Were the Mil-28s and Ka-52s within the game RAH-66 comanche?
A. K. Anthony asks to improve resource and skill set within DRDO (which was apparently in relation to project over runs and meeting new chalanges).
Flights of civil versions of dhruvs put on hold due to issues with rudder.
Aparently the development of MAL UAV Rustom H has been approved…
Wonder if they are sensing that brahmos airborne was a bridge too far.
It is an audit report can’t expect good stuff out of it.
Really interesting article with history and some technical stuff…
Five months after the Channel Dash, eight Defiants were flying formation over the south coast of England, using “Moonshine,” a new radar technology the Brits had created, to try to fool one of Germany’s powerful Freya early warning radars, this one near Cherbourg, France. Moonshine reradiated Freya’s radar waves back with a larger, identical pulse combined with the natural pulse off the Defiants, giving the appearance that a pack of a hundred heavy bombers was approaching. Before the last pulse of Moonshine had been sent, 30 German fighters were in hot pursuit of a phantom bomber group. Less than two weeks later, Defiants again fooled Luftwaffe ground controllers, who vectored 144 fighters toward an imaginary air raid while a dozen B-17s and their fighter escorts attacked the rail yards at Rouen, France.
“England was not the only country to get into airborne electronic countermeasures during the war,” says Daniel Kuehl, director of the Information Operations Concentration Program at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. “Everyone did. But the Brits and the Americans were the best at it, and they won. From World War II on, electronic warfare becomes essential to operating and winning a war.” The airborne jamming genie was out of the bottle, and the Defiant had shown that you didn’t have to be fast or glamorous to get the job done.
Which was good news for the homely EA-6B Prowler, the U.S. Navy’s primary jammer since 1971. The airplane, a Grumman A-6 Intruder stretched 4.5 feet and equipped with two more electronic warfare officers in shoulder-to-shoulder back seats, ripples with tumor-like bulges and pods housing the airplane’s jamming equipment. The subsonic Prowler, first flown in May 1968, had electronics that were tailored to counter Soviet-built radar stations launching the Mach 3.5 SA-2 radar-guided missiles that, early in the Vietnam conflict, were downing U.S. Air Force pilots in alarming numbers—one American airplane lost for every two SA-2s fired.
John McCarty, a tour guide and gallery lead at the National Electronics Museum in Washington, D.C., worked for Westinghouse in the Vietnam years developing electronic countermeasures. On visits to South Vietnam, he watched as strike groups returned to base missing airplanes downed by SA-2s. “Pilots made it clear that they would rather have a 500-pound bomb to drop than a piece of mysterious equipment hanging on a wing,” says McCarty. “But afterward they started seeing that aircraft flying with our jamming pods were returning and those [without] were not coming back as often, so the conclusion became obvious.” The Navy began calling up every jammer it could get.
So one can imagine what a stealthy elint and e-attack aircraft could do behind or close to the enemy borders.
I do not know about Russia but the IAF doesn’t seem to openly acknowledge to have this type of technology so it is hard to say what they have if they have anything. I can understand the statement about electronic warface not getting much press because it does not have anything “kinetic”
X-47B has made its second flight, a larger version of the X-47B (does the B mean bomber?) around the size of the B2 with air to air missiles would be perfect for this type of role.
It could fly in line with F-22’s or behind them and use the cue from F-22 and awacs to target opfor.
I was thinking of a PAK-FA version used purely for electronic intelligence and attack. A stealth aircraft for this role is perfect to cause maximum confusion during a conflict.
Having a aircraft able to sneak into the enemies territory and starting action from behind the lines could cause some interesting outcomes…
All logistics and missiles are stored at the base armory or at equipment depots (ED) and at air storage parks (ASP) which can supply more than one base.
The issue regarding logistics for the IAF regarding variety of weapons is overblown IMO because for many years the IAF is used to doing that already and have he proper infrastructure in place.
Plus IAF also has the Integrated Materials Management Online System (IMMOLS) built and integrated by TCS way back in 2006 which has reduced logistics and maintainence headaches quite a bit.
Well a lot of people on here keep on about how much it costs for having different this that and the other and I kind of wanted to know what they thought would be the cost.
From experience I know that many companies will keep multiple stocks of materials and produce multiple parts for multiple companies but they are still profitable and competitive. Yes if the ops and the oi are not well written or managed then things can get dizying but that is not the fault of diversity that is the fault of beuracracy for the sake of beuracracy and dis-organised skills matrices etc..
Su-24MP Fencer F. A small amount had been built. They should still be in service.
There were some rumours that those ELINT Fencers should be replaced by a Su-34 (ELINT) variant.
Su-34 ELINT aircraft prototype was proposed and may have even been marketed to the IAF no customers were found at the time. Maybe the RuAF will get some now that Russia is going to start on a modernisation program
Does anyone know or has anyone seen news about how the IAF PAK FA numbers will be devided (single seat vs double seat?).
Also does anyone know if the RuAF and IAF are planning to have an electronic attack version of the PAK-FA?
How expensive is it to store a missile before use? What are the logistics issues in storring these missiles?
[QUOTE=swerve;1720227]
Surely its better to diversify when it comes to weapons as it de risks significantly chances of your arsenal becoming obsolete due to the use of a singular jamming or avoidance method.[/QUOTE
Better in that respect, but not in others.Having a multiplicity of platforms, each of which has dedicated weapons, means
1) If a single weapon is compromised so is its platform.
2) Reduced operational flexibility. You need separate stocks for each platform. You can end up with plenty of both missiles & aircraft, but not be able to use them together.
3) Increased costs. Maintaining multiple supply chains is expensive, for many reasons.The ideal diversification strategy (in terms of reducing the consequences of adversaries devising successful counters to particular weapons) would be to have a choice of both platforms & weapons, but full interoperability.
I did mention diversification in general and nothing to do with a singular platform….
The PLAAF have most of the Russian missiles the IAF have and probably known them intimately and the PAF have a lot of the western types the IAF could potentially have apart from meteor…
If the IAF standardises to 3 platforms and has 1 type of missile each for WVR and BVR things could get very interesting very quickly…
I am sure the bean counters wouldnt like it but again they do not like much apart from cost savings and profits..
It was from aviation space and week maybe its old news sorry.