F-15 pilot talks about SU-30MKI at Red Flag
- Thread starter Vivendi
- Start date
The original Cope India 2004 exercise involved only USAF F-15s (which faired poorly against the elite of the Indian Air Force). The more recent Cope India 2006 exercise involved USAF F-16s. I haven't heard too much about the latter exercise, so presumably the USAF did better this time around.
My biggest take-away from this lecture is that training and experience still matters - whether you're USAF or IAF, and no matter what you're flying.
Turn rate is about generating lift and overcoming drag - not vectoring thrust. There was a good article on this subject in Air Forces Monthly a number of months ago (March 2008). The F-22 has the turn rate that it does because if its exceptionally low wing loading, excellent (low drag) aerodynamic characteristics, and superb thrust-to-weight ratio.
By the way, the original links to the videos no longer work. I came across the following copy:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU"]YouTube - Indo-US Red Flag Air Force Exercise Lecture 2008 Part 1[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w"]YouTube - Indo-US Red Flag Air Force Exercise Lecture 2008 Part 2[/ame]
Once it's loose on the net, these things take on a life of their own.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The USAF did poorly in Cope India because they were MEANT to perform poorly. They were performing the Red Air role and were simulating a potential enemy with no BVR capability and no force multiplying capability whilst Indian fighters were taking BVR shots aided by significant force multiplying capability.
Arguing that the USAF performed "poorly" shows ignorance of their role during that exercise and implies a belief that the USAF would turn up to an operation without AMRAAM, without AWACS and without Air to Air refuelling capability.
Cope India was not the slightest representative of USAF capability.
Yes, I would agree that the USAF team was meant to perform poorly. Just like the "leaked" Boeing study two years before, the US team was intentionally handicapped to help promote the need for a more advanced (F-22) weapons system.
Your comments, are a quite incorrect interpretation of what the presenter said, and also dont take into account the realities of the exercise. For that matter the presenter made some huge bloopers too, but lets leave that be for now.
The Indians operated the Bars in training mode - given that, the presenters views on the radar are anything but accurate. In IAF eval, the Bars has turned out to be everything it promised to be and more when compared with state of the art sets as available today (bar APG77). FYI, the training mode Bars in RF was sufficient to - the USAFs surprise, in taking on small signature targets and prosecuting them.
Second - the Indians didnt take signature treated Flankers to RF- why would they and nor did they take any of their de facto standard EW gear either to the exercise.
Third, the entire bit about jamming is entirely accurate as the MKI needs to defeat the inbound ARH shots to get to the merge, which is what the jammer is there for.
Fourth, the presenter is also mistaken about the "Tumansky engines" on the MKI being susceptible to FOD. They are not. They are as good (or as bad as) any bog standard engine of its generation. The Indians played cautious as they only took a handful of powerpacks with them in the single IL-78 transport plus other maint spares. FYI, the Indians staged their planes 30 apart unlike what the presenter mentions, and it was later agreed to do it for 1 and agreed before the exercise itself.
Fifth" IAF let down by "crap Russian gear" - I'd sure like you to meet some fine gentleman from the Lightnings and Hawks and discuss the same with them. Because thats the first they'd have heard of it. They are bloody well pleased with the MKI & no, it hasnt let them down at all. Given a cross section of senior crew who have flown everything from the Mirage to foreign types on evaluation, they are quite pleased as punch with the MKI.
For the "Western gear uber alles" brigade, I would request some of you to meet the extremely professional aviators (and no I am serious, they are good blokes!) from the RSAF and ask them of their professional evaluation of the MKI & even the decades old MiG-29 (without upgrade) and ask them about how it worked out when handled to the limit.
Finally "Aussie Digger",
ridiculous, I am afraid. The USAF were not meant to lose. They had BVR, they had better radars, better platforms than bulk of the planes they fought against. They lost because they planned poorly and came underestimating their opponent (and paid the price). In Cope India 2006, they didnt repeat the mistake, but still found the Bison a handful. And they came with AWACS & every dinky toy they wanted to, in the ROEs.
Of course, it does not mean that the IAF is a more powerful force than the USAF, it would be farce to suggest so, as farcical as stating that the USAF lost at Cope 04 because they intended to.
There are actually very good reasons why the USAF got a wake up call at Cope 04, and if one of the real reasons came out, it would be open season on a favourite target of many Americans, so lets leave it be.
Last edited:
The MKI has a higher STR than presented by the USAF presenter. It does appear the IAF toned down that as well as far as RF is concerned, either by deliberate underrep or by some kind of training mechanism during 1 vs 1s.
BTW, the presenter is wrong when he claims the Indians did 1 vs 1s for 3 days - they didnt. Only the first day, then practise broke up because the RF mission planning took precedence. And from the IAF: "no F-15 dominance was observed during TVC exercises". During standard RF, TVC was not used as well.
Of course, F-22 STR could still be higher than the MKIs.
Another mistake made by the USAF presenter is in noting that Israeli radars are on the Bisons. Perhaps he mixed it up with the Lancer upgrade or read an original incorrect statement in AWST which did the same.
The Bisons have the Kopyo-21 radar. The newer Kopyo-M was offered for some 50 follow on aircraft, but the IAF is not proceeding with the upgrades at this point of time, and the number of Bisons is around 124-125.
India had a problem with the MiG-21s on account of several factors/things:
- high flying hours doing things they werent designed to do. tank busting in the thar for example, and then a flameout in those conditions. not pretty low over the dunes and the engine cuts out.
- design defects that stayed with the plane - flame tube burning eg was resolved by HAL and not MiG which often refused to own up (comparing sukhoi today to MiG- a far cry!! more professional in many ways!)
- finally very high landing speeds- pilots describe it as the rocket at that stage, and incidentally, many people were lost thanks to bird hits during this crucial stage, and the pilot SA is such that he stays, he pays. flt ltnt shreya shukla (youngest combat pilot to fight at kargil) was lost at palam airport in such a manner, take off and buzzard strike
- lastly, the training factor - in a darwinian process, those who couldnt handle the transition from the iskra/hjt to the mongol paid the price. this criminal attrition was forced upon the iaf by an uncaring govt which held off on the AJT procurement for 21 years!
deception jamming, as from modern DRFM equipped sets is a pain for any radar set. however, a brand new AESA such as the APG-79/77 should have a suitable number of receivers, including one dedicated for ECCM that should allow relief.
but deception jamming will still reduce the Pk of small battery equipped missiles something fierce, which the USAF colonel, is reasonably accurate about. even HOJ wouldnt necessarily help unlike if it were old fashioned noise jamming.
Deception or seduction is the way to defeat active homing BVR but as a technique is heavily reliant on having good intel of the threat. The Israelis are not selling jammers to defeat AMRAAM and unless the Russians can get their hands on an actual seeker will just be working from a theortical base. The same can not be said for ADDER which compromised years (over a decade) ago. Also AESA radars can have PITBULL support modes where they illuminate the target for the actively homing missile at terminal engagement.
You should read all of the thread rather than wade in with a selective choice of one statement at the end. Further you have presented a lot of excuses; they never impress.
RSAF personnel are not allowed to make such evaluations from international(exp Cope India)and local exercises public; to anyone. If this is from the Indian press, I can understand why. As a matter of fact, the Singapore`s Mindef totally rejected the views that were 'flying' in the Indian press subsequent to the Cope India exercise. They never said anything.
If you have heard/read something, the latter is entirely speculative and could have come from anyone. Hence, the reason why Singapore`s Mindef had to make a terse official statement then clarifying its stance; i.e they and thier personnel never said anything as per the operative rules of the exercise and that they are very pleased with the performance of all the jets within exercise parameters.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Let's look at some facts then shall we?
The USAF took 6x F-15C aircraft fitted with APG-63V1 radar systems to Cope India 2004.
KC-135 aircraft provide air tio air refuelling for both sides.
No AEW&C was brought or used by the USAF.
AMRAAM was NOT used by the USAF because they were representing likely threat aircraft for the IAF (ie: a capability equivalent to PAF F-16 aircraft at that time). As such, AIM-9X, JHMCS weren't employed either.
The main purpose of the exercise was to fly dissimilar air combat training with the IAF, with the F-15's flying offensive counter air and defensive counter air missions as Red Air.
Red Air ALWAYS loses in the end of Airex's. They may have temporary victories, temporary air superiority during various phases of an exercise, but they always LOOSE in the end.
The USAF weren't playing to full "capacity". There was little or no "freeplay" and they did lose because it was intended all along.
There's no need whatsoever to try and make this exercise more than it was.
Talking it up as a "loss" and thereby attempting to imply that "East therefore beats West" is disingenuous in the extreme.
1. Dear Archer is it relevant to the "uber allies" brigade that "Bars has turned out to be everything it promised to be"? The answer is NO!
2. Do the "uber allies" have the money to buy an Su-30 squadron? The answer is YES!
3. Have the Russians offered to sell Su-30 to the "uber allies" brigade (and I don't mean Singapore alone)? The answer is YES!
4. Do you think that the respective DSTAs (acting as procurement managers) of the "uber allies" brigade make purchases without an adequate consideration of a technology's limit? If Bars is indeed superior - would it not be considered as a technology to invest in or to buy (so as to give our war fighters an edge)? Please read the DT thread on the F-15SGs before you reply.
5. What is the purpose of DACT? Please read the DT thread on what is DACT before replying.
6. What is the goal of the RSAF in participating in these overseas exercises? The answer is to learn. DACT is only one aspect of an air exercise. IMHO, we can learn both from our failures and successes. Increasingly, the RSAF wants to take part in these exercises so that our LTCs (before they are promoted to higher command positions) can play mission commander roles (i.e. plan for missions involving 50 or more air craft).
7. The RSAF has been taking part in numerous exercises for a number of years. Have you heard them say that Singapore "won" or "lost" in an exercise? As Red says, the RSAF does not comment on the results of international exercises.
8. Have you taken part in international exercises? Do you know what being the "Red force" mean? How can you critique what Aussie Digger says if you don't know what you are talking about. Please read up on air combat theory and air exercises before replying.
9. The SAF and the RSAF are always grateful to be invited to military exercises. In particular, the SAF is grateful to the Indian government for allowing us the privilege to learning from the Indian Air Force. Our press would never be so rude to say that one party won.
Last edited:
I can see the howls coming from some of the members.
But.
2 weeks ago at a briefing (with a number of Indian Air Force Officers present) we were advised that the IAF were making it clear that they were keen on pursuing the purchase of Western aircraft and systems over Russian and that the wake up calls came with IAF attendance at a number of western "meets".
IAF is looking at better systems symbiosis and they are not getting it. as much as there is noise from some members in here about the love of the Sukhois in the IAF, there is another view coming from their future planners.
BTW one of the senior RAAF tac planners is ex IAF (6000 hrs on various types including late model russian platforms).
But.
2 weeks ago at a briefing (with a number of Indian Air Force Officers present) we were advised that the IAF were making it clear that they were keen on pursuing the purchase of Western aircraft and systems over Russian and that the wake up calls came with IAF attendance at a number of western "meets".
IAF is looking at better systems symbiosis and they are not getting it. as much as there is noise from some members in here about the love of the Sukhois in the IAF, there is another view coming from their future planners.
BTW one of the senior RAAF tac planners is ex IAF (6000 hrs on various types including late model russian platforms).
If this view is correct than why IAF hasnt signed up for MRCA despite passing of one decade. There is no signup for M2K upgrades either nor there is western AAMs across the fleet. IAF has shown no tendency of Western 5th generation fighter nor there is for organization wide tendency towards Western Strategic transport/Airrefuellers. It seems IAF officers takes Western officials for a ride by talking negative about Russian systems infront of them.
Of course you know better, so I'll let you continue that thought.
The IAF are a professional outfit, I've yet to meet any IAF Officer or IN Officer make stupid claims. The relationship with InDF has been getting closer as there are mutual concerns.
I do however see lots of teenagers who make claims outside of their comprehension set.
In fact for the last 3 years, before I went back into Govt Mil I dealt with a number of Indian companies seeking access to western tech - and who still do.
Perhaps you should exercise less conviction on what you think the Indians want.
whats that got to do with my comment about a briefing held 2 weeks ago?
Why upgrade the M2K when its seen as useful within its current role - but not worth the expense of MLU when the Indians have already openly stated that the focus is on fusion for their RMA?
2 weeks ago.. and where did I mention anything about aircraft types?
Apart from the fact that it was a briefing about air combat and future air combat capabilities - so unless you want to turn a C17 into a missileer....
Quite frankly, I'm far more interested in the commentary and dialogue from professional airmen than from internet chatter trying to protect a favourite aircraft because of personal enthusiasm.
If you want to continue the debate then PM me. I'm not going to engage in some idiotic fan club banter and drag the post down in quality just because people don't like the chat.
Thats what you wrote about determination of purchasing Western aircraft and systems?. If u read a little bit about MRCA and its condition of technology transfer and offsets. it gives totally different picture.
M2K will lose what ever role it has once upgraded MIG-29 with new engines come online in Multifunctional form. u cannot continue with 25 year old aircraft without comprehensive upgrades. just like 25 year old US airforce aircraft now with national guards.
U mentioned determination of purchasing Western aircraft and systems as way of showing some kind of short comings in Russian aircraft. When 150 BVR capable/RCS reduced MIG-21Bison is living example of making old aircraft usefull for 21st century combat.
Last edited: