Nick_76Attrition stats need to be looked over in the macro view to get a clearer pic, and then you’ll see “spurts” followed by periods where anything that caused that spurt to happen rectified and nothing much happens.
Sometimes its plain bad luck as well.
Mirage 2000 crashes fall into that category. Many years of smooth service, and some 2-3 crashes within a couple of years.
MiG-27 attrition in the late 90’s – bad luck + mission profile + usual attrition (HE/TD)
MiG-21 Bison crash/ MiG-21 crashes, defects identified, rectified, most crash prone variants retired – now attrition is low.
So its too early to tell until the IAF COI (Court of Enquiry comes in), what the causes are for this one and whether this is even a statistically probable trend traced to some persistent problem.
Such as TD (technical defects) of a repetitive kind.
It could be HE (Human error). A combat experienced pilot from Kargil was lost when he lost SA and went into the ground, while flying low.
The IAF HE rate is the same as other AFs like the USAF. You can try to minimize it, but not turn it to zero.
Second, its very unlikely that the MiG-29s will be retired anytime soon.
Despite this crash, IAF has some 63-65 MiG-29s in service in 3 squadrons.
Their upgrade has been signed for (with new engines) plus avionics and structural work.
You can expect a few new airframes to be transferred from MiG stocks to build up numbers as well.
Since it will be a Govt to Govt deal, zero allegations of corruption, and hence files will move quickly.
IAF did the same buying up spare MiG-21s from EEurope in the 90’s from AF’s which were retiring them.
One way or the other, its too early to get worried.
Nick_76Then we are back again at the conclusion that well flown and tactically correctly deployed aircraft make the difference, pretty much independently from the type of aircraft.
Agree entirely. I would say the aircraft is a tool, and while it is important to have a good tool, it takes skill (ie training) + proper doctrine (proper employment) to extract useful effects. In Arab case, one of the former and sometimes both, were always lacking. In IAF experience, in 1971, the Su-7 did very well, even though in some western press it was often derided for being too heavy, having less endurance etc. So the users ability does matter to use a hammer for a nail, and not for everything.
The MiG-21 is a useful aircraft, no doubt, but hailing it as a great design for a dogfighter totally misses the mark. Better say, it was less unsuitable for a dogfighter than most other supersonic aircraft of that time. It was the one-eyed between the blind.
I would say aircraft design is always a compromise.
If you get a design which when flown well can match the opponents eqpt or outfight it even if it is not overwhelmingly superior, and which has flexibility to perform a range of missions, then its a good investment.
In IAF service, the MiG-21 has done it all, and it has been retained for a long time (way past it should have been though), and in actual war, it scored A2A kills, made some very precise attacks (against Pak airfield in EPak now Bangladesh, rocketed the Governors house etc) – and then with the Bis version became truly multirole and with good A2A Missiles (Magic).
So I think it was a good performer for its day. Not an uber fighter like the F-16 but very useful.
Nick_76Air Bases are equally vulnerable to SSM’s – theres a reason why the FSU developed and deployed substantial numbers of SSM’s.
Nick_76The IAF used their MiG-21s to good effect in 1971. Judging Russian aircraft by their performance in Arab hands is not particularly useful, since they never really deployed and developed their own doctrine and training and suffered. (’73 was a better performance than the disastrous ’67 though).
In IAF hands/training, a well flown MiG-21 w/ Magic-2s has been competitive against practically every a/c the IAF has. Latest victim being the Su-30 K’s.
Nick_76Indeed it was nasty…if I remember rightly the good Lt had been ‘extracting the urine’ out of the Germans a little earlier in the deployment observing that any nation that had no word in its language for ‘fluffy’ could not be taken seriously.
I think the comment, following the ground flight analysis, from the German was that if he knew enough to fake out the ‘broken lock’ that the Serbian pilots would be just as capable of pulling the manoever….finishing off with the comment that such a thing would not be so ‘fluffy’!!!. He who laughs last etc!.
Very interesting…two queries though…not related to just the topic, but:
Is taking the p*** , as it is called, very common in Brit culture, or is it just one of those side things which occasionally happen?
Also, whats “fluffy”, does it mean anything apart from the normal meaning of the word?
As it turned out Nick Richardson did end up getting himself shot down in ALLIED FORCE when he took a Strela, or some such, in one of his hot nozzles after making repeated 1000lb dumb ordnance delivery passes over a serb tank trying to get a bombing solution from the Blue Fox set – which wasnt playing the game in its air-ground mode that day.
Target fixation!!
A thing common to many many pilots over the world, including many senior, highly experienced types.
I think one of the biggest things combat experience does is it tells you exactly how much you can push yourself & what risks to take. But its learnt the hard way, like many things in life. :rolleyes::(
I have a bet that some of those Russian Su-25s lost in Georgia may have been lost the same way..
Nick_76Yeah, but this should be evidence enough to counter any DDM claims of lack of TOT and what not.
Also,
http://frontierindia.net/drdo-to-market-its-products-globally
Orders for the development of Radar Computer –I & Radar Computer – II and their software for fitment on SU-30 aircraft received from Malaysia;
Upgradation of display processor for SU-30 MK (A) aircraft received from Algeria;Development of six numbers of Airborne Antennas also received from Poland.
Two numbers of Battle Field Surveillance Radar-S2 have been supplied to Indonesia.
Which means even the software was developed by DRDO and they get royalties on its sale.
Idiots dont know PR.
I think if the Indian Army continues to act snooty, they should just sell the Arjun abroad.
Its increasingly clear DRDOs work is world class and they should look abroad if the services in India cant get their procurement act together.
The MRTA (ADA is supposed to work on the FBW), LCH projects (avionics) can contribute as well.
Nick_76You didn’t even ask me what the pic was? Its actually a screen shot of the OLS-30 clip from the HAL promo video.
Actually I was thinking I’ll act enigmatic and you’ll fess up. Ok, now that you have confessed, youtube it!! :D:D
From the clip its not evident if its a mfg line or maintainance line, either way its a very important pic which gives another glimpse of the MKI “program”.
Looks like a final integration and test area to me..
Also depends when its taken, the avionics seem to be in Phase 3 production now, which is pretty good afai am concerned.
Track 16 ?? Ok if they say so, after all the shiny brochures are always right.
15 — 16 is not such a big deal apart from the fact that the RC1 and RC2 were essential to obtain this, and they do more than target tracking as well.
The original Russian comp equipped Bars was nowhere near.
The more impt point is Phase 3 production. Thats “raw material” stage. If we see the huge facilities & investment, and the fact its at Stage 3 already, I am a happy camper.
Check your PM btw.
Oh and for all you mathematicians and statisticians I got definite proof that the MKI wishes it was the B-2 Spirit. So you finally has something to ding the MKI with: a personality disorder.
Lost you completely here..:confused:
Nick_76LOL. Whoops. Okay, but all that article says that they’ll complete “several more”. And they’ve only got 16 anyway. That’s even fewer than the number of B-2s flying.
Yeah well, with 141 Tu22M3’s and 40 odd Tu-95’s, they arent exactly short of bombers. 😉
Whats more important is to upgrade a bunch of these to current gen standards in avionics & keep flight hours to par.
Nick_76Why re-invent the wheel? Just think of those juicy offsets & voluptuous ToT agreements for MMRCA!!
Plus, if the West puts technological/dual-use sanctions on Russia over Georgia- India will be elevated to uber-best buddy status. Watch for more high-tech JVs as a matter of necessity, with no bickering over ToT & costing.
No-matter how PAK-FA AESA progresses, I’ll bet they’re aching to get a close look at AN/APG-79/ CaptorM etc.
Fair points.
I hadnt thought of the Georgia issue much.
I wonder how much worse West- Russian relations will plummet if Mc Cain comes in. He’s a Cold War-rior for sure.
Lets wait and watch whether some good JV’s for fighter radars take off.
DRDO says it has many offers for partnership & they are correct.
In 2007, they were offered an AESA by NIIP.
In 2008, EADS came knocking with the Captor-E system.
But I doubt non Russian systems will be used on the PAK-FA since integration will be a pain.
My take is two lines will develop:
One a locally customized radar for the PAK-FA & MKI MLU with NIIP.
Second, AESAs with IAI or EADS for the LCA/MCA and other local programs such as UAVs and UCAVs.
Nick_76Jonesy thats a very interesting account!
The second merge didnt go so well though as, again, he went for the notch and again he heard the lock break. He started his manoever back and found the MiG-29 in his face with a swiftly re-enabled lock. According to the Luftwaffe pilot he didnt quite hit the notch and the German deliberately broke the lock to make Richardson think he’d gotten away with it. It was then a simple matter for him to position for the SHAR’s pullout and reactivate his weapons system….bang.
Nasty!!!
Nick_76Yeah well India has been lagging in fighter radars, there simply isnt enough manpower and funding allocated for these projects.
Hopefully, the cooperation with Elta for the LCA MMR, and whomsoever is chosen for the AESA system in development will mark a new era.
Right now, India is doing pretty well in ground based radar systems but the number of new projects have stretched the capabilities to a high limit…
Nick_76I think it was a bit of lousy planning on the INs side. They probably thought that the Gorshkov was right around the corner with its MiG-29s, so why bother with the maint intensive “yesterdays” SHars. Only to discover the Gorshkov wasnt coming anytime soon, and then they had to rush forward with the SHar upgrade. Oh well. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
But on the plus side, the MiG-29Ks appear to be terrific birds, only that they might not have a carrier to fly off from for a couple of years. :rolleyes::p
Nick_76Sens
Yes there was a difference. Blue Vixen was a very much more capable air-air performer. There was a sequence of comments from USN F-14 and F-18 pilots, after one of the Purple exercise serials, that we’re ‘killed’ by FA2 complaining that their RWR kit hadnt picked up the SHAR launches that killed them. It turned out that the American RWR gear was keyed to look for a PRF shift to initiate the launch detection and Blue Vixen never needed to make the PRF shift.
Basically the Blue Vixen launched AMRAAMs in TWS mode and didnt need to go to STT (lock on) which would make the RWR’s wail. Now with ARH’s proliferating, you get the RWR “indication” and you have to assume that the other guy may have launched on you, if he’s close enough. Scary stuff for pilots. Incidentally, the above (about the PRF shift/ TWS) is pretty much the same why RDY-2 equipped Mirage 2000’s did very well in NATO exercises a year or two back. Their opponents were waiting for the familiar STT lock on, that didnt happen and the Mirages had “launched” on them with simulated MICA-EMs.
Ken,
I think you may be getting confused with the later book by Nick Richardson. He described DACT with a pair of Luftwaffe MiG-29’s which involved his FRS.1 getting shot in the face after a couple of failed attempts at ‘doppler notching’!.
Would you have more details on this Jonesy, esp about the BVR battle?
Thanks!
Nick_76Ken,
What you write makes ample sense, and IMO you are dead on rights.
Allow me to explain, for one because the Blue Fox, didnt perform too well in look down over clutter.
Second, corroborating experience from the other side of the world, the IN.
IN pilots are quite happy its being replaced by the Elta 2032, given attrition however, its a mugs game about how long those 10 SHars will last.
Anyways, to come back to the topic, in SHar vs Rafale, the Rafale pilots praised the IN’s WVR skills and also noted that if it was BVR, it was bye bye for the SHars since the latter didnt have anything equivalent.
In SHar vs F/A-18’s, the same case.
So most definitely, it has to be without BVR for the SHar to even stand a chance.
And Sharkey Wards engagements vs the F-15s predate the SHar getting equipped with the excellent Blue Vixen & AMRAAM.
In WVR, the SHar has a very good fighting chance. It is very small (making it very hard to pick up), has that nifty TVC allowing it to perform quick maneuvers, and its radar is sufficient in close combat modes. Plus both sides would have the same vintage sidewinder.
IMHO, the only good option for the F-15 is to zoom and boom, rather than turn and burn. If Ward & co, got the F-15s to do the latter, then the SHars have a very good chance.
After all, thats what ACM is about, to exploit your weapons systems to the hilt whilst denying your opponent the same.
My 2 Rupees.
Nick_76This basically confirms that India received the Bars codes for weapons integration on its own. Interesting, will save India a lot of money & time in putting additional stuff on the MKIs..
Sign In
