Alpha Bravo2 near-misses by IAF jets in one day
NEW DELHI: An IAF fighter being scrambled to intercept an unidentified flying object (UFO) coming from Pakistan and breaching its assigned flying level, and another military aircraft trying to land on a closed runway, both on the same day, had civilian aviation authorities screaming “near-misses” earlier this month.
In the more serious incident on February 20, a Sukhoi-30MKI fighter apparently breached its assigned flying level to come dangerously close to two passenger aircraft but still could not be contacted by the ATC to correct its course. Fortunately, a tragedy was averted with the passenger aircraft successfully staying clear of the Sukhoi.
“The civilian air traffic control had assigned this aircraft flying level of 22,000 feet. The aircraft instead went way higher and went to 35,600 feet. This level and the adjoining level was assigned to two international airliners, one of Thai, other KAR Airways,” said a highly-placed aviation official.
IAF, however, said the Sukhoi had been scrambled to intercept a UFO which was detected moving towards the international border with Pakistan near Amritsar. “The UFO later turned out to be a weather balloon adrift. There was no near-miss,” said an IAF officer.
But civilian authorities maintained that the Sukhoi, while wrongly ascending in the Amritsar airspace, breached the minimum vertical safety level with the two civilian aircraft which, between them were carrying over 500 passengers. Instead of the minimum 1,000-feet separation, the Sukhoi was just 700 feet away from the planes while wrongly zooming up the stratosphere.
During these hair-raising moments, the ATC frantically tried to contact the Sukhoi but could not establish contact with the pilot. But the scarier bit came when the plane landed in Ambala. “We were told that the defence authorities asked the pilot as to what happened and why did he deviate from his assigned level. And the pilot reportedly told the authorities that his aircraft’s altitude measuring machine (altimeter) was not working,” said the official.
The other incident took place when an IAF AN-32 transport aircraft came close to wrecking havoc on other aircraft in the vicinity by trying to land on a closed runway at the Delhi airport. Aviation officials said the AN-32 was supposed to land on runway 09 but instead tried to land on runway 10. “We detected the anomaly at the last moment and guided it to its designated runway. There seems to have been some fault at the pilot’s end,” the official said.
Alpha BravoSeven sailors hurt, 2 officers missing after accident on Indian Navy submarine INS Sindhuratna
Seven sailors were injured and two officers are missing after an accident on board Indian Navy submarine INS Sindhuratna off the Mumbai coast today. The submarine is headed back to the shore after it was forced to surface when smoke was detected on board.
The accident took place in the early hours of Wednesday. The injured sailors, who fell unconscious from suffocation, were airlifted to a Navy hospital in Mumbai. Reports suggest that a fire may have broken out on the vessel.
The INS Sindhuratna was being sea tested after a refit, about 40 to 50 km off the Mumbai coast when the smoke was detected. The senior-most submarine officer of the Western Naval Command was on board.
The Russian-origin Kilo Class submarine was carrying no weapons or ammunition. Since it was still in testing mode, it had not been placed under operational command yet.
While the Indian Navy is yet to release an official statement on the mishap, sources in the Navy have reportedly told news agency PTI that a leakage in the battery compartment of the submarine could have caused the smoke.
This is the 10th mishap involving an Indian Navy warship and the third submarine accident in the last seven months.
In August last year, Navy submarine INS Sindhurakshak sank in the Mumbai harbour after an explosion on board, killing 18 sailors. (Salvage contract of INS Sindhurakshak to be finalised soon: Navy chief)
Earlier this month, an amphibious warfare vessel INS Airavat ran aground after which its commanding officer was stripped of his command duties
Alpha BravoSeems very interesting, although too early to say for what purpose, it could be some project for a foreign partner as well, or some RCS R&D for a US contractor. I’m sure if it really was a top secret project, they wouldn’t be taking the risk of moving it out in the open in daylight, so it can’t be that sensitive I guess. The scale looks about 90% actual size.
Alpha BravoFins are not square because they hold fuel. There is no fuel in caps themself. Hard to tell if fins hold fuel judging by those pictures since panellines are not clearly defined. However the one panel that is clearly seen is Su-27 style and not Su-30MKK/M2 style. So if i were to throw a guess, i would say they do not.
I thought only the flat square tipped fins were the ones holding internal fuel, as on the MKK/M2, while the clipped fin tips were only used on empty dry fins? I meant that the fin ends were an indication of whether the fins held any fuel or not, not that the fin caps themselves held any fuel.
Alpha Bravo@ Ken,
You are correct and like Blitzo already explained the main difference are the old-style fin-caps, the new radome/radar and the WS-10A engines. Otherwise we saw prototype ‘1603’ with the new standard SR-AAM PL-10, which has shorter fins and as such it might be a hint that it will no longer use the PL-8.
What’s now the most interesting point or question for me: What unit will be the first to receive this new type ???
Deino
Does that mean the fins don’t hold fuel as on the MKK/MKK2? Does the J-16 also have the larger internal fuel capacity as he MKK/MKK2?
Alpha BravoThe PAF appear to have used a number of different types of platforms and munitions against the Taliban before, couple of videos I came across…
Sub-munitions
And what appear to be LGBs, but not sure what platforms these are being launched from, can anyone ID the HUD symbols? The terrain looks quite challenging, as shown by the AoA and roll manoeuvres being performed to get the ideal firing solution.
Alpha BravoPAF acquires F-16s from Jordan
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-28662-PAF-acquires-F-16s-from-Jordan
Interesting bits and bobs here!
1) This means PAF can now raise another F-16MLU squadron as it will now have 58 F-16s, previously it had 45 divided between 2 sqds. This will give it a total of 4 F-16 sqds if you include the Block 52 sqd. Suspect it may get a non-upgraded Mirage sqd that gets replaced.
2) The birds are MLU’d, but pretty sure it is not the same standard as the MLU PAF F-16s are going through in Turkey (Tape 6?)
3) Not the first time the US had authorised Jordan to transfer US fighters to Pakistan (done in the 70s with F-104s)
I think the PAF should have a total of about 76 F-16s, all equivalent to the Block-50/52 standard, assuming these 13 ex-RJAF examples are inducted and after the TAI upgrades of the original Block-15 OCU airframes. Any details on why the RJAF decided to sell their MLU Vipers? I think these were originally ex Belgian or Dutch F-16s that went through Block-15 MLU?
Alpha BravoEgypt’s purchase of Mig-29 fighters, air and coastal defence systems, Mi-35 attack helicopters.
This is quite a change for the EAF. How many Mig-29s can they get for $3bn? Will it be the Mig-35 variant? And what do Saudi and UAE get out of funding this? If anything, they were more closely allied to the previous Muslim Brotherhood government that was overthrown by the military.
Alpha BravoSo why is Boeing so painstakingly highlighting stealth in its Post-F-18 fighter plans? 🙂 .. Their life could be made much easier if the NGAD and FAXX had “bolt-on” stealth ! At the end of the day pilots (especially those working for the OEM) can claim what they want, the OEM responds to the specs released by the service (s) .. In case of the 5th gen multi role fighter, both boeing and Lockheed (along with others) responded with a full stealth airframe (for its time)…Why did boeing not claim that ” stealth isnt needed most of the time” then? Its funny that an OEM wishes to be taken seriously lobbying for a product that is inherently inferior in VLO compared to the services demand and claims actual superiority because of it. At the end of the day the F-18 Advanced SH NG (Simple advanced SH is not at hte level of the F-35 in terms of gizmos and electronics) is still going to be massivly compromised product, that delivers an inferior product “LATE” to the services..(the F-35 C will still come in quicker given that its well into its testing whereas this hypothetical varient is still just in prototype stage)..Cost comparisons don’t really mean much if you are getting a product that is completely different from the other..
Yes, I admit there is significant OEM “spin” to be taken into account. But we also have to consider the fact that VLO has not been a requirement for any of the conflicts since the end of the Cold War. The US and allied nations have never really taken on a credible A/A threat in the same vein as the former USSR was capable of providing. It’s been mostly low intensity conflicts that have never really needed VLO. Ok, I guess there could be an argument made for GWI, but even that proved to be less demanding than anticipated. It’s also unlikely that there will be a significant need for VLO in the future either, unless of course there is WWIII among the great powers (Russia, China, US and Europe).
Alpha BravoProbably not more cost effective to operate Supers from the RN carriers, seeing how they would be good for one take off, landing would be a bit of an issue.
Well the RN were planning to convert their next gen carriers into CATOBAR for the F-35C, before switching back to the original STOBAR/F-35B combo, so if the SH was considered from the outset instead of the F-35B, it could have been possible.
Alpha BravoWell, with the staggering cost escalations and delayed schedule of the F-35, as well as trying to do too much with a single airframe, it does raise questions on whether more advanced “silent” versions of existing platforms would have been way cheaper and more effective way to go. There’s been discussions here in the UK recently on the significant cost of the F-35B acquisition, it’s effectiveness and long lead time to service. I just wondering whether a few squadrons of advanced Super Hornets would have been a better choice for the RN on its new carriers.
Alpha BravoOne of pilots in that video clip claims that in most cases a VLO requirement isn’t really needed. Makes me wonder, could an advanced version of the Hornet with these features, an AESA and F-35 style next gen avionics been a more cost effective and more capable solution than the F-35 itself?
Alpha BravoThe Saudis operated around 100 F-5s at some point, and although these were largely replaced by the Typhoon, could the Saudis be considering operating a more diversified fleet, including a more “lightweight” and cheaper (to buy and to operate) fighter, but one that includes a potent mix of weapons, including BVR, stand-off and ASM/AShM missiles? And more importantly, an entire weapons package that doesn’t come with any political strings attached, particularly in light of the recent souring of relations with the US over the Middle East and Syria?
Alpha BravoA couple of news reports on the FC-1/JF-17.
The first one shows a good view of the cockpit, MFDs, HUD, HOTAS controls and symbology. The MMI looks very clean and well organised, very similar to what we see in the Gripen, F-16, Rafale and Typhoon. There’s also some interesting weapon testing footage as well.
The second video is an interview, although not sure who the chap is, any ideas anyone? What’s also interesting is that at the 1:40 mark, there appears to be the Chinese “equivalent” of the Global Hawk being pushed along in the background! Any ideas where this was filmed? The serial number of the JF-17 (10-115) suggests this is a PAC manufactured bird, but it’s obviously in China somewhere. There’s also further footage of weapon testing, with some SD-10s seen in the background. Some further avionics/weapons development work for the PAF perhaps?
Alpha BravoWhat are the actual chances of the Saudis going for the JF-17, especially in light of the recent large scale US arms deal for more F-15s? The only reason could be the relatively lower costs of the JF-17, and lack of foreign restrictions on weapons such as the hypersonic CM-400 AKG ASM/AShM, the SD-10 series, as well as stand off weapons like the H2/H4 and Raad.
Saudi Arabia to upgrade fleet with Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunder jets
Saudi Arabia has shown interest in buying JF-17 Thunder jet fighter aircraft manufactured under Pakistan-China cooperation.
Citing a report published in US journal, Saudi Defence Ministry and Saudi Air Force are keenly examining the JF-17 Thunder program and mulling over their participation in it.
The report claimed that Pakistan has offered Saudi Arabia for joint manufacturing of JF-17 Thunder aircraft along with technology transfer. This offer was made to the Saudi Arabia Deputy Defence Minister Salman bin Sultan during his visit to Pakistan last week.
This would represent a potential significant strategic shift from Saudi Arabia, which has traditionally relied on US and Western defence technology for its military needs. The Royal Saudi Air Force, for example, is largely organised around its massive fleet of Boeing F-15 Eagles, with a couple European fighters also thrown into the mix. As recently as September 2010, the US announced a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, which included the sale of 84 new F-15s and upgrades on 70 of Saudi Arabia’s existing ones. It was the largest arms deal in US history.
Pakistan, for its part, has long been trying to find countries to buy the JF-17 in order to reduce the per-unit cost the Pakistan Air Force pays for procuring the plane.
Yet China and Pakistan have long struggled to find customers for the JF-17, which China calls the FC-1. This hasn’t been for lack of trying, as the two countries have aggressively marketed the plane over the last few years. For example, a Flight Global article in 2010 said that China was in negotiations with the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Venezuela, while Pakistan was in talks with Turkey and Egypt.
A defence accord between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia was signed in Islamabad on January 20th, while a similar agreement between Indonesia and Saudi Arabia was signed in Jakarta two days later.
Sign In
