Su-30 MKI

[Archer]

Ace, thanks for your kind words.

Well check this url mate . . Its thr that its airframe wd be modified to be stealthy . . Tht cd be dne by either changing d geometry or applying ram . . Changing geometry wnt be easy . .
Developing the ‘Smart Skin’ concept for Su-30MKI

Please treat anything by Prasun sengupta with a bucket of salt
The man and his fibbing are legendary - and not meant as a compliment. He just makes up stuff on the go.
One example - DRDO developed a 3D CAR radar with Poland. Both sides sent scientists to work on the project. India developed the receiver, exciter, signal processing, and even transmitter (for its version) while the teams collaborated on the antenna, overall design etc. Now in advanced variants, India even replaced the antenna and other electronics from the JV with its own versions. All this is noted by the DRDO in various public documents, the Poles in IEEE literature.
Sengupta continues to peddle the claim India got some stupid "technology buyout" from Poland. Why? Because he saw a similar picture on the Polish companies website, put 1+1=9 added a healthy dollop of inferiority complex, and promptly assumed DRDO/India must and should have purchased everything.
Guy is a mental, he will not even admit that he is fibbing. On his blog, he tried to shout down an acknowledged exprt on modern russian armor, when the latter pointed out so many mistakes Sengupta had made.

In his latest claims, he makes statements that DRDO Naval suites are not operationally deployed, and are TDs. It is the most stupid thing ever. Because, in real life, DRDO & BEL made block after block of EW suites called Ajant and then Ellora which were deployed on multiple ships. CAG even pointed out imports of Israeli systems (on UOR basis) were not necessary because by the time they arrived, the Indian system had cleared trials. And the import of Israeli systems is used by Sengupta to "deduce" there is no Indian system.

The guy, is a joke. He has very little idea of technology. What he excels at, is copy paste, and populating his articles with heavy jargon. In another recent post, he first claimed Prahar is LORA, edited it to imply Prahar was an Indian customized LORA, then edited again to say similar to LORA in layout which it is not, and finally, to avoid being caught out, claimed similar purpose to LORA,

Net, all this smart skin stuff from Sengupta is rubbish. NIIP has not mentioned anything of the sort yet. Sengupta is just basing his wetdreams off of a speculative report from Ausairpower, which speculated on the basis of L Band Tx/Rx modules revealed at MAKS-09 that, these could be used for Sukhois. Sengupta promptly took this, put some jargon "smart skin" - which is actually used to imply aircraft skin with MEMS structures for structural monitoring and flush sensors - and came out with a report Indian Sukhois will have smart skin.

Speculation carried off as fact, and unfortunately, Force magazine prints anything and everything by this joker. Only good thing as a result are interviews. And given the extremely silly personal attacks made by that magazines editor on people like Saraswat and others, even those - from the technical POV from DRDO etc - who'll actually develop stuff for the Super30 upgrade, will not occur.

 

[Archer]

The super-30 will have an uprated engine and thus will allow supercruise in certain weapon configurations.

Is there a source for this? I have not read anything so far, stating an upgraded engine and would be glad to have that happen (though I wonder what happens to the AL-31 FP production at Koraput - HAL)

 

[ace009]

Ace, thanks for your kind words.



Please treat anything by Prasun sengupta with a bucket of salt
The man and his fibbing are legendary - and not meant as a compliment. He just makes up stuff on the go.
One example - DRDO developed a 3D CAR radar with Poland. Both sides sent scientists to work on the project. India developed the receiver, exciter, signal processing, and even transmitter (for its version) while the teams collaborated on the antenna, overall design etc. Now in advanced variants, India even replaced the antenna and other electronics from the JV with its own versions. All this is noted by the DRDO in various public documents, the Poles in IEEE literature.
Sengupta continues to peddle the claim India got some stupid "technology buyout" from Poland. Why? Because he saw a similar picture on the Polish companies website, put 1+1=9 added a healthy dollop of inferiority complex, and promptly assumed DRDO/India must and should have purchased everything.
Guy is a mental, he will not even admit that he is fibbing. On his blog, he tried to shout down an acknowledged exprt on modern russian armor, when the latter pointed out so many mistakes Sengupta had made.

In his latest claims, he makes statements that DRDO Naval suites are not operationally deployed, and are TDs. It is the most stupid thing ever. Because, in real life, DRDO & BEL made block after block of EW suites called Ajant and then Ellora which were deployed on multiple ships. CAG even pointed out imports of Israeli systems (on UOR basis) were not necessary because by the time they arrived, the Indian system had cleared trials. And the import of Israeli systems is used by Sengupta to "deduce" there is no Indian system.

The guy, is a joke. He has very little idea of technology. What he excels at, is copy paste, and populating his articles with heavy jargon. In another recent post, he first claimed Prahar is LORA, edited it to imply Prahar was an Indian customized LORA, then edited again to say similar to LORA in layout which it is not, and finally, to avoid being caught out, claimed similar purpose to LORA,

Net, all this smart skin stuff from Sengupta is rubbish. NIIP has not mentioned anything of the sort yet. Sengupta is just basing his wetdreams off of a speculative report from Ausairpower, which speculated on the basis of L Band Tx/Rx modules revealed at MAKS-09 that, these could be used for Sukhois. Sengupta promptly took this, put some jargon "smart skin" - which is actually used to imply aircraft skin with MEMS structures for structural monitoring and flush sensors - and came out with a report Indian Sukhois will have smart skin.

Speculation carried off as fact, and unfortunately, Force magazine prints anything and everything by this joker. Only good thing as a result are interviews. And given the extremely silly personal attacks made by that magazines editor on people like Saraswat and others, even those - from the technical POV from DRDO etc - who'll actually develop stuff for the Super30 upgrade, will not occur.

I am not an aeronautics Engineer and neither am I an expert in sensors. But as far as I know, putting in a "smart skin" on an existing airframe is neither ideal, nor an easy task. Actually the costs and efforts, not to mention the maintenance costs might be prohibitive. Which is why, the F-22 were and the F-35 are being built ground up with AESA sensor infusions on the airframe. Even the F-15SE Silent Eagle planed by Boeing (based on the F-15E Strike Eagles) will not have this level of "smart skin" - even after being priced at close to $100 million each.
So, what are the chances that Super MKI will have a "smart skin" - for the price of the upgrades and the current level of technology available in Russia - very little if not nothing.

 

[p2prada]

Is there a source for this? I have not read anything so far, stating an upgraded engine and would be glad to have that happen (though I wonder what happens to the AL-31 FP production at Koraput - HAL)

That is another claim from Sengupta.

The AL-31FP will not be canceled.

 

[hitesh]

 

[ace009]

OLD news - this has been refuted in Bharat Rakshak and apology tendered by USAF to IAF.

 

[Patriot]

Indian Sukhoi 30MKI to be upgraded into "Super Sukhoi"

India has five squadrons of Sukhoi 30MKIs numbering around 100 aircraft which are to be upgraded into the "Super Sukhoi" format. The upgrade will apply not only to the aircraft in service with the Indian Air Force (IAF) but also to those yet to be delivered to India and to be licence-manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Fedorov said.

The upgrade will include a new cockpit, an upgraded radar and certain stealth characteristics to make it less visible to enemy radar than the present Sukhoi 30. Most significantly, the aircraft will be able to carry a heavier weapons load including the airborne version of the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile, he added.

 

[Armand2REP]

OLD news - this has been refuted in Bharat Rakshak and apology tendered by USAF to IAF.

Air Command said... "it was the personal view of the USAF pilot talking in the clip and not of those involved in the exercise. The organisers are looking forward for the participation of the IAF in the future editions of Red Flag, said the letter."

Is that an apology or a belated disclaimer? That's the shit TV channels say when they run an infomercial.

There is no refuting it since no one refuting was there. You don't piss away remarks of the R&T director of Nellis.

 

[pankaj nema]

Indian Sukhoi 30MKI to be upgraded into "Super Sukhoi"

@ ARMAND

IAF is AGAIN Participating in RED FLAG 2013

This proves three things

1 IAF Is CONFIDENT OF SU 30 mki

2. RED FLAG is an enormous learning experience because ALL the LATEST Technologies and tactics are in play

3. IAF PILOTS ARE CONFIDENT about themselves AND do not care about about some IDIOTS on YOU TUBE who were mocking IAF and Su 30 mki

 

[ace009]

Air Command said... "it was the personal view of the USAF pilot talking in the clip and not of those involved in the exercise. The organisers are looking forward for the participation of the IAF in the future editions of Red Flag, said the letter."

Is that an apology or a belated disclaimer? That's the shit TV channels say when they run an infomercial.

There is no refuting it since no one refuting was there. You don't piss away remarks of the R&T director of Nellis.

Armand, we have gone over this many times, in many forums - here is what the "author" of the original you tube post had posted later ... take a look ...
Also remember, when the USAF "distances" itself from the comments of it's R&T director of Nellis, it is an indirect and public "apology". What more do you expect? USAF paying for and posting aplogoetic advertisements on You tube or in Indian News papers?
And AFAIK, Fornof had pretty BAD thinks to say about the ALA contingent and it's "unprofessional" pilots. I also remember, you were refuting THOSE comments in some other thread - or was that someone else?

By Stephen Trimble on November 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I hope this is my last post on Col Terrence Fornof's YouTube indiscretions. Much has been written throughout the blogosphere and the press since I posted the infamous video here a couple of weeks ago.

But I didn't want to let it go without a firm rebuttal from the Indian side. The Indian Air Force has declined comment, but I can present a response by Vayu Aerospace Review Editor Pushpindar Singh.

He writes:

Being aware of the IAF's views on the subject, and while fully respecting the IAF Vice Chief's statement that the 'leaked' video and its content was 'too demeaning for reaction', I have decided to share the facts with readers, not those fancily conjured up by Colonel Terrence Fornof, an F-15 fighter jockey and now Director of the Requirements and Testing Office at the USAF Air Warfare Centre at Nellis AFB.

The USAF later issued a statement to say that Fornof's was a private briefing to the 'Daedalians', a group of retired military pilots. "Colonel Fornof did not mean to offend any U.S. allied forces, as he knows firsthand the importance of training with allied forces and the awesome firepower they bring to the fight. His comments during this briefing were his personal opinions and not those of USAF Warfare Centre or of the Air Force".

Still, to get the record straight, the facts are :

Ø The IAF did not undertake any IvIs at Nellis during Red Flag, nor did they engage thrust vectoring during the Exercise. IvIs were flown only at Mountain Home AFB. In none of the IvIs were the Su-30MKIs ever vulnerable, let alone shot down. As all exercises were flown with ACMI, the situations are recorded and available to substantiate this aspect. Additionally, the MKI's behaviour with thrust vectoring is dramatically different from that described by the Colonel. F-15 and F-16 aircrew were well appreciative of IAF manoeuvres with thrust vectoring.

Ø Colonel Fornof's statement on Su-30MKI rates of turn with thrust vectoring (20o/ sec) is grossly 'out' but apparently gives away actual F-22 performance (28o/sec) Pitch of the talk seemed as to whether thrust vectoring was important or not. As all sorties were with ACMI, entire profiles are recorded, can be analysed and surely would have been replayed to drive the point home and make the 'chest thumping' sound more real. Apparently this was not done. Perhaps, as the Colonel is aware of F-22 data, he has tried to down play the Su-30MKI in comparison. Surprisingly, while there was no systems / avionics / comparison between the two types or with any other type of 'legacy' aircraft, the speaker does admit that radar of the MKI is 'superior' to that of the F-15 and F-16, however 'inferior' to AESA of the F-22 (a correct assessment). However, the IAF used the Su-30's radar in the training mode, with downgraded performance vis-à-vis operational mo! de, as they could hardly participate without this primary sensor
Ø The 'Bison' radar : the USAF should be aware that the 'Bison' does not have an Israeli radar, it is Russian. Nor does the Su-30MKI have Tumansky engines (but the NPO-Saturn). Surprisingly the Colonel seems oblivious of such facts, yet tries to convey that he is an authority on the matter.

Ø Fratricide by IAF fighters : this is correct, the IAF did 'shoot down' some 'friendlies' and that was assessed and attributed to the IAF not being networked. However, what the Colonel did not bring out were the two essential reasons for this. Firstly, this occurred mainly when the AWACS was not available (unserviceable) and controlling was done by GCI. More significantly it happened during extremely poor controlling by their operators, this fact being acknowledged during debriefs and the controllers being admonished accordingly. 'Accents' were perhaps the main culprit here, which very often led to American controllers not being able to understand Indian calls.

Ø Now hear this : the F-15C and other USAF fighters had the same number of fratricides as the IAF ! Considering they are well networked, yet their pilots shot down the same number of 'friendlies'. This was not only a major concern but also turned out to be a major source of embarrassment as the USAF had everything -- Link 16, IFF Mode 4 etc and the IAF had nothing. Under the Rules of Engagement, they did not even permit the IAF to use data link within themselves. All cases of USAF fratricide were covered in the next day's mass briefing as lessons learnt by concerned aircrew. In the IAF, the incidents were covered by concerned controllers, and attributed to lack of adequate integration, excessive R/T congestion and poor controlling. Gloating on cases of IAF fratricide is frivolous and unprofessional.

Ø However, Colonel Fornof did appreciate IAF 'professionalism' and that the IAF were able to dovetail with USAF procedures within short time. There was not a single training rule / airspace violation. This is a most important aspect.

Ø Since the Colonel could hardly tell his audience that the IAF had given the USAF good run for their money, they downplayed the Su-30's capability. It is correct that the IAF aircrew included some very young pilots -- nearly 70 percent - but they adapted rapidly to the environment (totally alien), training rules (significantly different), airspace regulations etc but to say that they were unable to handle the Su-30 in its envelope (something that they have been practicing to do for four to five years) is just not credible ! If young pilots can adapt to new rules and environment within a short span of two weeks, it is because they are extremely comfortable and confident of their aircraft.

Ø The IAF's all round performance was publicly acknowledged during, and at end of the Exercise, specifically by those involved. Not a single TR / airspace violation was acknowledged. Mission achievement rate was in excess of 90%. The drop out / mission success rates of all others, inclusive of USAF, were significantly lower. This is of major significance considering the fact that IAF was sustaining operations 20,000 km away from home base while the USAF were at home base. (The 8 Su-30s flew some 850 hrs during the deployment, which is equivalent to four months of flying task in India over 75 days). IAF's performance at Mountain Home AFB was even better that that at Nellis AFB.

Ø FOD : At Mountain Home, IAF had reduced departure intervals from the very beginning (30" seconds) considering that operating surfaces were very clean. However, a few minor nicks were encountered and it was decided to revert to 60 seconds rather than undertake engine changes. This was communicated by the IAF at the very start (IPC itself).
Ø There is no need to go in for 'kill ratios' as that would be demeaning. However, the IAF had significant edge throughout and retained it. In fact the true lesson for the USAF should be : 'do not field low value legacy equipment against the Su-30MKI' !.
(demeaning or otherwise, it is understood that the kill ratio (at Mountain Home AFB) was 21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs).

 

[Armand2REP]

It has been ranted over a thousand times and they all end with badmouthing a commanding officer of Nellis who knows a thousand times more about it than anyone on the net. The disrespect for his insight is unbelievable. MKIs were thrashed at Red Flag, Garuda and Indradhanush exercises yet Indians still shout they are all lies. They have "rebuttals" ie, excuses for everything.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

It has been ranted over a thousand times and they all end with badmouthing a commanding officer of Nellis who knows a thousand times more about it than anyone on the net. The disrespect for his insight is unbelievable. MKIs were thrashed at Red Flag, Garuda and Indradhanush exercises yet Indians still shout they are all lies. They have "rebuttals" ie, excuses for everything.

Why do say such silly things and get a sock in your mouth in the same discussion? Do you want me to show you in the same video where he says "IAF right now is a little better than us"?

Also he was the one who disrespected us when he said we cant be part of the coalition and we are there only so that we dont blow each other up, as if we where the ones who nearly killed each other of in WW2!

 

[ace009]

And Armand, what he says about the ALA was revealing and embarrassing. On the other hand, he actually praised the IAF, their pilots and EVEN the MKI! He said that in a few years, when IAF pilots have got more experience with the MKI, it will beat all other fighters except the F-22.
So, if I were you, I would stop bad mouthing the MKI and praising the Rafale/ ALA.

 

[Armand2REP]

I have watched both parts a dozen times over the years. What he says is MKI is slightly above legacy fighters on paper, but that the pilots are not on par with USAF training which is how they dusted them. All he said about Rafale was sitting back during joint force "sniffing trons" and rarely merging. It is well known we did that because MKI was frating every blue team in-front of them. When Rafale went 1v1 we won with a 4:1 ratio and watched F-16 pilots complain about how more modern Rafale is to their planes.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I have watched both parts a dozen times over the years. What he says is MKI is slightly above legacy fighters on paper, but that the pilots are not on par with USAF training which is how they dusted them. All he said about Rafale was sitting back during joint force "sniffing trons" and rarely merging. It is well known we did that because MKI was frating every blue team in-front of them. When Rafale went 1v1 we won with a 4:1 ratio and watched F-16 pilots complain about how more modern Rafale is to their planes.

I assume its our first time in Red flag and first hand experience of Western Air Doctrines regarding A2A and A2G..

Its not the training, Back in India when SU-30 not MKI shot down F-15s their was a uproar in USAF..

When IAF went to Red Flag, USAF was waiting for us, They Updated the radar by putting AESA and worked in a special strategy to shoot down MKIs call ' Getting behind and poping the brains out ' And it worked..

IAF Pilots are gud just need to be more into the tactics deployed by USAF and others..

 

[Armand2REP]

They Updated the radar by putting AESA and worked in a special strategy to shoot down MKIs call ' Getting behind and poping the brains out ' And it worked..

The aggressor squadrons at Red Flag fly old F-16s and F-15s, none have AESA radar. They work the strategy they always use, trying to kick your ass.

 

[ace009]

The aggressor squadrons at Red Flag fly old F-16s and F-15s, none have AESA radar. They work the strategy they always use, trying to kick your ass.

Dude - you sound more lame than ANYONE I have ever seen in a forum. I have had this discussion with numerous people in a dozen forums and the consensus is the same - IAF was really good and pros - albeit a little green with the MKI. ALA were douchebags and sloppy. MKI was sizzling but not used to its potential and Rafale was a question mark since the pilots refused to do anything useful with them.

So much for your flame baiting the MKI AGAIN!
Get over it ...

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Everyone trying to kick everyone ass..

Read & Learn:

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

LiveFist Column: Vishnu Som first-hand on what really happened at Red Flag 08



Vishnu Som, Associate Editor and Senior Anchor at NDTV, was the only journalist from India at Red Flag 08, and in that sense, best placed to talk about what happened there. He sent us a very comprehensive comment to the last post on the leaked video controversy. Vishnu has allowed me to post his excellent comment here as a column. Thanks Vishnu!

For all of you who are out there in the internet world and who have an interest in the performance of the Indian Air Force at Red Flag 2008 .. I have a few remarks. As the only Indian journalist who spent a lengthy period of time at Nellis after being granted permission by both the Indian Air Force and the US Air Force, I was granted access to impeccable sources in both forces.

Whats more, I was able to independently corroborate this information with reliable, alternative sources. Several of the points I present here in the form of this post on the Bharat Rakshak forum will be compiled into an article which I will post on my company website ndtv.com. For those of you not familiar with the Indian media ... New Delhi Television (NDTV) is India's largest 24 hour news network and our website is one of the most viewed among news websites in the country. For the moment, I have decided not to do a television news report on this since I believe the contents of this post are too technical for a larger audience.

For starters ... and this cannot be stressed enough ... the Red Flag exercises were a brilliant learning experience for all the participants, not least of all the Indian Air Force which, over a period of time, has earned the reputation of being one of the world's finest operational air forces.

This was a reputation which was reinforced at Red Flag 2008, the world's most advanced air combat exercises where the Indian Air Force fielded a number of state of the art Sukhoi 30 MKI jets in addition to IL-76 transports and IL-78 mid air refuellers.

For other participants at the Red Flag exercises ... namely the South Korean Air Force, French and US Air Force ... the opportunity to train with a platform such as the Sukhoi 30 MKI was an opportunity which just couldn't be missed. This has a lot to do not just with the jet but also with the air force operating the fighter, a force which has made a mark as an innovative operator of fast jets.The US Air Force "¦ the host of these exercises "¦ was singularly gracious in its appreciation for the Indian Air Force contingent which came into Red Flag having trained extensively for the exercises not only back home but also at the Mountain Home Air Force base in the US.

Contrary to unsolicited remarks by certain serving US personnel not directly linked to day to day operations at the exercises "¦ the Indian Air Force and its Su-30s more than made a mark during their stint in the United States.For starters "¦ not a single Sukhoi 30 MKI fighter was `shot down' in close air combat missions at the Mountain Home air base. In fact, none of the Sukhois were even close to being shot down in the 10 odd one on one sorties which were planned for the first two days of the exercises at Mountain Home. These one on one engagements featured USAF jets such as the F-15 and F-16 in close air engagements against the Su-30 MKI. The majority of the kills claimed in these engagements were granted to the Indian Air Force with the remainder of these being no-results. Indian Air Force Sukhois did use their famed thrust vectoring in these one on one engagements. Contrary to what may have been reported elsewhere "¦ the Su-30 has a rate of turn of more than 35 degrees when operating in the thrust vector mode. In certain circumstances, this goes up substantially.

By the time the exercises at Mountain Home had matured "¦ the Indian Air Force had graduated to large formation exercises which featured dozens of jets in the sky. In one of these exercises "¦ the blue forces, of which the Indian Air Force was a part "¦ shot down more than 21 of the enemy jets. Most of these `kills' have been credited to the Indian Air Force.

By the time the Indian Air Force was ready for Red Flag, the contingent had successfully worked up using the crawl, walk, run principle. At Red Flag though, they found themselves at a substantial disadvantage vis a vis the other participants since they were not networked with AWACS and other platforms in the same manner in which USAF or other participating jets were. In fact, Indian Air Force Sukhois were not even linked to one another using their Russian built data links since American authorities had asked for specifics of the system before it was cleared to operate in US airspace. The IAF, quite naturally, felt that this would compromise a classified system onboard and decided to go on with the missions without the use of data links between the Sukhois.Neither was the Indian Air Force allowed to use chaff or flares, essential decoys to escape incoming missiles which had been fired by enemy jets. This was because the US FAA had visibility and pollution related concerns in the event that these were used in what is dense, busy air space in the Las Vegas region.

The Red Flag exercises themselves were based on large force engagements and did not see the Indian Air Force deploy thrust vectoring at all on any of the Sukhoi 30 jets not that this was required since the engagements were at long ranges.Though it is true that there were 4-5 incidents of fratricides involving the Indian Air Force at Red Flag "¦ it is important to point out the following:In the debriefs that followed the exercises "¦ responsibility for the fratricides were always put on the fighter controllers not the pilots. Its also important to point that unlike in Mountain Home, none of the Indian Air Force's own fighter controllers were allowed to participate since there was classified equipment at Nellis used for monitoring the exercises. The lack of adequate controlling and the fact that Nellis fighter controllers often had problems understanding Indian accents (they had problems understanding French accents as well) resulted in a lack of adequate controlling in situations. Whats more "¦ given the fact that the availability of AWACS was often low "¦ the bulk of fratricides took place on days when the AWACS jet was not deployed. Whats important to remember though is that US participants in these exercises had a similar number of fratricides despite being fully linked in with data links and the latest IFF systems.

So was the Indian Air Force invincible at Red Flag. In a word "¦ no. So yes, there were certainly days in which several Sukhoi jets were shot down. And there were others when they shot down many opposing jets. Ultimately though "¦ the success of the Indian Air Force at Red Flag lay in the fact that they could meet their mission objectives as well, if not better, than any other participant. Despite the hot weather conditions, the IAF had a 95 per cent mission launch ratio, far better than some of the participants. And no one went into the exercises thinking the score line would be a perfect one in favour of the IAF. In fact "¦ the IAF went into these exercises with an open mind and with full admiration of the world beating range at Nellis with an unmatched system of calibrating engagement results.Perhaps the most encouraging part of these exercises comes from the fact that the Indian Air Force's young pilots "¦ learnt from their mistakes, analysed, appreciated and came back strong. Mistakes were not repeated. In fact "¦ the missions where the IAF did not fare well turned out to be immense learning experiences. At the end of the exercises "¦ its more than clear that the IAF's Su-30s were more than a match for the variants of the jets participating at the Red Flag exercises. Considering the fact that the central sensor of the Sukhoi, its radar "¦ held up just fine in training mode "¦despite the barrage of electronic jamming augurs well for the Indian Air Force.

As for its young pilots "¦ these are skills and experiences that they will take back to their squadrons "¦ experiences which will be passed on to a whole new set of pilots who will come into the next set of exercises that much wiser.

On Ex Red Flag-the You Tube video- The other side of the Coin!!
Posted by: *** ***
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 11:51 pm ((PST))

These are comments by a friend of mine-one of our top grade professional youngsters, and a participant in the recently concluded Red Flag Ex in Nellis AFB.

1. No 1vs1s were flown during the Flag,nor did they engage in Thrust Vectoring(TV) then.IvIs were flown during the sorties in Mountain Home AFB and that too on the first day only! In none of these ex were the Su ever shot down or become vulnerable(This can of course be checked on the ACMI Pod films/casettes).

2.The data rates of turn and TV with regard to the Su is grossly out- the ones on the F-22 may be closer to the truth!! The figures for the Su are very much more than that referred to in the video!!

3.The Radar of the F-22 is superior to the Su presently!

4.Fratricide by our side did take place, more due to not being networked-it occurred when the AWACS was not available(u/s) and a very poor standard of controlling by USAF controllers( terminology and accent).This was mentioned in the debrief.Surprisingly, Fratricide was present for the F-15C as well as other allied A/C. Considering that they were better networked( Link-16,IFF-Mode 4 etc), while we had nothing,it should be a matter of concern for them and not us!!

5.FOD-Take-Off separation-was 30" at Mountain Home but extended to 1min and known to all participants before the start of the Ex!!

6.Incidentally,Mission achievement ratio was higher than 90%, whereas the mission success rates were significantly lower for the USAF, inspite of us op some 20000 kms away!!

7.Our level of experience was a standard Sqn cross-section and our youngsters performed very well in the new environment and not one rule was violated.Our professional approach was very favourably commented upon.

8. In the ultimate analyses, we had a significant edge all throughout and retained it.

It appears that this video was to pep up the US industry, showing that the F-22 is the answer to the Su-30MKI and one never knows-this will be the pitch for larger orders!!


1. To say the USAF had the better of the IAF in 1vs1 needs to be substantiated. Since all exercises were with ACMI maybe the USAF would like to substantiate this claim of 'drilling brains out' and 'we dominated' with ACMI recordings.

2. The USAF had similar number of fratricide during the exercise as the IAF. Considering they are fully networked with datalink, IFF Mode 4 etc. which is a greater cause of concern? IAF fratricides or USAF fratricides?

3. The behaviour of the MKI in thrust vectoring is incorrectly described. Maybe someone who has actually flown against the MKI can do better justice, provided it's an honest and unbiased assessment.

4. The IAF sustained operations 20,000 km away from home and had the least dropout rate. Prudence demands that safety procedures be adopted to enhance operations; could the engine operations be viewed against this backdrop?

5. Now consider this; the inexperienced IAF aircrew adapted so beautifully to the environment (that was totally alien), training rules (that were significantly different from IAF's), airspace regulations etc in a short span of two weeks, and yet somehow they were unable to exploit the jet in its envelope (something that they have been practicing to do for four to five years ) – does it sound convincing? If youngsters can adapt to new rules and environment in a short span of time, its only because they are extremely comfortable and confident of the machine and not otherwise. Also let's not forget that this was the not the first outing of the IAF against the F-15 and F-16s. They have flown against these ac in the past and are aware of their capabilities. So doesn't sound convincing at all.

The Indian Air Force perspective

'Red Flag' official apologises to IAF
First ublished : 18 Nov 2008 02:04:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 18 Nov 2008 04:38:45 PM IST

NEW DELHI: After a US Air Force (USAF) pilot was shown in a YouTube clip trashing India's frontline fighter jet Su-30 MKI saying it failed to impress during the recently held Red Flag war games, the organisers of the exercise have apologised to the Indian Air Force (IAF) for the remarks.

In a letter to Air Headquarters, an official of the Red Flag said it was the personal view of the USAF pilot talking in the clip and not of those involved in the exercise.

The organisers are looking forward for the participation of the IAF in the future editions of Red Flag, said the letter.

The appearance of the clip in the cyber space had embarrassed the IAF even as it was immediately rubbished. The clip shows a pilot apparently giving a presentation but there are no audience shown in the video.

The person, in uniform, talks about how the Su-30 MKIs were dominated by USAF's F-15s and F-22 Raptors. The person said in the clip how the aircraft lost out during dogfights and singled out problems with its thrust vectoring and the fact that it took up to a minute to arrange its take-off while the rest of the aircraft took only seconds.

The official, however, praised IAF's MiG- 21 Bison which has been modified with Israeli radar, active radar missiles and electronic jammers. He claimed MiG-21s were nearly invisible to the F-15 and F-16s, a fact which was demonstrated when the USAF fighters had taken part in joint exercises in India. After the clip surfaced, the IAF took up the issue with defence attaché in the US embassy and efforts were made to get it removed.

The officials said some of the technical claims made in the clip were incorrect and it was a pathetic attempt to prove a point. Aviation expert Pushpender Singh told to this website's newspaper that it was unfortunate that the most powerful air force in the world was resorting to such tactics. He said the video was full of inaccuracies. For example, the person in the video claimed that the MiG-21 Bisons were equipped with the Israeli radar.

"It is wrong. The aircraft has a Russian radar," said Singh.

The clip is being viewed as a ploy by the industry to prove a point. It might be an attempt to convince the US Government in ordering more F-22 Raptors. The US aviation giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the makers of F-16s and F-18s, are also competing with Russians for multi-billion dollar contract to supply multi-role combat aircraft to the IAF.

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/s...ehHe7IsSU=&SEO=

By Stephen Trimble on November 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I hope this is my last post on Col Terrence Fornof's YouTube indiscretions. Much has been written throughout the blogosphere and the press since I posted the infamous video here a couple of weeks ago.

But I didn't want to let it go without a firm rebuttal from the Indian side. The Indian Air Force has declined comment, but I can present a response by Vayu Aerospace Review Editor Pushpindar Singh.

He writes:

Being aware of the IAF's views on the subject, and while fully respecting the IAF Vice Chief's statement that the 'leaked' video and its content was 'too demeaning for reaction', I have decided to share the facts with readers, not those fancily conjured up by Colonel Terrence Fornof.

YouTube rebuttal:

Being aware of the IAF's views on the subject, and while fully respecting the IAF Vice Chief's statement that the 'leaked' video and its content was 'too demeaning for reaction', I have decided to share the facts with readers, not those fancily conjured up by Colonel Terrence Fornof, an F-15 fighter jockey and now Director of the Requirements and Testing Office at the USAF Air Warfare Centre at Nellis AFB.

The USAF later issued a statement to say that Fornof's was a private briefing to the 'Daedalians', a group of retired military pilots. "Colonel Fornof did not mean to offend any U.S. allied forces, as he knows firsthand the importance of training with allied forces and the awesome firepower they bring to the fight. His comments during this briefing were his personal opinions and not those of USAF Warfare Centre or of the Air Force".

Still, to get the record straight, the facts are :

Ø The IAF did not undertake any IvIs at Nellis during Red Flag, nor did they engage thrust vectoring during the Exercise. IvIs were flown only at Mountain Home AFB. In none of the IvIs were the Su-30MKIs ever vulnerable, let alone shot down. As all exercises were flown with ACMI, the situations are recorded and available to substantiate this aspect. Additionally, the MKI's behaviour with thrust vectoring is dramatically different from that described by the Colonel. F-15 and F-16 aircrew were well appreciative of IAF manoeuvres with thrust vectoring.

Ø Colonel Fornof's statement on Su-30MKI rates of turn with thrust vectoring (20o/ sec) is grossly 'out' but apparently gives away actual F-22 performance (28o/sec) Pitch of the talk seemed as to whether thrust vectoring was important or not. As all sorties were with ACMI, entire profiles are recorded, can be analysed and surely would have been replayed to drive the point home and make the 'chest thumping' sound more real. Apparently this was not done. Perhaps, as the Colonel is aware of F-22 data, he has tried to down play the Su-30MKI in comparison. Surprisingly, while there was no systems / avionics / comparison between the two types or with any other type of 'legacy' aircraft, the speaker does admit that radar of the MKI is 'superior' to that of the F-15 and F-16, however 'inferior' to AESA of the F-22 (a correct assessment). However, the IAF used the Su-30's radar in the training mode, with downgraded performance vis-à-vis operational mo! de, as they could hardly participate without this primary sensor
Ø The 'Bison' radar : the USAF should be aware that the 'Bison' does not have an Israeli radar, it is Russian. Nor does the Su-30MKI have Tumansky engines (but the NPO-Saturn). Surprisingly the Colonel seems oblivious of such facts, yet tries to convey that he is an authority on the matter.

Ø Fratricide by IAF fighters : this is correct, the IAF did 'shoot down' some 'friendlies' and that was assessed and attributed to the IAF not being networked. However, what the Colonel did not bring out were the two essential reasons for this. Firstly, this occurred mainly when the AWACS was not available (unserviceable) and controlling was done by GCI. More significantly it happened during extremely poor controlling by their operators, this fact being acknowledged during debriefs and the controllers being admonished accordingly. 'Accents' were perhaps the main culprit here, which very often led to American controllers not being able to understand Indian calls.

Ø Now hear this : the F-15C and other USAF fighters had the same number of fratricides as the IAF ! Considering they are well networked, yet their pilots shot down the same number of 'friendlies'. This was not only a major concern but also turned out to be a major source of embarrassment as the USAF had everything -- Link 16, IFF Mode 4 etc and the IAF had nothing. Under the Rules of Engagement, they did not even permit the IAF to use data link within themselves. All cases of USAF fratricide were covered in the next day's mass briefing as lessons learnt by concerned aircrew. In the IAF, the incidents were covered by concerned controllers, and attributed to lack of adequate integration, excessive R/T congestion and poor controlling. Gloating on cases of IAF fratricide is frivolous and unprofessional.

Ø However, Colonel Fornof did appreciate IAF 'professionalism' and that the IAF were able to dovetail with USAF procedures within short time. There was not a single training rule / airspace violation. This is a most important aspect.

Ø Since the Colonel could hardly tell his audience that the IAF had given the USAF good run for their money, they downplayed the Su-30's capability. It is correct that the IAF aircrew included some very young pilots -- nearly 70 percent - but they adapted rapidly to the environment (totally alien), training rules (significantly different), airspace regulations etc but to say that they were unable to handle the Su-30 in its envelope (something that they have been practicing to do for four to five years) is just not credible ! If young pilots can adapt to new rules and environment within a short span of two weeks, it is because they are extremely comfortable and confident of their aircraft.

Ø The IAF's all round performance was publicly acknowledged during, and at end of the Exercise, specifically by those involved. Not a single TR / airspace violation was acknowledged. Mission achievement rate was in excess of 90%. The drop out / mission success rates of all others, inclusive of USAF, were significantly lower. This is of major significance considering the fact that IAF was sustaining operations 20,000 km away from home base while the USAF were at home base. (The 8 Su-30s flew some 850 hrs during the deployment, which is equivalent to four months of flying task in India over 75 days). IAF's performance at Mountain Home AFB was even better that that at Nellis AFB.

Ø FOD : At Mountain Home, IAF had reduced departure intervals from the very beginning (30" seconds) considering that operating surfaces were very clean. However, a few minor nicks were encountered and it was decided to revert to 60 seconds rather than undertake engine changes. This was communicated by the IAF at the very start (IPC itself).
Ø There is no need to go in for 'kill ratios' as that would be demeaning. However, the IAF had significant edge throughout and retained it. In fact the true lesson for the USAF should be : 'do not field low value legacy equipment against the Su-30MKI' !.
(demeaning or otherwise, it is understood that the kill ratio (at Mountain Home AFB) was 21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs).

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ia-on-you.html

21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs)

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ia-on-you.html





You are most welcome to be stick with our opinion, This is my view on the subject..

 

[A chauhan]

OLD news - this has been refuted in Bharat Rakshak and apology tendered by USAF to IAF.

Yeah ! and that pilot compared a 4++ generation plane with a 5th generation plane lol !

 

[Armand2REP]

You're going to rely on utube rebuttles for the facts?