Posted on 07/17/2007 3:44:47 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
DID usually restricts its coverage to procurements, but issues of doctrine and lessons and innovations from the field also qualify. Drawing conclusions from exercises is always tricky, and can never replace combat experience. Even so, in the absence of state-on-state conflicts, the expansion of multi-national training (where "gaming" is less likely) occasionally offers an interesting window into platform capabilities and national trends. With a number of air forces around the world contemplating their future fighter options, and India emphasizing the value of force multiplier/ force projection platforms in its air force, the matchups at Exercise Indra Dhanush 2007 at Waddington, UK are worth our time.
While SU-30Ks have faced USAF F-15Cs and F-16s at COPE India 2004 and COPE India 2005, Indra Dhanush 2007 featured more advanced combatants on both sides. On one side is Britain's Eurofighter Typhoon, whose advanced aerodynamics and intuitive controls and avionics have led to studies like the UK DERA rating it as the second-best air superiority aircraft in the world. Its supporting cast includes 1980s era Tornado F3 air defense variants, and upgraded GR9 Harriers from the Royal Navy. On the other side is India's SU-30MKI, the most evolved variant of Sukhoi's outstanding Flanker family, with aerodynamics that allow unique maneuvers, and full thrust vectoring besides.
The lesson and key comments include ...
India's Ministry of Defense, which had this to say about the initial RAF-IAF clashes, and adds some words of wisdom:
"The operational part of the 'Exercise Indradhanush-2007' began with a series of 1 vs 1 air combat sorties... The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI's observed superior manouevring in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated. [emphasis DID's] The IAF pilots on their part were also visibly impressed by the Typhoon's agility in the air.
While it does not imply to say that the 1 vs 1 air combat sorties were meant for backslapping each other, it may be understood that in today's aerial combat scenarios of 'beyond visual range' (BVR) capabilities of air platforms, it is highly unlikely that any of the modern-day fighters will ever get into a situation that warrants extreme close air combat, as in the situation simulated in the 1 vs 1 sorties. With a 'kill' criterion of front-gun ranges being mostly under 1000 metres and a visual tracking envelope behind the target for only up to a 60-degree cone mostly for most fighter aircraft of the world, the unlikely scenario gets more exemplified.
But the irony also lies in the fact that while there is a number of counter and counter-counter measures to make the modern missiles with claims of inescapable parameters redundant by using 'chaff' and other active/passive measures, a 'gun kill' is invariably a most certain kill. The pilots invariably begin honing their tracking and combat skills under such close combat situations."
This is true. Even in the modern missile age, most air-to-air kills have remained within visual range.
In longer-range combat situations, however, issues of detection and reach would also come into play. The Eurofighter is smaller, and is generally agreed to have more "shaping" than the SU-30 to reduce its radar profile (though neither aircraft is in the same class as the F-22A Raptor or even the less-stealthy F-35 Lightning II); and its Meteor ramjet BVRAAM missile is explicitly designed to kill from longer range than the Russian AA-12/R-77. Speed can compensate to some degree by reducing detection time and extending missile range, especially in "HVA busting" missions against tankers, AWACS aircraft, et. al. Unlike the American F-22A, however, the Typhoon's supercruise capability for sustained speed above Mach 1 apparently relies on the aircraft being "clean" (no external stores), while the SU-30 currently lacks that capability until and unless plans for an uprated engine come to fruition.
At shorter ranges, meanwhile, both aircraft are equipped with canards for fast "slew and point" maneuvers, infared search & track systems, helmet-mounted sights, and ultra-maneuverable short-range infared missiles (ASRAAM, AA-11/R-73) with wide boresight seeker cones. This creates more forgiving parameters for a kill than the front gun range requirements; the SU-30MKI's superior maneuverability would have to contend with UK Typhoon flight profiles enabled by ASRAAM's longer range and lock-on after launch capability.
Exercise Indra Dhanush 2007 came to an end on July 12/07, reaching its crescendo with a 6 vs. 6 aerial combat involving 4 Indian Su-30 MKIs, 4 British F3 Tornado air defence variants, 2 British Typhoons, and 2 of the Royal Navy's GR9 Sea Harriers. An Indian IL-78 MKI aerial tanker and a British E-3D Sentry AWACS aircraft were also in the air. No details were released regarding the results, but we're sure they made for very interesting debriefs.
Meanwhile, amidst the excitement of the aerial battles, the successful deployment of India's aircraft using IAF aerial refueling and logistics personnel might go unnoticed. From India's point of view, however, these developments may be even more important than the results of the fighter match-ups in the air. An MoD release notes that:
"When the Indian Air Force (IAF) Jaguars flew to Alaska during their first overseas joint air exercise "Cope Thunder" in July '04, the newly inducted Ilyushin-78 MKI 'air-to-air' refuellers of the IAF heralded their acquired strategic reach capability. This year, the six Su-30 MKIs that flew from Pune airbase in India to Royal Air Force (RAF) airbase at Waddington (UK), were also accompanied by two IL-78 MKIs of the 'Valorous MARS' (No. 78 Mid-Air-Refuelling Squadron) from Agra through their long ferry route. Despite the din and the excitement of the first-ever arrival of the formidable Su-30 MKIs at UK, the significant aspect of IAF's continued enhanced strategic reach capability, did not however go unnoticed.
"The IL-78 MKIs [DID: a variant of Russia's IL-76 heavy transport aircraft] have been employed in five overseas assignment so far. These include Alaska, South Africa, France, Singapore and now UK," informed Group Captain K Raghavendra, Commanding Officer of the MARS. "We would have loved the experience of tanking RAF fighters during the exercise that would have made inter-operability possible. We look forward to such an experience in the future," he added on RAF Tornadoes not having tanked with them during the exercise.
The six IAF Su-30 MKI fighters will have flown nearly 19,000 kms each, tanked eight times and transferred nearly 225 tonnes of fuel mid-air in all, spread over 28 flying hours with stopovers enroute at Doha (Qatar) and Tanagra (Greece), both ways."
Once India receives its IL-76 derivative Russian-Israeli Phalcon AWACS aircraft, its ability to project power abroad will grow significantly; and the INS Vikramaditya carrier project will provide a further boost. Exercises like Indra Dhanush 2007 are valuable for the insights they provide – but they are also valuable for the trends they presage. The logistics and interoperability lessons learned by the IAF during this exercise are and indicator of, and a contributor to, some trends worth watching.
Looks like the old C-141.
That’s a cool-looking tanker.
Cool stuff. So the SU-30 is not just a load of hype, as some on FR would dismiss it as.
Ping
And while I'm dreaming, match the Sukhoi vs. F-15, F-16 and F-22 in a real-life-scenario Dogfight.
We've been informed as to the BVR-type "kills" the Sukho's can leverage (using their advanced radars) against F-15's.
But lets tangle it up Real-Sky style and see where the truest warfighting capabilities stand.
A very impressive and capable aircraft. Glad the Indians are building up their forces since Pakistan seems to be heading down the tubes.
Pakistan has a lot of good US equipment but my money is definitely on the Indians...
Caption: From left to right, as identified by an American F-22 pilot: breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Yep. The Russians have finally fielded an aircraft equal to (or marginally better than) our models that were first flown in the 1970's. A real breakthrough...
The SU-30 is roughly in the same class as the F-15E.Both first flew in the late 1980s.And Both were derived from 70s designs-the F-15 & the SU-27.
So it’s not as new many may think.
Pakistan only has a handful of F-16s,if that is what you are thinking of.The vast majority of their equipment is Chinese & some french & Yankee stuff!!!
The MKI is a lot more then a Su-30 and a lot more then just “Russian”. Its arguably better or equal to the the Superhornets.
I wonder what you would think about the Chicoms-they operate close to 300 of the SU-27 & SU-30(combined).Deployed from airfields in Tibet,they can hit Indian targets as far as Hyderabad in the South.
Pakistan is a concern but also another concern is that China has a huge number of Flankers.
You beat me to it. LOL.
Very dangerous. I'm no expert but I don't think Taiwan's Air Force would last long without strong US support. They would take a lot of Reds with them but the outcome wouldn't be in doubt.
IMHO India is not afraid of Pakistan. India's Naval, Air, and nuke build up is meant to match China.
A full scale war between India and China would be the ugliest thing since WWII. Millions dead on both sides because both countries populations would be ready to fight and well armed. India and China aren't France. China has greater industrial power but India is no slouch and would have massive material support from the US. India also has a lot more experience with actual fighting than China. To paraphrase Kitchener: The issue would be decided by the nation willing to spend the last million men.
China backs Pakistan as a foil to India but they don't want a crazy Talibanized Pakistan shooting or selling nukes. They won't do much to help Pakistan if they get into trouble. China has a lot of Muslims too- They are kept in line with an Iron fist.
We don't have to worry about China- yet. We won't be buying many more manned combat aircraft after the F-22. We need to make certain we don't loose our advantage in the new UAV age of combat aircraft.
These planes... how well do they perform over the Himalayas?
Really don’t have much of a clue but their large internal fuel load is an advantage due to the demand on the engines.Strike operations,as in Kargil,will be tough.
What I thought was the high-altitude that the planes will have to fly, in order to safely cross the Himalayas, will suck out most of the range of those aircraft.
That’s where the internal fuel capacity of aircraft like the SU-30 will help.But dogfighting would be stressful on the engines.Accurate delivery of munitions would be another problem.
It's the equivalent of a second-tier U.S. fighter, like the F15 or F-16 (as I said). Both the SU27 and the F15 first flew in the 70's, and these are the upgraded models of each airframe (and I don't buy the SU35 designation as a precursor, in any case, as it was more a marketing ploy than an actual unique aircraft). A first-tier multirole like the JSF could handle it quite well, and a first tier air superiority fighter like the F-22 would annihilate a SU30MKI ... probably before the SU even knew he was in danger.
Regardless of the advantages of particular airframes, the most important factor is CCC and pilot skill and training. While the IAF has made quite impressive strides (and would certainly handle anything Pakistan could throw at it), its CCC is still not competitive with the best NATO nations. And no one matches the U.S. or Israelis when it comes to pilot training (though several other NATO nations are close... the Brits being one).
So, as a previous poster pointed out... the SU-30MKI is more hype than substance. Not because it's not a good second-tier airframe (it is very good for its tier), but because the airframe has very little to do with the effectiveness of aircraft in a real shooting war. The Soviets gave several Arab nations top-of-the-line aircraft in the 60's and 70's... only to see them punished by Mirages and F5's in the hands of better Israeli pilots...
No, you said “Yep. The Russians have finally fielded an aircraft equal to (or marginally better than) our models that were first flown in the 1970’s. A real breakthrough...”
Which is pretty inaccurate. The modern culmination of the Su-27 would, ceteris paribus, beat an early block F-16 hands down (after all, early model MiG-29s were capable of beating those early F-16s) and would very much more likely than not likely beat the early models of F-15.
Course, I’m not saying Russian designs are top-of-the-line anymore. Their economy is still trying to recover, and even if they get the PAK FA thing running, it’s probably going to be a gen 4.5 type affair. Of course, they might surprise people. After all, the AA-11 came as a big surprise to a lot of people.
More hype than substance? Please explain how the MKI, used as envisioned by the Indians against the only foes in its sphere of influence (Pakistan and China) is more hype than substance? Explain to me how in that region the MKI is more hype than substance? And also elucidate on just how the MKI is hype instead of substance in the real world.
It is a common FR mistake to immediately contrast any airframe against the Raptor, and then instantly call that aircraft 'junk' or 'meat' or the like. Which is true ....the F-22 Raptor has no peer (unless someone starts cranking out the YF-23 BlackWidow, and that aircraft is no more after losing out in the ATF competition).
HOWEVER, what most FReepers miss out on is that many of the aircraft that they call 'junk' will NOT be flying against the Raptor. The Indian SU-30 (the MKI)will not be going against the Raptor (unless there are some very major geo-political shunts in the near future). What it will be facing (if a hot war ever erupted) would be Pakistani F-16s, JF-17s and J-10s; and Chinese Su-27s, SU-30MKKs (not to be confused with the MKI in capability), J-lls and J-10s.
Against those the SU-30MKI will be more than adequate, and coupled with the Phalcon AWACs system actually is not being hyped enough. In the region it is easily more capable than anything its foes can currently put up. Now, it is not invincible (and the Chinese do have a LOT of aircraft, plus an increasing number of SAMs), but it is easily the 'big stick' in the region.
And the nigh-perpetual 'pilot training' factor. Now, it is true that the Israelis have in the past beaten Arab airforces using more superior aircraft ....simpyl due to the great qualitative edge that the Israelis enjoyed in the pilot training (currently Israel is far ahead in both pilot training and equipment). However that point is moot when it comes to the MKI, because the Indian pilots flying them are not going to be going against Israeli aces flying Soufas or American whizboys flying Raptors. Once again, their opponents will be Pakistanis and Chinese ....and the Indian pilot training program is good enough to bear against such foes.
And on top of that (particularly against Pakistan), India will have a quantitative edge as well as a qualitative edge, and this will cut across a spectrum of factors (including your aforementioned CCC). Now, does that mean India will be able to beat the best that NATO has to offer? Heck no! But that is not important anyways since the only flying the IAF will do against NATO will be during exercises. Thus using comments like 'its CCC is still not competitive with the best NATO nations. And no one matches the U.S. or Israelis when it comes to pilot training (though several other NATO nations are close... the Brits being one)' and 'the F-22 would annihilate a SU30MKI ... probably before the SU even knew he was in danger' to justify statements like 'the SU-30MKI is more hype than substance' is simply way off.
It would be tantamount to me saying that 'a .44 Magnum has no power whatsoever because the main gun of the M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank can outshoot /outrange /outpower it.' That would be a totally skewed argument.
Same thing here. Any one who says that the MKI is an analogue of the Raptor would be on some pretty good peyote! They are simply not in the same league. Also if someone said that the pilot training in the Indian af is the same as that of the Israeli af would also not be very honest in his statements. However, Indian aircraft are not going to be flying against Raptors, and Indian pilots will not be competing for Ace status against the finest that Israel can put to the sky. So those points are moot!
What the MKI will be flying against will be Pakistani F-16s and Chinese J-10s. Against those the MKI is a beast.
The MKI is not the best plane in the world. Far from it. But it is a better plane than any plane that the IAF may find itself flying against, and for India that is all that matters. No whether or not an MKI pilot would realize that a Raptor has him targeted in the tail end.
As I said in my last post.
Now, does that mean India will be able to beat the best that NATO has to offer? Heck no!
This thread is about an IAF exercise against whom? Not Pakistan... the British. The point of the article is that the IAF and their SU-30's are getting competitive with some of the better NATO and first-tier air forces... which is optimistic.
Please explain how the MKI, used as envisioned by the Indians against the only foes in its sphere of influence (Pakistan and China) is more hype than substance?
This is not the only thread on FR about this matter. Various Russian-derived aircraft are consistently held up for comparison with NATO aircraft, and several posters are very quick to accuse FR of "underestimating the threat" of these aircraft and pilots. I'm sorry if you haven't seen these threads, but without them you do not have the context originally referenced by the statement in post #5: Cool stuff. So the SU-30 is not just a load of hype, as some on FR would dismiss it as.
The SU-30MKI is a very good second-tier aircraft. Indian pilots are some of the very best in the region. None of which justifies any concern by the US, Israel, or the other first-rate air forces, despite various other threads intimating so.
I don't think that's very hard to understand (in this post or any of my earlier ones)...
See post #11. Sukhoi30-mki said basically the same thing that I was trying to. Their advanced model of their originally 70’s airframe has finally become competitive with our advanced models of our 70’s airframes. I hardly see how that is exciting...
” While the IAF has made quite impressive strides (and would certainly handle anything Pakistan could throw at it), its CCC is still not competitive with the best NATO nations. “
NATO has 26 member countries. Now lets begin by asking a few questions here:
1. How many NATO countries have an aircraft carrier in service from which they are able to operate fighter jets and how many of them have actually seen any action?
Only 5 countries out of which Italy and Spain never saw any action. Indian AC have not only seen action but will soon have a AC carrier fleet comprising of upto 4 ACs and more powerful then France or Britain
2. How many NATO countries have a defense budget greater or equal to India?
Again only 5 countries. The remaining have an entire defense budget thats only a fraction of the size of IAF budget.
3. How many countries have an indigenous design and production of fighter aircrafts, helicopters, transport jets, BVR missile, Cruise missiles and SAMs let alone ICBMS or the capability to launch satellites in space.
Very few.
4. Just how many have capability to build and deploy AWACs and the capability of aerial refuelling?
Very few. Not only the IAF but soon the Indian navy will be operating AWACs out of a carrier.
5. How many NATO countries have the ability to carry out precision air strikes at about 16,500 ft on the himalayan glaciers and identify small target at that height also evading enemy radar and SAMs at the same time? (Read about Kargil war)
Probably only the US.
5. How many countries are able to build UCAVs?
Very few. IAF and IN both uses indigenously built (and those from Israel) UCAVs.
6. How NATO countries have any real experience to fight a war by themselves?
Except for US and UK and maybe Greece and Turkey....... hardly any other country has had any real experience of fighting a war. I dont consider Gulf WarI/II and Kosovo war under NATO umbrella as any experience. The real test is how a country is able to mobilizer and marshal its own resources into the battle without the US umbrella over them.
7. The most important ....... how many countries have independent logistical capability like that of India?
IAF has an upto date airforce of over a 1000 fighters, and it owns and operates the largest number of airframes in the world. Thats not a capability even the best countries of NATO would have except for US. Leaving aside the US, at best some of the countries maybe better then IAF in some aspects but definitely not in all aspects. Britain, France and Germany may have a slight technological edge against India but nothing close to complete superiority. Not all of RAF comprises of Typhoons. They still uses the Harriers (which even Indian Navy uses) and Tornados. Typhoons are still under going development and so is the MKI.
What part of "best" is difficult to understand? Do you think of Spain or Italy when you think of the "best" NATO militaries? Then why would anyone else?
My statement stands: the IAF is a very good second-tier air force (more than sufficient to handle regional threats)... but it would stand no chance against a top-tier one (especially the US or UK). Sorry that's so hard to accept...
And if Spain and Italy isnt the best of NATO, I wonder what is? Estonia? Iceland?
“IAF is a very good second-tier air force (more than sufficient to handle regional threats).”
The “regional threats” include China that is bigger and tougher then all of Euro defence put together. China is a real military power and not a paper tiger like the Euro-NATO (minus the US).
And if you are only talking about the US and UK why even bother clubbing them with the NATO?
Leaving aside two extreams like US and UK on one side and Iceland and Lativia on the other, an average NATO country country spends only a fraction of what India spends (and India spends less then 2% of the GDP on defense).
If what you claim used to occur only in matters pertaining to Flankers and Fulcrums then I would have to concur with you. However that is simply not the case. It applies to ANY aircraft ....and I have several examples to back my case. Actually, I do not even have to do a thing. All one needs to do is go to Search and look for Eurofighter. There are a number of threads pertaining to the Eurofighter Typhoon, and one doesn't have to read even 5 posts before people start talking about 'Raptor bait' and the like.
Simply put, ANY aircraft that is not the Raptor is simply made out to be trash. When that is not the case. As I said, search for ANY thread on the Eurofighter Typhoon. It is made out to be pure trash even when it is the best thing flying that doesn't have 'Raptor' after its name. It can shoot down anything the Ruskies have flying, and anything any other airforces might have, yet because the Raptor is better the Typhoon is made out to be trash.
Oh, and the Typhoon (as you well know) is NOT Russian, so none of that 'Flanker hype' you are talking about applies to it.
Further more, the Typhoon will be flown by some of the BEST pilots in NATO. I know you (or some other FReeper) was trying to insinuate that countries like Italy and Greece are not top-tier in NATO ....but I am sure that cannot apply to the British RAF now, can it? Thus, I am sure that even you would have to concur that British pilots in the RAF do qualify as ....how did you put it ....'first-rate air forces.'
Then how come an aircraft that is top-tier, and that is FLOWN by top-tier pilots, with top-tier equipment and CCC support, is made out to be junk? Some say it is nothing more than a legacy of the Cold war (the same argument made by DUmmies by the way against the F-22 Raptor). Others say that its supercruise ability is less than that of the Raptor (true, but it is the ONLY other airplane that can supercruise ...but they conveniently forget that). Others say that it is not stealthy (true, but the Typhoon does have a low frontal RCS, and once it gets its AESA radar plus the Meteor long-range ramjet missile it will be able to engage ANYTHING that doesn't have, again, F-22 Raptor in its name. Note ...I did not say F-22 Raptor AND F-35 JSF ....just F-22 Raptor). Check up any thread on the Typhoon. That plane is made out to be junk when it is far from it.
Thus, you may talk about Flanker hype and what not, but it goes far beyond the Flanker. Anything that is not the F-22 is made out to be junk, even when there is no chance of the two ever clashing.
This also applies to other planes (search Gripen, and also do a search for Rafale). You'll either see posts of those planes being 'Raptor bait' or the like. In the case of the Rafale they don't even bother ....all you'll find is simply photoshoped pictures of white flags and cheese.
It really doesn't matter what aircraft it is, or the pilots flying/systems supporting it. It immediately gets shot down either as Raptor kill (even when it will not be facing Raptors ...unless the Brits decide to invade), or it is portrayed as some F-16 upgrade.
This is bad news for the Eurocraps. The EF is the aircraft that seems to be way over hyped.
ping
Umm in what way???Everyone knows that if the F-22 is 5 times better than an F-15/SU-30,the Eurojets would only be twice as better.These exercises (probably) proved that-they are still essentially in development.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.