Sorry Nick, in fact that particular target satellite did move at least 20-30km higher from its original orbit. Every satellite keeps a small reservoir of fuel for orbital adjustment. And if a satellite did move, its going to move a heck of a lot faster than a ship. Ships cannot move fast enough not against a missile moving thousands of kilometers an hour. Not to mention that the ship is hundreds of times larger than a satellite (the target satellite has a 3m2 size area) and has exponentially much more momentum to change before the change course is finally committed.

You missed the point. The satellite trajectory can be estimated, plotted and the missile guided to a likely interception point, even with update. For the satellite to figure out that its been targetted, it needs an online MAWS like system and terminal countermeasure systems, (unlikely on account of weight constraints), or last movement trajectory changes – again unlikely, the command has to come from ground based units, which are monitoring its status in realtime and trajectory changes alone can mission kill the sat by using up its fuel. The only reason why these systems didnt proliferate is on account of concerns over weaponizing space and the issue of space debris, which is why protest against the PRC picked up. Otherwise, people would have noted the missile test with interest but not commented- the PRCs security is its sovereign concern after all.

But a ship is a far harder target. You need to predict a unit which can do a variety of moves to escape, which can get better realtime intelligence, and even incorporate hard kill measures.

In my view, this entire ship killing BM is a load of crock used to play up the PRC threat by Fisher & co. The PRC itself is going for the far more sensible and achievable AShM angle, and coming up with iterative improvements to its existing AShMs. Thats a good use of (at the end of the day) limited money, as no budget is infinite.

Some chaps have spotted Flanker flying around in B’lore was posted in BR where HAL’s one of factory is, I have somewhere in my HDD saved pic of Flanker rolling out of HAL factory (yrllow color) which appeared in one of HAL’s newsletter, this year a full squadron is to get em IIRC.

All MKIs prior to delivery to the IAF go through a test regimen, and are checked out by the HAL test pilot, and assigned IAF test crew. Some 8-10 should have been delivered by now.

IAF normally take in exercise the MK1 variants and not MK3, There is definite reason not to take them and the no need of such to take them.

Well, this is not really going to be the case in the near future, since all MKI Mk1/2s will be brought to the MKI Mk3 standard. One way or the other, the IAF would have standardized on the Mk3 and if they have to exercise with the MKI, it will have to be Mk3’s.

SFerrin posted the release and stated: “Must have been fairly even as nobody is bragging.”

But ah, a cursory note about the 1 vs 1’s got under your skin.

You need a lesson in reading comprehension mate, and try to lay off the spit and bile. Do you a world of good.

“The operational part of the ‘Exercise Indradhanush-2007’ began with a series of 1 vs 1 air combat sorties. Both variants landed with their much-touted reputations intact as each side tested their potentials with their adversary in the air to their limits. These sorties were premised not entirely on having winners or losers – but more for their evaluator and training values as encapsulated in the objectives. Both sides ended-up sharing an enhanced respect for each other’s capabilities – both in terms of training values, and combat potentials of the diverse aerial platforms. “

…Followed by…

“While the RAF fielded some of their most-experienced and highly-qualified pilots, some of them being very senior performance evaluators in active service, the IAF pilots were a mix of ‘young to middle-level pilots’ from the ‘Rhinos’ squadron. The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI’s observed superior manouevring in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated. The IAF pilots on their part were also visibly impressed by the Typhoon’s agility in the air. “

then more about the 1 vs 1..

“While it does not imply to say that the 1 vs 1 air combat sorties were meant for backslapping each other, it may be understood that in today’s aerial combat scenarios of ‘beyond visual range’ (BVR) capabilities of air platforms, it is highly unlikely that any of the modern-day fighters will ever get into a situation that warrants extreme close air combat, as in the situation simulated in the 1 vs 1 sorties. With a ‘kill’ criterion of front-gun ranges being mostly under 1,000 metres and a visual tracking envelope behind the target for only up to a 60-degree cone mostly for most fighter aircraft of the world, the unlikely scenario gets more exemplified.

But the irony also lies in the fact that while there is a number of counter and counter-counter measures to make the modern missiles with claims of inescapable parameters redundant by using ‘chaff’ and other active/passive measures, a ‘gun kill’ is invariably a most certain kill. The pilots invariably begin honing their tracking and combat skills under such close combat situations. “

—————————
Any chap can make out that this is merely a description of the opening days 1 vs 1’s – that too with a disclaimer that its not BVR, and that its more of a familiarization/opening of festivities thing.

How you read an insult to the RAF into this is beyond me. :rolleyes:

Takes all kinds to make the world I guess.

At least this point is debateable, wether you dismiss the evidence out of hand, due to your obvious bias or not, the Indian MoD claim isn’t. It was said, it is out there. It was stark and it was clear and it has been proved a falsehood.

Care to run that by again?
Are you now insinuating that Ken has an obvious bias and is stating a falsehood?

Or you need a lesson in reading comprehension. You were the one who started off on the stupid “national bias” angle, which was shown to be a ludicrous extrapolation from merely the 1 vs 1’s on the opening day. The release doesnt even slag the EF or the RAF, but its got your knickers in a twist.

Weird.

A satellite does not maneuver since fuel is limited. Its path is predictable. Ships on the other hand..

Nick,

The claim was that the RAF had fielded its top guns which was demonstrably false. The Tornados were flown by No.25 (not the FJ&WOEU, for example) and the bulk of Typhoon sorties by No.3. These pilots included a number of first tourists, some of whom were LCR.

Semantics since the question is who flew against whom and when. If the junior Indian blokes flew against senior RAF personnel during the 1 vs 1s on the first day, the Indian claim is spot on- because thats the only period and conditions the Press release refers to.

The claim was also that the Indians had fielded junior and mid-level blokes. The Rhinos’ execs (four Wing Commanders) all flew during ID, and so did a number of Squadron Leaders and senior Flight Lieutenants. I didn’t find a single first tourist among the Indians (there may have been some, but many people started to ask whether only experienced blokes are posted to the MKI).

Incorrect. As a fact, I happen to know that a substantial number of the chaps in the ID lineup happen to be first Lts and similar young jocks. I am quite sure that you really didnt cover the exercise in depth (unfortunate, since we would have loved to have more info!) and these are but cursory impressions that you are conveying based on the entire line up of chaps whom you met at the post exercise Press meet. The Rhinos execs didnt arrive there to partake in 1 vs 1s as I have stated before, but to lead the mission and would have come into play during the more complicated large force exercise.

It may be true that any new IAF a/c type inducted will have “a fair amount of midlevel personnel, to devise the a/c SOP and then pass the trained cadre amongst different squadrons” but four Wing Commanders is most assuredly not routine in the UK – where even two would be extraordinary.

You still dont get it. The normal routine is to have two WingCos or even one, with a fair sprinkling of Sq Ldrs who are parceled out to new raisings. In this case, since this is an exercise, and senior operators need to be deputed to the neutral force to have sufficient seniority to play judge, a few more were deputed. If the MKIs were not new, I daresay you might have had one WingC as the detachment leader, and many more Sq Ldrs. Its all relative. Check the Mirage 2000 and Jaguar deployments for instance to Singapore.

In any case the impression given was “Experienced veteran RAF pilots” vs “inexperienced IAF youngsters.”
And that’s clearly misleading.

Its hardly misleading if one takes into account the exercises at the time the press release was issued. If the young Flt Lts were the ones who went up against the more experienced RAF operators, its pretty true.

In fact, the same happened during the previous RAF-IAF exercise in India, where on general, the RAF detachment had more stick time, on average against their competing crew in Indian colors, filled as it was with young chaps.

If you want I can find a quote & put it up.

So is the Navy counting on Mig-35 winning the deal?
Unlike the AF, I dont see the Navy falling into the trap of operating 3 or 4 fighter types even if one takes the 4-squadron planning at face value.

I think the report is a bunch of BS. The IN is not likely to go for the MiG-35 or Rafale or whatever, when it is but now getting its hands on a navalized Fulcrum which will take it a few years to learn, understand and use. Why add another type to the inventory?
What we are going to see is a two type fleet- LCA & MiG-35. Only if something exceptional, ie unavailable from elsewhere, is offered will the Navy consider a third type. Like the JSF.