The story of an extraordinary sortie

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: You’ve heard of people chasing the monsoon. How about hurtling after a solar eclipse at two-and-a-half times the speed of sound? In 1995, Sumit Mukerji, then commander of the MiG 25 squadron in Bareilly, did just that. At 80,000 feet above the earth. In almost-space.
Air Marshal Mukerji, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Southern Air Command (SAC), who retired on Thursday after a career spanning nearly 40 years in the IAF, shared the story of the Big Flight of October 24, 1995, with City Express.
�“It was part of an experiment for the solar observatory. We had to check the corona and the gases around the sun at that moment of time. We also had to photograph the eclipse with special cameras,” he said.� The MiG 25 ‘Foxbat’ is one of the rare fighters that can soar to such stupefying heights and maintain Mach 3 speeds.
�“A regular airliner flies in the troposphere, at heights of 30,000 feet to 35,000 feet. Some may go even up to 40,000 feet. We had to do it in the stratosphere, as the sky is clearer there. No water vapour, no dust particles to block your vision,” recalled Mukerji, chosen for the job because he was commanding the MiG 25 squadron then and because of his rich flying experience.
�Accompanied by co-pilot Wing Commander Y S Babu, Mukerji took off from Bareilly at noon. The extraordinary sortie was to be above Neemkhatana,� near Agra, along the central axis of the total solar eclipse. Eighty-thousand feet above the earth, there is no such thing as a blue sky.
“It was pitch black and the stars were visible. We had the camera on, and we could see the sun gradually getting reduced in size. They were tracking the eclipse from the ground too. But they could see it only for 40 seconds. But because we were flying along with the sun, we saw it for all of one-and-a-half minutes,” Mukerji said.
�“The photos we got during that flight were not available from the ground.”
�A Bengali hailing from UP, young Sumit joined the National Defence Academy (NDA) in 1967, beginning a long adventure in uniform. He was commissioned into the IAF in January, 1972. When talking about the MiGs, the fighter pilot in him is eloquent.
�“They are remarkable aeroplanes,” he says. But then, he would. He is the only Air Force officer to have commanded units having all of the MiG species; MiG 21, MiG 23, MiG 25, MiG 27 and MiG 29.
�“The only pilot. There’s no one even in Russia,” he adds with a laugh.

Thats one innovative use of the foxbat 🙂 and a hell of a story to tell your grandkids 🙂

I’ll just add what I have posted elsewhere wrt the subject.

DACT results must be taken with a pinch of salt, especially without any known ROEs. The results of individual DACTs aren’t necessarily telling. If type would repeatedly beat another type on multiple different occassions one might get a clue.

However, I can’t see many advantages favouring the Su-30MKI in comparison to the Typhoon. That doesn’t mean that the Flanker is hopelessly outmatched or stands no chance against the Typhoon, but I think that Typhoon’s odds of winning AA engagements are somewhat better than that of the current Su-30MKI.

I’m not going to judge about the Super-30 upgrade as long as I haven’t much information about it and as it isn’t available yet.

WVR:
Situational awareness is the most important factor in aircombat ever since aerial battles were fought and that’s true for both WVR and BVR encounters. Close in the Typhoon as much harder to spot than a Flanker as it is a much smaller aircraft. Cockpit visibility is better as well and the HMSS provides Typhoon pilots with all relevant information irrespective of where he is looking to. Wrt SA the Typhoon pilot has a clear edge over the Flanker, albeit the second crew may compensate a bit for this. Crew protection is another important factor as high performance fighters perform better than what the human body is able to withstand. Typhoon pilots wear a flying suite which increases the pilot’s g-tolerance in comparison to conventional anti-g trousers as worn by most fighter pilots around the world, including IAF crews as far as I’m aware.
Manoeuvrability favours the Su-30MKI in the low speed regime only. At high subsonic speeds the Typhoon prevails with superior sustained 9 g performance and a higher g-onset. I arguably base this on the original Su-27 and the Su-33 (having flown in a real Su-33 simulator years back). Only at lower speeds TVC enable the Su-30 to point its nose more quickly which can be decisive, but if the pilot fails to kill his target at this instance he is at risk to become a target himself. The Su-30s ability to regain lost energy is clearly inferior to that of the Typhoon which won’t bleed energy as excessively without TVC. If TVC is carefully used you can gain an advantage, but it’s not a “win all battles” edge. Just take a look at the DACT results between the Rafale and F-22. The Raptor won only one out of six engagements and the Raptor enjoys some decisive advantages over the Flanker close in!
What’s even more important these days are the weapons. The R-73E used by the Su-30MKI is clearly inferior to the IRIS-T or ASRAAM. The seeker of the R-73 is dated and prone to counter measures, whereas the IIR seekers of the latter missiles are virtually immune against current CM and offer a 50% greater FoV in comparison to the R-73 seeker. Add LOAL capabilities and the Typhoon can engage targets at angles greater than 90° with a greater probability of kill in comparison to the Su-30MKI which can engage targets at 60° with the current R-73. Albeit I have seen rumours indicating that the Su-30MKI is fitted with a Saab made MAW300, I have yet to see any real evidence for this. Typhoon’s active MAWS can detect missiles and initialize a counter measures response and with the R-73 seeker still being rather prone to CM there is a certain chance that a Typhoon could evade a R-73, whereas the Su-30MKI’s chances to defeat an ASRAAM or IRIS-T are rather slim. All in all I would say that with boresight limited weapons the Flanker has a fair chance to win many engagements, but throw missiles into the mix and the Typhoon might be in a somewhat better position to win. Much certainly depends on the pilot skills and circumstances and such a merge will be dangerous.

BVR:
Most here have argued that the N-011M Bar is going to give the Su-30MKI an edge in BVR. But is it really going to do this? The Bars has detection range around 185 km against fighter sized targets, which is quite similar to the current Captor-M. The Bars uses PESA with limited coverage (+/-45°) with the other 25° in azimuth being achieved via mechanical movement. Elevation coverage is somewhere in the range of +/-40-55° depending on the sources. The Captor-M offers a +/-70° azimuth and +/-60° elevation coverage, but with slower scan rates within the +/-45° cone. The Captor is yet capable to track up to 20+ targets and engage at least six of them, while the Bars even with PESA technology tracks only 15 and engages 4 targets at once. Captor’s NCTR capability is more advanced as well due to shape recognition rather than being limited to JEM techniques. Overall even if the Bars offers a somewhat better detection range the difference doesn’t appear to be that big and in some areas the current Captor-M appears to exceed the performance of the Bars in some areas.

Comparing the IRST sensors the OLS-30 reportedly provides a +/-60° azimuth and +60°/-15° elevation coverage and offers detection ranges of 50 km against approaching targets and 90-100 km against receding targets in optimal conditions. PIRATE scan limits are classified albeit unconfirmed reports suggest a +/-75° azimuth coverage, elevation coverage is likely similar to that of the OLS-30, possibly somewhat better in look down conditions as the sensor isn’t directly on top of the nose. PIRATE’s max detection range is stated with around 145 km in best conditions, albeit typical detection ranges are ~50-80 km. I don’t know how many targets can be tracked by the OLS-30, but the OLS-35 can track 4 targets at once according the Su-35 brochure from KnAAPO. That’s not even remotely comparable against the PIRATE’s 200 targets and the PIRATE offers many more information as well. The OLS is limited to determine the angular position of a target and the laser range finder could be used to gather more accurate data, but in such a case the Flanker would betray its own position against the Typhoon which is equipped with a LWR. The Flanker lacks such a device, but as the Typhoon doesn’t feature a LRF it’s not of relevance. The range performance of the laser is rather limited anyway and thus not a great help in BVR encounters at long ranges. PIRATE offers much more information such as range estimate (kinematic ranging), acceleration measurement/speed and whether a target is approaching or receding. PIRATE prioritises threats on base of these information and is able to identify targets using the STTI imaging mode at distances up to ~40 km.

The EW suits are yet another important factor. The Su-30MKI has reportedly used three different RWRs up to date (Tarang Mk1 & 2 and R118). As I’m not aware of the performance/specs of the latter I would give it the benefit of doubt and declare it to be comparable to the DASS ESM. Typhoon still features MAWS and LWR which appear to be missing on the Su-30MKI (feel free to correct me on this one with credible sources). Wrt jamming the Su-30MKI’s podded EL/L-8222 is rather old meanwhile, albeit it may have been upgrade I have my doubts that this system could rival Typhoon’s DRFM based DECM with active phased array technology, add the FO-TRD and you are likely looking at a more capable jamming equipment aboard the Typhoon.

I’m not sure how far the development and integration of the IAF’s ODL has progressed thus far, the Su-30MKI’s Russian made Spectre datalink is limited in functionality and capability in comparison to MIDS. Even if we assume that the ODL is available and equally capable as MIDS, there is one distinctive difference between the two fighters: sensor fusion!

While there is some coupling between the radar and IRST it doesn’t look like the sensor data aboard the Su-30MKI are fused at all and presented on fused displays which would offer a greater SA, reduce the pilot workload and improve the overall quantity and quality of track data. Add the most likely more intuitive and automated MMI on the Typhoon and you look at an aircraft with a clear edge wrt situational awareness. The second crew member in the Su-30MKI may compensate a bit for that, but requires a well trained crew which coordinates its actions.

Another factor to consider is that the Typhoon’s RCS, especially from the frontal aspect is clearly lower and while it won’t prevent the Flanker from detecting the Typhoon, it may compensate for the possibly somewhat greater range performance of the Bars and will ease the Typhoon jammer’s job in fooling the opposing radar system.

Wrt performance the Typhoon has a clear edge wrt supersonic acceleration, climb performance, super sonic agility/manoeuvrability, supercruise (not necessarily a great tactical utility, but useful in some circumstances) and possibly superior high altitude performance (19812 m vs 17500 m service ceilling). Even if both aircraft would start at the same altitude and height, the Typhoon would reach useful speeds (~M 1.6) much more quickly and could manoeuvre more effectively to separate after a missile shot or just manoeuvring into position.

Last but no least there is the weapons question. The RVV AE is the export variant of the original R-77 with a max range of 80-90 km. I’m not aware of any upgrades this weapon has received ever since it entered service with the IAF! The AIM-120C-5, currently the most capable BVR missile integrated on the Typhoon, offers a max range ~105 km and with its less draggy fins is likely to enjoy a kinematic/range advantage while being somewhat less manoeuvrable than the RVV AE. I’m pretty certain that the AIM-120C-5’s seeker and electronics are more advanced and capable as well, based on the fact that the Americans have a lead in compact electronics over the Russians and that the C-5 model is newer than the RVV AE as well.

So in a BVR encounters there is virtually nothing which really favours the Su-30MKI, even its powerful radar appears not to be much better in performance, in some areas even less capable than the current Captor-M.

There are certainly other factors which I haven’t considered here due to the total lack of information (ECCM of the radars, ECM performance in detail etc.), so nothing is definitive, but from what is known I tend to believe that the Typhoon is clearly a better BVR platform and still can hold its own in WVR encounters, albeit the Su-30MKI offers advantages in certain circumstances in close in combat and if the Flanker crew uses their advantages to their strength they might prevail.

I’m not considering future upgrades right now, but this is definitely something we can look at at a later stage. I first must do some more research on the definitives of the Super-30 upgrade. There is a lot of talk about this or that, but information are often conflicting. Stronger engines are mentioned as a possible option, but I have yet to see any official confirmation. The radar is another question I’m not sure about, will it be a Zhuk-AES or the upgraded Bars? What weapons will be purchased? The new RVV SD doesn’t look overly impressive to me, it’s merely an AIM-120C7 equivalent according the Russians and its range of 110 km (max range) looks more like an equivalent of the AIM-120C-5.

You really have a lot of patience to type out such a long, descriptive and informative post :), Bravo.

http://twocircles.net/2011jul24/british_typhoons_whacked_indias_sukhois_joint_exercises.html

This isn’t surprising really. It is about time the Typhoon was recognised as significantly superior to anything short of the F-22 in an operational air to air capacity.

…. to be followed with retractions, clarifications 🙂

should it be taken in the same vein as the f-16-typhoon duel ? or the reports of USAF cope india 04 performance ? or debriefing at red flag on Mki ?

Does anybody here have more info on Hf-24 follow up designs ?

Wouldn’t be the first time. The Ka-50s and Ka-29 target designator operated in Chechnya in 2000-2001 were also factory owned examples.

A company sometimes gladly pays for combat deployment of their machines in hope to acquire an order in case of good results. It worked OK for the Ka-50, looks like it has paid off for the MKI, as well.

As far as I know, the deployed machine was #04.

Any idea about what role the aircraft was used for ?

Russian air force orders thrust-vectoring Su-30SM fighters

It is understood that the decision to procure the Su-30SM was inspired by the successful use of industry-owned Su-30MKI/MKM operational-standard prototypes during Russia’s August 2008 conflict with Georgia.

So Su-30 Mki/Mkm/SM has already seen combat ? Can industry owned machines be used like that ?

PS: who knows that even the Berkut might have prowled the georgian skies that way 😮

MCA is already on the works. Wiki says a wind tunnel model is shown during AI 2009. If that is true, it is ahead of Korean design. Whether MCA design is suitable for them is entirely different matter. MCA is supposed to a 20T aircraft, while Japanese design seems to be smaller.

20 tons is supposed to be MTOW, empty weight should be 8-9 tons.

What is a Super MKI, and how is it different from the current MKI?

Airframe strengthening, radar with stronger processor, compatible with AESA array and configured for Indian weapons is confirmed. Newer engines, rcs reduction, avionics from su-35 are rumored and have not been confirmed by any credible source.