Indian Air Force: News & Discussions

Johny_Baba

अज्ञानी
Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2016
Messages
3,814
Likes
19,541
Country flag
nice development but instead of PS-90A-76 they should aim to get newer PD-14M which is about similar to former one in mass-dimension and all but offers better thrust and bypass ratio and overall performance
😪 i just realized that the engine that i recommended on Il-76 upgrades here is same one that was supposed to power Indo-Ruusi "Medium Transporter Aircraft" project that got abandoned eventually...
If this had happened we wouldn't be running a tender for Medium Transporter Jet here where Airbus, Embraer etc are top contenders
 

Super Flanker

Aviation and Defence Enthusiast
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2021
Messages
4,995
Likes
11,550
Country flag
My point was when confused between a best SAM system and a good Fighter plane, the choice should always be latter.
Fighter planes provide much better air defense than a SAM system.

India with limited budget and resources cant focus on both here one program always axes another, developing an all tier SAM system like S-400 will take equal amount of budget as MWF, we should continue the R&D on SAM also but focus should be Fighters.
Both fighter aircraft and SAM systems are effective in air defence role but SAM systems are better in comparison to fighter aircraft because of several reasons.
1. An aircraft cannot stay into the air forever, eventually it will begin to run out of fuel and will have to head back to its home base. A SAM system such as Patriot, THAAD or S-400 will not face such as issue as they are mounted on moveable truck chassis such as how Russia uses kamaz series trucks as chassis for their air defence systems such as Pantsirs, S-400, S-500, S-300.
2. The amount of weopons that can fielded by a single air defence is a lot more than what fighter can carry on their wing hardpoints, one S-400 SAM can carry have more than 100 missiles to launch at its disposal, tell me how many fighter can carry?
Take example of Rafale, F-22, F-35, F-15, Su-30, Su-35, all of them cannot carry more 20 AAMs at once, one SAM system can fullfill the role of more than a dozen fighter in terms of missile carrying capacity. With smart tactics and skilled operators, an integrated SAM will be much more useful as compared to any fighter aircraft.

Now what advantages do fighters have?
1. They are far more mobile as compared to an air defence system, the mobility of an air defence system is limited to the speed of its chassis vehicle which is not even 100km/hr. A fighter can fly more than six times that speed and hence can move from one point to another much more quickly and efficiently.
2. A fighter can be said to be much more Survivable against an AAM/SAM because they can employ tactics such as notching or employ S maneuver against incoming FOX-3 missiles such as R-77, AMRAAM, PL-12/SD-10 which helps to kinetically evade the missiles. In february 2019, two Su-30MKI aircraft of the IAF assigned callsign Avenger 1 and Avenger 2 respectively evaded multiple barrages of AMRAAMs fired by Pakistani F-16s. Any SAM system will face threats from air to surface missiles, especially ARMs such as HARMs. Both employ jamming but SAM systems if I am not wrong can generate a lot more power for their jammers, also any SAM battery such as S-400 will not be alone, they will be integrated with other missile systems such as pantsirs which can shoot down any incoming air to surface missile which is being targeted at the SAM battery.

At the end, it's upto us. The choice of choosing an aircraft or SAM depends on the scenario.
 

spacemarine2023

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2023
Messages
980
Likes
3,956
Country flag
Both fighter aircraft and SAM systems are effective in air defence role but SAM systems are better in comparison to fighter aircraft because of several reasons.
1. An aircraft cannot stay into the air forever, eventually it will begin to run out of fuel and will have to head back to its home base. A SAM system such as Patriot, THAAD or S-400 will not face such as issue as they are mounted on moveable truck chassis such as how Russia uses kamaz series trucks as chassis for their air defence systems such as Pantsirs, S-400, S-500, S-300.
2. The amount of weopons that can fielded by a single air defence is a lot more than what fighter can carry on their wing hardpoints, one S-400 SAM can carry have more than 100 missiles to launch at its disposal, tell me how many fighter can carry?
Take example of Rafale, F-22, F-35, F-15, Su-30, Su-35, all of them cannot carry more 20 AAMs at once, one SAM system can fullfill the role of more than a dozen fighter in terms of missile carrying capacity. With smart tactics and skilled operators, an integrated SAM will be much more useful as compared to any fighter aircraft.

Now what advantages do fighters have?
1. They are far more mobile as compared to an air defence system, the mobility of an air defence system is limited to the speed of its chassis vehicle which is not even 100km/hr. A fighter can fly more than six times that speed and hence can move from one point to another much more quickly and efficiently.
2. A fighter can be said to be much more Survivable against an AAM/SAM because they can employ tactics such as notching or employ S maneuver against incoming FOX-3 missiles such as R-77, AMRAAM, PL-12/SD-10 which helps to kinetically evade the missiles. In february 2019, two Su-30MKI aircraft of the IAF assigned callsign Avenger 1 and Avenger 2 respectively evaded multiple barrages of AMRAAMs fired by Pakistani F-16s. Any SAM system will face threats from air to surface missiles, especially ARMs such as HARMs. Both employ jamming but SAM systems if I am not wrong can generate a lot more power for their jammers, also any SAM battery such as S-400 will not be alone, they will be integrated with other missile systems such as pantsirs which can shoot down any incoming air to surface missile which is being targeted at the SAM battery.

At the end, it's upto us. The choice of choosing an aircraft or SAM depends on the scenario.
SAM systems are not active all the time to minimize the risk of detection by potential adversaries.
Its like a beacon for anti radiation missile which can be launched from stand off ranges, Operating constantly increases the system's vulnerability to electronic warfare and countermeasures. So they are activated strategically and in gaps.

Its like a Fighter can survive without a friendly SAM system but a SAM can never survive with an effective air cover.

Although I concur for robust air Defence SAMs do a play a strategic part but need to be protected.
 

Hari Sud

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
3,772
Likes
8,491
Country flag

Cheran

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
8,856
Likes
77,605
Country flag

Hindon airbase hosts the strategically important C-17 Globemaster & C-130J airlifters. This is the second time such incursion attempt has been made in Hindon airbase.
It is quiet possible that agent(s) have been pushed inside & are hiding.

Purpose might be an attack on the planes or is it more subtle things like tapping into grid(s), gaining physical access to networks etc.

Hope end to end "cleaning" is done.
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
878
Likes
1,192
Country flag
2. The amount of weopons that can fielded by a single air defence is a lot more than what fighter can carry on their wing hardpoints, one S-400 SAM can carry have more than 100 missiles to launch at its disposal, tell me how many fighter can carry?
Take example of Rafale, F-22, F-35, F-15, Su-30, Su-35, all of them cannot carry more 20 AAMs at once, one SAM system can fullfill the role of more than a dozen fighter in terms of missile carrying capacity.
Despite a lot of talk about S-300, S-400. I think most people still seem to misunderstand what is a “SAM system” especially when it come to double digit SAM.
When we talk about an aircraft such as an F-16, it is a single air vehicle carrying everything from radar, jammer , missile, bombs ..etc. It can operate by itself. But SAM system is not like that at all. Or more accurately, only very short range SAM system put everything on a single vehicle. For long range SAM system such as S-300/400, a single system consist of 6 type of different vehicles from Survelliance radar vehicle/ Acquisition radar vehicle/Engagement radar vehicle/ Command center vehicle/ datalink vehicle and of course the Missile launcher vehicle. They can’t really operate alone: for example the missile launcher vehicle would be useless without the engagement radar vehicle. So it actually make no sense to compare a singular fighters to the whole surface to missile system/missile battery.
And a single S-400 system/battery cost between 500-625 millions USD for export. A single Patriot system/battery cost 1.1 billions USD. For comparison, a single Su-35 cost 43 millions USD.
5981FC06-B4F6-4553-AC60-962662216815.gif



Now what advantages do fighters have?
1. They are far more mobile as compared to an air defence system, the mobility of an air defence system is limited to the speed of its chassis vehicle which is not even 100km/hr. A fighter can fly more than six times that speed and hence can move from one point to another much more quickly and efficiently.
You mentioned about mobility of aircrafy but I think you missing 1 key advantage from the extreme mobility. Air power have inherence advantage in force concentration. Let me put it this way, If you have X number of SAM batteries, you have to spread them out, so that you can protect different area of your country. Because if you concentrate them all in 1 place, then most of your country will be unprotected, as SAM are a lot more limited by radar horizon, and they can’t move from 1 place to the other quickly.
But aircraft are not like that,at any point, you can send all of them toward the vector which enemy attacked from in matter of hour. They can also rearm very quickly because they can fly back to base. So the logistic provision for aircraft is less of an issue compared to SAM.

. Any SAM system will face threats from air to surface missiles, especially ARMs such as HARMs. Both employ jamming but SAM systems if I am not wrong can generate a lot more power for their jammers
Ground vehicle can generate a lot more output power due to their size. But jamming is not often the prefered method for ground system. That because it is significantly easier and quicker to geolocate a stationary/slow moving ground emitter compared to an airborne fast moving emitter.Emitter geolocation techniques such as elevation triangulation is very effective and quick against ground target because they are at a known altitude of 0. Technique such as kinematic ranging is also very effective against ground target because there is very little ambiguity about their trajectory (since they can only move in 2D and they either fixed or very slow moving). That why despite the fact that ground system can emit more power. Ground jammer are a lot less common compared to airborne jammer
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
878
Likes
1,192
Country flag
In my opinion though, SAM are much better defending weapon since they are a lot cheaper to operate , they can be up 24/24 and have much better reaction time to surprise attack. SAM doesn’t need massive amount of land to take off from (air base), so if your country get invaded, SAM is better because you can hide

On the otherhand, fighter are better attacking weapon since they have significant advantage in force concentration, mobility and multirole capability (they can do CAS/SEAD/CAP). Aircraft can also attack infrastructure with immunity if they are equipped with extreme long range missile such as JASSM-ER/JASSM-XR or Kinzhal.
 

Haldilal

लड़ते लड़ते जीना है, लड़ते लड़ते मरना है
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
29,483
Likes
113,250
Country flag
Ya'll Nibbiars The MIG 23 MF.

images - 2024-01-01T154513.302.jpeg
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top