turn rates very similar. The Su-30 has a superior sustained turn rate, but that would have only decided the fight prior to 1942. The aerodynamics of the F-16 will help it here because the Su-30 in this case (unlike the JF-17 matchup) can't use a massive TWR advantage to compensate for the extra drag. So ithe arguments some others in this thread have been making w/ a helmet mounted sight and off-boresight missiles, aircraft aerodynamics/size, etc - the F-16 vs Su-30 matchup is where it will actually make a significant difference.

 

[saiko]

that's incorrect, the technology hadn't matured at that time, and the americans shied away from the task of introducing it to their aircraft.

On top of reasons already posted, the USAF mantra at the time was BVR, BVR, BVR. There is no question the F-x series of planes would have benefited from TVC, but when your doctrine assumes you are going to kill the vast majority of your opponents outside of visual range improving within visual range performance can be seen as an unnecessary expense. Especially if it makes your next gen toy, the JSF, seem in any way less effective.

also, the effects of TVC were only useful against one-on-one combat, two aircraft on one negates those effects-and please keep in mind the F-16 test platform was a very light aircraft to begin with. the same technology was brought to the F-15, but required a lot of aerodynamic changes to the airframe.

This is intellectually dishonest. Any feature that improves an aircraft's WVR can be said to be negated in a multiple bandit fight. So why bother at all?

you can quote an out-dated, shady article if you like, but the fact of the matter is that the americans only introduced the technology through the F/A-22, which has far superior flight controls.

Again - this is dishonest intellectually speaking. The Crusader and Commanche programs were cancelled, so therefore the conclusion must be that they didn't work or weren't very effective? No. Both of these programs were cancelled not because of combat effectiveness, but because of politics. New doctrines called for lightweight forces and increasing reliance on UAVs.

I spent a bit of time and found the article via Google. I don't recall if its the exact same one I read way back in the mid 90s, but it does the job either way. Quotes from actual F-16 pilots included within.

Code One Magazine: Thrust Vectoring in the Real World: July 1994

Credibility on the matter goes decidedly in favour of the actual F-16 pilots, not some forum poster with a transparent agenda who uses simplistic arguments like "size matters" without actually understanding why it matters.

 

[mean_bird]

A smart PAF pilot will avoid WVR combat with a Su-30MKI if at all possible. There are times that they wont' be able to - perhaps they are protecting crucial assets and can't flee or the SU-30 is determined to get them (it is the faster airplane afterall) and they will be forced to engage, but without knowing what kind of pilot is in there that's not an ideal situation for the JF-17 pilot. It will stack up much better in WVR with India's other fighters, but not the Su-30MKIs.

Now the F-16 and the SU-30MKI is a fun matchup in WVR. TWR are almost the same, instantaneous turn rates very similar. The Su-30 has a superior sustained turn rate, but that would have only decided the fight prior to 1942. The aerodynamics of the F-16 will help it here because the Su-30 in this case (unlike the JF-17 matchup) can't use a massive TWR advantage to compensate for the extra drag. So ithe arguments some others in this thread have been making w/ a helmet mounted sight and off-boresight missiles, aircraft aerodynamics/size, etc - the F-16 vs Su-30 matchup is where it will actually make a significant difference.

You do not need to create these scenarios hypothetically as these scenarios actually happened between a F-16 and Su-30mki during Red Flag 2008.... and we all know what happened.

Here's the answer of the scenario you are creating

 

[saiko]

You do not need to create these scenarios hypothetically as these scenarios actually happened between a F-16 and Su-30mki during Red Flag 2008.... and we all know what happened.

Here's the answer of the scenario you are creating
M-CRINeb9_A[/media] - part 1 F-15 pilot opinion about the SU-30 MKI at Red Flag

First, I don't think that's not an F-16 he's talking about. Although to be fair, the F-15 is even less suited in WVR than the F-16 is to fight the Su-30.

Second, if you know about ACM and listen to what he says, you know the Indian pilots there were making some very big mistakes. I wouldn't put too much stock in that as far as a plane vs plane comparison goes since pilot skill can not be accounted for if you want a fair comparison of the plane.

 

[ironman]

do you know the difference between "test" and "entering service"?

You wrote that essay to tell me it will be tested in 2009...which I know quite well?
The first "test" flight of LCA was in 2001 and the first "test" flight of JF-17 was in 2003. Neither has entered service as yet ( the JF-17 will enter within a few months and the LCA by 2010-11).

Just to let you know, the Brahmos (air version) is currently in development. The aircraft that is supposed to fire it, the Su-30mki, has been sent to Russia for making it capable of firing it. If everything goes well, it will be tested in 2009. Again, if everything goes well, it will enter service in 2012.

Now, be a nice kid and tell me which BVR will you be firing from the mighty SU-30mki from 250km away

I dont care when it will be inducted 2012 or 2020.Please don't deviate the topic at least agree now brahmos can be used as a A2A missile(keep read the mki with brahmos post.Its only an scenario which will take place in near future.).. and thanks for the opportunity to teach you...

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

On top of reasons already posted, the USAF mantra at the time was BVR, BVR, BVR. There is no question the F-x series of planes would have benefited from TVC, but when your doctrine assumes you are going to kill the vast majority of your opponents outside of visual range improving within visual range performance can be seen as an unnecessary expense. Especially if it makes your next gen toy, the JSF, seem in any way less effective.

I'm already aware of what BVR is and its implications in modern aircombat. I assumed you would be on the same frequency of thought here, but I guess I'm obligated to state the obvious here. BVR is what matters in this day and age, but dogfighting is still part of the curriculum. I didn't think we would need to state the obvious, but I guess we all have to, right? regardless, TVC will not help much when it comes dogfighting, thanks to HMD and modern WVR missiles.

This is intellectually dishonest. Any feature that improves an aircraft's WVR can be said to be negated in a multiple bandit fight. So why bother at all?

that's not a reply.

Again - this is dishonest intellectually speaking. The Crusader and Commanche programs were cancelled, so therefore the conclusion must be that they didn't work or weren't very effective? No. Both of these programs were cancelled not because of combat effectiveness, but because of politics. New doctrines called for lightweight forces and increasing reliance on UAVs.

I spent a bit of time and found the article via Google. I don't recall if its the exact same one I read way back in the mid 90s, but it does the job either way. Quotes from actual F-16 pilots included within.

Code One Magazine: Thrust Vectoring in the Real World: July 1994

Credibility on the matter goes decidedly in favour of the actual F-16 pilots, not some forum poster with a transparent agenda who uses simplistic arguments like "size matters" without actually understanding why it matters.

thanks for spending that time, however, arguing for the sake of arguing isn't going to take you anywhere. thrust-vectoring technology was tested on almost all platforms in service; F-16 MATV, F-15 ACTIVE, and F-18 HARV. the tests were of course successful, given the parameters, but the technology, as I have repeatedly been saying here, was not mature enough to incorporate in the aircraft. thanks to the F/A-22's increased computing power, flight control systems including fly-by-wire, and matured nozzle control computers, they decided to introduce the technology into the aircraft.

the Flanker's size makes a big difference, anyone who has some basic understanding of aerodynamics will be able to see that. larger twin-engined aircraft are the main candidates for thrust-vectoring, yet it's not necessary for single-engined fighters. smaller aircraft are already more agile and maneuverable then the larger aircraft, regardless of TWR. the F-16A/B and the JF-17 are perhaps the best aircraft in that category.

as for 'credibility', whether a pilot says the test was successful or not, does not change the fact that the technology had to mature a bit more, to be introduced to newer aircraft. showing me the magazine has not changed anything at all.

 

[ironman]

the Flanker's size makes a big difference, anyone who has some basic understanding of aerodynamics will be able to see that. larger twin-engined aircraft are the main candidates for thrust-vectoring, yet it's not necessary for single-engined fighters. smaller aircraft are already more agile and maneuverable then the larger aircraft, regardless of TWR. the F-16A/B and the JF-17 are perhaps the best aircraft in that category.

Canadian Forces CF18 Hornet fighter aircraft - Canadian Defence Policy - CASR In Detail [Part 5]
Thanks for the valuable post..but in the above link there seems a different opinion about the best in the industry.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

I was trying to ignore you, but two strikes and you're out.

I dont care when it will be inducted 2012 or 2020.Please don't deviate the topic at least agree now brahmos can be used as a A2A missile(keep read the mki with brahmos post.Its only an scenario which will take place in near future.).. and thanks for the opportunity to teach you...

Brahmos is not an A2A missile. second, you may probably never see the air-launched variant in service, ever.

Canadian Forces CF18 Hornet fighter aircraft - Canadian Defence Policy - CASR In Detail [Part 5]
Thanks for the valuable post..but in the above link there seems a different opinion about the best in the industry.

compare F-16C to F-16A/B. come on now, why do you have to make us waste our time here?

 

[mean_bird]

I don't care when it will be inducted 2012 or 2020.Please don't deviate the topic at least agree now brahmos can be used as a A2A missile(keep read the mki with brahmos post.Its only an scenario which will take place in near future.).. and thanks for the opportunity to teach you...

Seriously, don't make a joke out of yourself. A cruise missile is a guided missile capable of sustained flight (usually powered by jet engine), that usually flies at very low altitude to avoid radar detection.

Brahmos is not an A2A missile (AAM). It will be (if it gets into service) an Air launched cruise missile ( ALCM).

 

[ironman]

I was trying to ignore you, but two strikes and you're out.


Brahmos is not an A2A missile. second, you may probably never see the air-launched variant in service, ever.


compare F-16C to F-16A/B. come on now, why do you have to make us waste our time here?

For brahmos i've posted above links as proof. sorry for the stupid second post I was meant to post DERA study but wrong link.

Anyway jf-17 will achieve its TWR of 95 only with half tank fuel and without any payload. So i think its not a matter at all..

 

[Tang0]

Seriously, don't make a joke out of yourself. A cruise missile is a guided missile capable of sustained flight (usually powered by jet engine), that usually flies at very low altitude to avoid radar detection.

Brahmos is not an A2A missile (AAM). It will be (if it gets into service) an Air launched cruise missile ( ALCM).

Sure it is, just add a nuke and Presto! A cruise missile becomes a highly effective air to air missile before your eyes.

AIR-2 Genie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just in case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm. Sorry, couldn't resist.