FWIW

To some one who I had a discussion with some time back , since I was under the same impression that the Akash range is under stated , the actual range in powered flight is ~ 32 km but as most of the energy is consumed during the boost phase of the flight the DRDO figures of ~ 28 km for Akash is correct and not understated,

Refer my post earlier about brochure ranges versus operational ranges. The Akash range is understated from the marketing gimmick viewpoint. So are its other capabilities. This is what often creates comparison- non comparisons, so as to say.

A certain OEM was recently proudly handing out leaflets of a system that relied on early-90’s dsp equipment, with associated supportability & performance concerns but the slickness of the presentation had to be seen to be believed. The Akash otoh, which is built around an upgradeable architecture and uses current gen systems, was absent from the entire PR fare.

Similarly, most of the data on the Akash (including the Akash website) is a mix of obsolete and correct news.

the akash batteries can be allocated a spare FCR which comes online only if the first one gets hit. not inconceivable considering that the up-front price of the akash system isn’t exorbitant..

Not to mention that with the 3D Car available & the group C3I, the Akash FCR can be activated at the launch range, minimizing reaction time & countermeasures. The combination of radars, the multifunction capabilities built into the Raj, and the C3I allow for several options not available with legacy systems.

Teer, I was under the impression that Akash never coasted because it never has an unpowered flight state , Akash USP because of rocket/ramjet was always labeled as powered flight all the way and like solid propulsion SAM Patriot,BUK never coasted.

But probably once it starts coasting after the end of powered flight , it will not have the kind of end game energy to deal with all but non-manouvering targets , in that case it will have to gain height and then use the energy to hit targets below while it coast.

Thats exactly the point.

The brochure specifications of various missiles include a coasting range whereas the Akash range is for *only* powered flight throughout.

Which is why saying x missile has 10 km more range than the Akash etc is sort of meaningless.

The person in regard – again, not from the development side, actually scoffed when a well publicized system was named on grounds of greater range, saying that “printed claims” were not reliable unless verified.

Similarly, the Akash team has been very upfront about what it has and does not have, the IAF knows exactly what the status of what it can and cannot do and have and will continue to ask for additions, thats part of the deal.

The point made was this level of transparency and IAF deciding what is the trial capability is often not available for third party systems whose weapon trials occur in heavily scripted conditions with very limited IAF involvement.
Let alone upgrades even when newer tech becomes available. The IAF got so fed up of arm twisting over some legacy OEM gear costs re: upgrades for maintainability, that it actually did them on its own & got Bangalore & Hyderabad based firms to develop customized ATE that reduced MMH by a significant amount.

Glad to see China is not the only nation using Soviet/Russian tech to influnce own programs.

I notice no one is shouting “copy”.

Do you agree if this weapon is deployed with PLA, people would be shouting “copy”?

Developing nations only hope to try to catch up is to learn from leaders, in this case the Russians, innovation costs alot of money. Judging from Indian defence industry perfromance, it seems like it is starved of money and expertise.

The Indian defence industrys performance far outweighs your nations & right now, given what I see, its neither starved of money or expertise. Its doin’ ok – and something which should give you pause for thought once you get off your jingoistic horse.

While I am hardly trying to put down Akash, its just that when DRDO labeled the product as “world-class”, I was just curious as to what they were referring to.

More-over the website mentions that they are working on Mk-II version with increased range. That would, in some sense, bring it more in line with Buk’s capabilities.

Regards,
Ashish.

The Akash IS a world class missile and this is from an evaluator who was actually witness to the trials at a seminar earlier this year.

The reasons:
-Akash specifications are actually understated – the 30 km range refers to the distance when Akash is actually maneuvering under active propulsion to engage a maneuvering target. It does not include the coast distance as an artificial maximum Rmax limit.
– Akash ECCM is world class. In tests, the FCR + Akash combo did exactly what it promised, namely counter ECM at tests in central India at an IAF base- the IAF by the way, operates a variety of DRFM equipped jammers. The Rajendra FCR also incorporates Track on Jam features.
– The main surveillance radar also incorporates a variety of ECCM features.
– In tests, the missile -radar system combo has been able to distinguish between and target closely aligned targets in an intense clutter environment, something which several of its worldwide peers have not been able to reliably demonstrate in tests.
-The entire system is very automated, the missile launch handoffs, the status checks, BITE – all exist, are functional and have been demonstrated repeatedly. The entire system feeds into a group grid which can keep track of around 200 high fidelity tracks and determine which battery should engage which priority threat, again available automatically. The system is very software intensive & offers the operators a range of options.
– The hardware is modern & built around a high degree of periodic technology insertion. Unlike legacy and even current gen systems from the erstwhile SU, which have a bewildering mix of legacy and modern COTS gear, the entire Akash system is built around modern, digital architecture. Not only does it make lifecycle support that much easier, it also allows for periodic upgrades.

There are several more advantages to the Akash, but let this be the starter..

SOC, about Akash versus Buk et al, I’m afraid for various reasons, I’d rather not get into details, but what the relevant authorities have said, about the Akash being superior (note: in some criteria, not all) – is actually dead to rights. What India has often discovered (a bit too late) is what is on offer on paper, in brochures, is not what it is, in reality. Where the difference is most apparent, is in the last point of my post.

You sound convinced, is it that difficult to consider the possibility that the Su-30 really was just outmatched by the Typhoon ?

I am convinced as I know the facts at hand, and dont need to rely on silly jingoism made in broadsheets by anonymous commentators. Anonymous, because if they put their real name and credibility on the line, the truth would be out via open rebuttals & that would’nt do them any good.

Here’s some food for thought.

http://www.aviapedia.com/news/indian-flankers-beat-raf-tornados-20061212

http://www.topgunspecial.ro/eng/articole/il78/il_78_midas.html

http://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/EFReviewIssue2.pdf

All of which are PR puff pieces and dont reveal anything of what went on in the exercise OR even invalidate what i said, including the bit about the MKIs not using their Bars radar. Both sides walked away confident about their capabilities, including the Indian side which protected both TVC deployment and radar signatures.

Before or after the exercise ;)Seriously though the only comments I’ve read along those lines were from RAF pilots, F3 drivers specifically.

RAF F3 pilots did not comment publically on the MKI during Indradhanush. My comments are in specific with relation to the EF vs the MKI matchup during Indradhanush after the exercise from the IAF point of view and not based on jingoistic claims made to the press by PR puffpieces.

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2007/441indians/indra.htm

I don’t think anybody doubts that the MKI would have a clear advantage in manoeuvrability at low speed thanks to TVC, but the Typhoons performance at higher speeds would have to be contended with before that advantage even comes into play.

The problem here is that you need to look more into what speeds the 1 vs 1s are conducted at, and namely the speeds at which the MKIs have conducted TVC employment so far. The speeds, as you assume, arent really low and nor did the MKIs employ their TVC to effect in Indradhanush.

And yet some still have no problem believing that it managed to equal or better the Typhoon in BVR engagements despite this handicap ? :rolleyes:

Unattributed comments and silly smileys are not impressive. Nowhere did I mention that the MKIs defeated the Typhoons. I only mentioned that the MKIs fought with a clear handicap and any conclusions based on that employment would be premature, given what the Bars has demonstrated so far. If you take this to be proof of Typhoon superiority in the radar arena, you would be kidding yourself.

I never claimed that Fornof flew against the Su-30MKI at Red Flag, in fact I never even touched on half the stuff you brought up in the rest of your post aside from the tactics Col Fornof described in that video.

What I brought up was germane to point out that Fornofs description of tactics et al, is quite fanciful and he was playing to the gallery.

If he had actually fought the MKIs at Red Flag or was a lead contributor to the event as part of the Nellis crew, his words would deserve merit. They dont.

He makes a series of elementary mistakes throughout the video, some of which I didnt even mention, including the wrong weapon designations and equipment fits.

The 21:1 kill ratio you mention is the claim of an Indian journalist Vishnu Som, it has not been confirmed by either the USAF or the IAF, and even according to Mr Som himself the claimed kill ratio wasn’t attributed solely to the MKI but rather to the entire Blue force that they were a part of.

Get your facts right please.

First the 21:1 figure is not from Som, but from Pushpindar Singh Chopra, the official historian of the Indian Air Force, and the proprietor and publisher of the Vayu Aerospace Review, independent India’s leading aerospace dedicated journal. He quotes the Indian Air Force experience at Nellis and at Mountain Home. Incidentally, his overall testimony is borne out by corroborating testimony by Vishnu Som, a senior TV journalist.

Second, Pushpindar Singh Chopra, because of his pedigree and status was contacted by Flight International for details which he provided.

Third, the details, if you read the article, refer to the Mountain Home workup, not the LFE at Nellis, which Vishnu Som refers to in another article. The kill ratio there has not even been provided by the IAF, and why should they, as the debate was about Mountain Home to begin with.

Fourth, as you clearly didnt read what was written:
There is no need to go in for ‘kill ratios’ as that would be demeaning. However, the IAF had significant edge throughout and retained it. In fact the true lesson for the USAF should be : ‘do not field low value legacy equipment against the Su-30MKI’ !.
(demeaning or otherwise, it is understood that the kill ratio (at Mountain Home AFB) was 21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs).

Heres the link again:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html

ou could have saved yourself the time it took writing several paragraphs giving an overview of the performance of the Su-30MKI at Red Flag and various other exercises if you had read my posts more carefully and realised I was referring to the MKI’s performance at Mountain Home, and more specifically to the tactics which Col Fornof describes in his presentation.

Given the fact that you dont seem to even discern that a lot of what Fornof has said has been dismissed as rubbish, and that you yourself have not read what Flight has printed about the Mountain Home workups in detail, its ironic for you to accuse others of “not reading posts carefully”.

Second, my post about the MKI performance in Red Flag is germane to point out the mistakes made in the presentation by Fornof, who is clearly blowing sunshine…

I don’t doubt that the MKI is a more capable platform than either the F-16 Block50/52 or Tornado F3, but nothing that you wrote above addresses the specific point raised – that the post stall manoeuvres performed by the MKI far from being a decisive advantage in a dogfight were actually being exploited by USAF pilots to gain a decisive advantage over the MKI in the way Fornof mentions in his presentation.

Which only goes to show that you have not even read the article to see
what has been explicitly rebutted by the IAF via Pushpindar Singh Chopra.

Do read through the quotes , as this time, they have been brought out so that you dont miss them.

Since you seem to be be having troubles referencing the data at hand, perhaps this may help.

The IAF did not undertake any IvIs at Nellis during Red Flag, nor did they engage thrust vectoring during the Exercise. IvIs were flown only at Mountain Home AFB. [b]In none of the IvIs were the Su-30MKIs ever vulnerable, let alone shot down. As all exercises were flown with ACMI, the situations are recorded and available to substantiate this aspect. Additionally, the MKI’s behaviour with thrust vectoring is dramatically different from that described by the Colonel. F-15 and F-16 aircrew were well appreciative of IAF manoeuvres with thrust vectoring.

Colonel Fornof’s statement on Su-30MKI rates of turn with thrust vectoring (20o/ sec) is grossly ‘out’ but apparently gives away actual F-22 performance (28o/sec) Pitch of the talk seemed as to whether thrust vectoring was important or not. As all sorties were with ACMI, entire profiles are recorded, can be analysed and surely would have been replayed to drive the point home and make the ‘chest thumping’ sound more real. Apparently this was not done. Perhaps, as the Colonel is aware of F-22 data, he has tried to down play the Su-30MKI in comparison.

Ergo, Fornof was wrong about both the MKI performance in TVC, its TVC rates and even the real results themselves. Hence, the open IAF challenge to Fornof to produce the ACMI tapes.

Namely, the IAF had a 21:1 kill ratio at Mountain Home.

That the claims made by Fornof were specious and did not occur – and that their statements are proven by ACMI tapes taken at Mountain Home.

That his claims of turn rates were also untruthful and wrong.

In short, almost every other statement made by Fornof was wrong. That you choose to deny a categorical rebuttal from the IAF POV to suit your misconceptions in order to buttress an imaginary victory for the EF is pointless.

I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion as aside from some 1v1 WVR engagements there was no ‘EF vs MKI’ in the exercise, both types were flown as part of mixed packages as far as I’m aware and no real specifics were revealed, mainly just generalised politically correct PR statements regarding the performance of both aircraft in the exercise.

Kindly read what I wrote before tilting at windmills and misconstruing what I clearly wrote. That there were were no one on one matchups in the BVR arena. And the MKIs did not use TVC either for those anon comments to matter wrt that phase either.

How is claiming that their evenly matched any more reasonable than claiming that one would win every time ? both statements are unfounded until further information comes to light proving either assertion correct.

It is ridiculous to claim that one would be the clear victor based on information already available and from the IAF’s experiences with the type both via Indradhanush as well as EF briefings in AeroIndia.

I pointed out the reality as well namely, that both aircraft have pros and cons. Anyone serious would take that as enough, but clearly, only the “EF must be superior” belief seems to stick w/you – wonder why!

In fact, any seasoned professional in the industry would state that the side with the greater integrated, war machine would dominate as compared to seeing which fighter is better from the fanboy point of view.

And I may even point out that as it stands, the MKI has a much more robust payload and other kit capability than the EF, with multiple systems integrated already – in fact, even for the MMRCA contest, the EF team are busy trying to convince the IAF that they’d speed things up and even do more to provide capabilities which the MKI already has, and that too by 2014-15. These things matter for warfighting and the MKI is already there.

Furthermore, while there is yet debate about even continued production of the EF for originally intended users, upgrades and the need for exports to compensate thanks to budget cuts, the MKI upgrade to provide capabilities FAR beyond what it already has, is already under development and with confirmed intent, to be fielded by 2014-15 (cite: AVM PK Barbora, Oct 2009).

To look at it from a fanboy POV, that would take the MKI substantially ahead of the EF program as it stands, but I really dont care, because what matters is system of systems, namely the deployment of integrated capabilities in an effective manner, not whose d!ck is biggest or what is fancier in paper specs.

The British Defense Industry is not particulary expensive or inefficient by comparison with the rest.
And before someone starts with the “Nimro…”, there are equivalent (huge) fxxxx ups in almost every military industrial complex that i can remember (well, Sweden might be the exception).

Agreed.

Of the developed economies, Australias seem to be struggling the most (for its size) eg the latest Collins mess, though its hard for anyone to match the scale of the US’s occasional messup given how big US programs are in general (how many billions for the Comanche, again?)..

This is often due to us already having the infrastructure to produce the thing, & being unwilling to close it down, & import instead. We’re not in the same position as a country which has never built tanks or modern combat aircraft, for example.

There has been something of a move away from this in recent years, e.g. buying Aster, Sylver & S1850, instead of developing British equivalents, or buying the Shadow R.1 more or less off the shelf.

Fair point about using what exists and not letting it go, but programs such as the EF end up becoming so complex, that they literally require a new era of investment in R&D and then tooling for manufacture, and this despite being a consortium approach. Some decisions also appear very political, ie jobs for locals etc…but then I guess thats the same everyplace. Overall, it still surprises me though that despite having such a huge budget, the UK still appears to be struggling. I am probably not taking the wage component of cost into account, I guess (expensive in developed nations).