RayRHere is a video of an IAF Mi-35 dropping a bomb.watch from 8:56 onwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y3EZQBYj0g&mode=related&search=
RayRIsrael and India to develop unmanned chopper?
By JPOST.COM STAFFPrint
Israel and India are considering the possibility of working together to develop an unmanned fighter helicopter, Israel Radio quoted Indian media as saying.
Former Navy Commander David Ben Ba’ashat visited New Delhi this week and discussed the initiative with his Indian counterparts.
Israel Radio added that military cooperation between Israel and India has grown recently with Jerusalem negotiating with New Delhi over the development of an air defense system requiring the investment of over USD 1.5 billion.(Barak-NG?)
Unmanned fighter helicopter?A rotary winged Predator?!
RayRVery interesting.
RayRI will address some points before I come to the crux of the issue here.
It’s unpardonably arrogant and boastful to say so, but I suspect that I have better sources than many who post here. That’s no reflection on me, I’m just a chimp with good sources, it’s a function of my job. And while my own uninformed opinion is worth no more than anyone else’s, when I’m reporting what is said by, or what I have learned from people who really know the air combat game, or a particular programme, then it’s not simply my ‘layman’s opinion’ it’s a report of what those particular experts are saying.
Thus on MMI, my own personal opinion is worth little – my own flying is mainly in light aircraft and I have no more qualification than a PPL. Even a HUD is outside my normal experience, and a few fast jet sorties over the years have given me no more than a ‘flavour’, not useful experience and certainly not expertise. But my profession gives me access to LARGE
numbers of people who really do know what is what, in a way that I didn’t have when I was a fanatically interested enthusiast, when I knew a handful of pilots, as many people do, and talked to people across the barriers at Farnborough and Paris, and blagged my way into the odd press conference.
I speak to frontline pilots and TPs most weeks, and I’ve spoken directly to people who have flown both Rafale and Typhoon. I’ve spoken to Su-27 and Su-30 pilots, and I’ve even spoken to the father of the Su-30, Igor Emelianov, and to his then-bosses, Nikitin and Simonov. The reasonable person can make up their own mind whether this access and exposure makes what I report useful, or whether it means that when I claim some anecdotal evidence it’s ‘delusions of grandeur’.
Nice resume.That wasnt sarcasm.I mean it.But isnt it kind-of pathetic when somebody tries to win arguments on the basis of their resume and not logic or reason.There’s a little story about an IA Col. who had no idea about engineering or building planes or tanks but he would come up with various opinions(and rightfully),but when ever anyone disagreed or tried to argue with reason he used to “drop his service records on the opponent’s head”.And now, all Indian posters here can attest to what people think of him.;)
You criticise JOUST while knowing nothing about it beyond what you’ve read on the Internet. So the threat was an “Su-35 withpredominantly Russian equipment” was it? Wrong. It was a “developed Su-27”, with the assumption that the aircraft would have been improved, across the board, as was commensurate with 10 years or 12 years (I can’t remember the figure) of real world development. (This degree of development did not happen, in the financially straitened circumstances of the post Cold War world, so the ‘developed ‘Flanker’ was far in advance of the Su-35). It was assumed that the radar would enjoy parity with Captor, and that the weapons would enjoy parity with the Typhoon weapons being modelled.
You harp on about JOUST not accurately simulating performance. QinetiQ had plenty of access to the best intelligence, and are reckoned to be pretty good when it comes to analysis. People who know (including Rand) are impressed by JOUST, whereas internet enthusiasts stung by the fact that their favourite fighter did poorly berate it and make accusations.
It being the upgraded Su-27 and not an Su-35 does not in anyway change the points I made about combat simulations.So if you want to hear those again,just ask,I will copy-paste them again for you.
Intelligence…hehheh!Inserting another confounding factor here.Best intelligence does not mean accurate intelligence.
You blithely talk about IAF sources and make claims about ID. I’ve spoken to many participants from ID (on both sides). I wonder whether you have?
Let me see..
So,I am lying,Nick_76 is also lying and the only opinion from the IAF side quoted publicly is also a lie.Well thats a sure shot conversation stopper.Not only that your hyper-inflated self pride makes it difficult for you to digest that indeed some other people might have some useful information.
You do claim that you spoke to “both” sides at ID,but I happen to remember that you also said in the other thread that Wng.Cdr. Chopra was in the Su-30 aircrew ,when infact he was the deputy leader of the contingent,and not included in the Su-30 aircrew…and neither did he fly.
No worry.We will just have a private laugh to ourselves thinking about the expression on the IAF guys face when you wanted to talk about that “AESA” on the Sukhoi…
Jeezus,you make hell of a sound talking about the MKI, for a person who came to know that BARS wasnt an AESA just the day before yesterday.:rolleyes:
BTW,disregard me,but know that when Nick_76 speaks about the IAF,people listen.;)
RayRThis is the kind of courtesy you were referring to on another thread, Nick?
That was the same type of courtsey shown by you in your previous posts.Dont like it when you get the same medicine back,do ya?
1) It’s not going to happen, except facing the F-22.
Sheesh,one would have thought there would be some explanation behind such a comment.But no,this is typical Jackonicko,where evreything gets stated in broad generic sweeps and that and only that is the ultimate truth,and however unreasonable that appears to anybody,there isnt any explanation forthcoming.
Thats all you mate.Sheesh.
2) Of course the Typhoon isn’t invulnerable, nor are its pilots supermen. It’s just better, overall, in the A-A role than Rafale or Su-30.
Yeah,and so would a EF fanboy assume.And exactly what is it that makes it so much better overall?I see you keep ranting about the radar,but have you considered that the BARS can actually be more powerful than the Captor in terms of range and such stuff that you keep splitting your hair about?
JOUST doesn’t prove it, of course but it’s a useful piece of supporting evidence
JOUST,was done in 1990s,when every one of those planes were in prototype stage.And you keep repeating validated by SILVE,when you yourself dont even know what SILVE actually stands for.I dont think I would be to far off the mark if I suggested that you dont actually have that much information about SILVE and just know this that “JOUST has been validated by SILVE”.A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing to base your conclusions upon.
Just like the evidence provided by evaluation pilots from potential customer nations, and from numerous Typhoon pilots, frontline and TPs, and those who’ve come up against the jet in combat. It’s about building a picture and it’s about weight of evidence. It’s really not rocket science.
Repetition.Just as the evidence provided by many sources in the IAF suggest that in ID the MKIs handled the Typhoons quite well.Although the IAF pilots are indeed very impressed with the EF in some areas,but they held their own against the EFS.None of your repetitions are going to change this basic fact.
Unsubstantiated claims you say,well..well..isnt that a case of a pot calling a kettle black.Neither have your claims been substantiated by anything concrete..nothing new actually,since people actually keep their eyes open while browsing this forum and they see that you have been doing the same thing over and over and over again.
F-22 did exceptionally well. Typhoon did well. F-15 did better than you’d have expected. The reason that I get annoyed with the half wits is that it’s actually very simple. The performance of most aircraft was over-stated where there was any doubt, in order to make things realistically tough for Typhoon.
Yes only the F-22 and the EF.The performance cannot be overstated because you’d have to know the actual performance to overstate it.If Mig today made a simulation BVR between a Mig-29 and a Mig23,I’d say that would be very accurate,but its not the same when you’ve got the figures from only one side of the picture.
Furthermore,the simulation is nothing like real BVR warfare.True that actual pilots flew those missions,but there are a host of factors not even taken into account..for eg.ECM performance,or actual BVR misile performance.I can bet a hundred bucks which says the actual ECM characteristics or missile characteristics are known only to the pilots who use them and to the manufacturer..and gosh,none of them are even going to let that type of information out.
Its just not enough to say that the performance of the aircraft were overstated,for eg.the study was done with a Su-35 with predominantly Russian equipment,but the real Su-30 is nothing even like what was made out.It also contains a host of western equipment.
There are also othet things.Such as tactics and pilot skill.And they matter a lot when the planes in question have comparable qualities.Now you dont tell me that each and everytime,the EF pilots will run superior tactics to the flanker pilots or all of those pilots will be better skilled than their counterparts.And no simulation can match the real world in that.
So the USDIA or USAF or anybody can consider it impressive,but still its an impressive simulatin and not in fact the reality.
The notional threat aircraft was given parity in radar, missiles, pilot training, and support assets. Only if you think that the Su-30 has better than parity in these areas (BARS better range than Captor, R73 better than ASRAAM, etc.) would JOUST be unrealistic.
What evidence do you have that suggests that BARS cannot be better than the CAPTOR?
But again,this is just hairsplitting nothing else.A flight of networked flankers with AWACS support,tankers,escorted by other ECM aircraft and flown by skilled pilots can very well take on a similar flight of EFs.
In any case, JOUSTS results have been mirrored by SILVE – whose assumptions and scenarios were much more recent, and much more relevant. In any case, I’m not suggesting that JOUST on its own, or SILVE, are proof positive of anything, only that they are useful bits of supporting evidence.
All the caveats that apply to JOUSt do also apply to SILVE.A simulation cannot replace the real world.
The ‘Flanker’ wipes the floor with most aircraft at very low speeds, especially in its TV form, but its supersonic agility is nothing like as good as Typhoon’s (or even Rafale’s).
Supersonic agility of the flanker is infact quite good.And I hope you dont mean to say that supersonic agility is the be all and end all and all other features count for squat?
Where’s the evidence for that, then? There’s some anecdotal evidence to suggest the reverse – though it’s of limited value given the severe constraints of this exercise.
Its been repeated often enough,whats the anecdotal evidence fro the IAF side.Tell you a trick,it helps if you could open your eyes even a tiny bit if you want to see what the other person is saying..so that ,the other person doesnt have to keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again.
RayRI tend to post about JOUST only when half wits make stupid and ill-informed remarks about it, making groundless claims in an effort to dismiss its conclusions, which were fundamentally correct. I do find it interesting that SILVE confirmed its results so closely, so much more recently.
Yes, JOUST is the Bible,and anyone disagreeing is a heretic,as Spanish inquisitors would put it.
:rolleyes:
RayRShall we believe the internet then, TMor, and believe that Typhoon will get Brimstone under the austere package, and that the austere LDP may not be Litening?
Or will we believe that the truth is rather less exciting and much less impressive…?
I hesitate to say that “I’ve now spoken to people and so now know the truth…..”
since there are those who don’t believe anything unless there’s a URL attached……
So what?Some information might be wrong,but that does not mean that all the information from the internet is wrong.
Twisting words again.You make it sound as if all the info on the net are incorrect.
And about putting URLs,I do rarely see you put any at all in support of your claims and just make broad sweeping claims like hey its clear and no-one believes and such.
RayRYes you are correct, a super MANOUEVRABLE aircraft may NOT be agile, agility and manouvevrability are two different things. The MKI may be able to “Manouevere” at all speeds, greater than the typhoon especially in VERY low speed turns. However agility is the ability to retain energy and move quick such as the typhoons second-to-none climb and sustained turn performance, which with the Flanker ist bad :, but is not in the same league as the typhoon.:D
.Well you are correct,they are exactly not the same,but there are many common characteristics which influence both agility and manouevrability.And “super-manouevrability” is a term which encompasses both.
Anyway thats not even the point.The point is that both aircraft have certain features which are special,and when those put to correct use,can come up trumps.
As opposed to what Jackonicko would have us believe that because the Flanker is a fourth generation derivative and the Typhoon so much better aerodynamically that there isnt even a competition.
The most funny of all things about this is while we can argue about who is more agile and more manouevrable at low speeds,these characteristics assume their significance most prominently during turning WVR fights and Jackonicko was talking about BVR mainly.
RayRNo. My contention was more subtle. That ID produced nothing that contradicted JOUST, and what the exercise did reveal were aspects of Su-30 performance that tended to confirm it rather than the reverse.
Well..obviously,repeating something again and again doesnt make it more believable to me.I will again reiterate the view from the IAF side is that the MKI can very well go up against the Typhoon.
Lets end it here..what will I believe?Some persons whom I personally know or some anonymous journalist who by the way keeps making blatant mistakes one after another?:p
Again, not really accurate. I don’t claim that JOUST is ‘closer to reality’, period, only that the simulation was merely more representative of real-world BVR.
Twisting words.The simulation is more representative of real-world BVR than what?The ID flying?Huh!So in that case why are you trying to base your conclusions on the ID flying?
Again,if JOUST isnt closer to reality,whats this obssesion to prove that the ID flying results points towards its confirmation?It a simulation,it isnt closer to reality,so the indications gotten from ID which confirm JOUST cannot be close to reality right?!
Just good old circular logic.
The reality is that in ID the missions were very structured and didnot offer much freedom to either parties.And within the very little freedom provided it was seen that the MKIs and EFs match up very well to each other.To compare it with a simulation which you claim to be “more representative of real-world BVR” is just comparing apples to oranges.The planes didnt even use their radars,ECM etc.
Certainly inaccurate. The ‘Flanker’ is a previous generation fighter with some useful WVR capabilities, but lacking the supersonic performance and agility and the MMI of more modern fighters, of which Typhoon is merely an example.
Degenerating into generics.Now we are into discussion about previous generations and such things.Nothing specific,nothing concrete.
Well FYI the “Flanker” in its present form is a 4++ generation aircraft,as is the EF and the Rafale.Each of them have their advantages which if put to use wisely can defeat the other.Agility?A super-manouevrable aircraft with TVC isnt agile?:rolleyes:
RayReveryone to whom I have spoken who is read into the exercise
eg participating aircrew, ops people, etc
And whatever heard from the IAF participating aircrews,ops people etc. said nothing of that kind happened.What a wonder!
Though JOUST style classic BVR EF vs Typhoon set ups weren’t flown, the results of JOUST were repeated and validated in the more recent SILVE simulations.
So whats JOUST validated by SILVE got to do with ID?
Moreover, though representative sorties weren’t flown on ID, there were obviously relevant performance parameters which people were keen to see. Had Su-30 performed better in these areas than the ‘developed Flanker’ used as a threat in JOUST it would have implied that JOUST results would be over-optimistic, whereas if the Su-30 wasn’t as good as the ‘developed Flanker’ then it would imply that the JOUST results were pessimistic.
1.Since representative sorties were NOT flown,you cannot compare it with JOUST(if JOUST is at all closer to reality).
2.The performance parameters achieved depend on the sorties.Since the sorties werent themselves representative of the actual type of BVR warfare,the performance parameters achieved were not benchmark.
You may imagine what the parameters people might like to confirm would be. ID did not allow anyone to measure Su-30 weapons performance by comparison with the ‘parity weapons’ assumed during JOUST, nor was anyone able to compare BARS with the ‘Captor parity’ radar assumed in JOUST
Proves my point again.
There were opportunities to look at turn rates (though you’d have to assume that the Indian pilots might have been holding back) and at IRST performance.
But there were no unpleasant surprises (much better turn performance, better sensor performance, etc.) to suggest that JOUST was over-optimistic, and indeed some of what the RAF saw suggested that the developed ‘Flanker’ modelled during JOUST was a more capable aircraft than the real-world Su-30. That being the case, the attitude seems to be that JOUST and SILVE remain valid.
Clearly since ID was not very close to the actual thing(or to JOUST assuming JOUST was closer to actuality),and the sorties were so designed,there was no room for giving any unpleasant surprises.Similarly,if the IAF crews said say they didnt recieve any unpleasant surprises either,would that mean thats all there is to the EF?
So your line of thinking is not only inaccurate,it actually proves nothing.
And the bottomline is that simulations will just be that and nothing more.Simulations are based on facts.And the accuracy of the simulations depends on the accuracy of the facts.And as Nick said the more sensitive of the facts which will have a serious bearing on the outcome of the simulation will remain hidden for a long time to come.
So you can say that the simulated Su was more advanced than the actual Su,unless you know what the actual Su is capable of,the above statement will remain a conjecture.
Just to sum it up,your original contention was that the findings at ID validated the results of the simulation.
1.The findings at ID were not sufficient to validate anything worthwhile(let alone reality or a simulation you claim to be closer to reality).
2.Whatever can be extrapolated from the little findings at ID,say that those two planes compare very evenly with each other.
RayRMy ruse?
I state an honest and informed opinion about Rafale. That it’s a bloody good aeroplane with some excellent features, and with some advantages over Typhoon, and resulting from a better managed programme. That it’s a better fighter-bomber and a better carrier aircraft, and that it’s the perfect aircraft to meet French requirements. That’s hardly ‘dissing’ Rafale. And that though inferior overall to Typhoon, it’s more than a match for the teen series, and (while unable to do so with the same exchange ratio as Typhoon or F-22) will beat Su-30 twice as often as it loses.
In short, I’m impressed by the Rafale, just as I’m impressed by the spirit, elan, professionalism and competence of the IAF. But I’m less impressed by the Su-30.
The Su-30 is a warmed over ‘Flanker’ – which is a great thing in one way, and bad in several others. The original Su-27 and the MiG-29 were formidable aircraft with some unique low speed handling characteristics and agility (if lightly loaded, without the big internal tank, in ‘Flanker’s case) and these characteristics have been inherited by the Su-27M/35/37/30.
The addition of thrust vectoring further enhances the ‘Flanker’s low speed capabilities (and improves supersonic turn rates too, though here we’re starting from a low baseline).
The ‘Flankers’ all have plenty of pylons, and so can carry enough weapons to give them great persistence.
But the Su-30 is still a ‘Flanker’, with previous generation supersonic agility, and despite the shiny new glass cockpit with an MMI that’s in that class, and not in the same class as the MMI of the new generation of fighters (Rafale/F-22/F-35/Typhoon).
An F-16E is an impressive aircraft, but it’s still an F-16. A very good F-16, immeasurably better than a Charlie, but an F-16. The Su-30 is a ‘Flanker’ in the same way. Avoid it’s unique areas of advantage, and it’s really not that much of a threat. Lightly loaded, WVR, the Su-30 will eat a Tornado F3 for breakfast, but heavy, and BVR, the 25 Squadron blokes saw the aircraft as an opponent to be respected rather than feared.
Yes,your ruse!I think TMor summed it up very nicely in the post #67(and Glitter post #46,first para) in this thread.
I like the Typhoon and the Rafale both,and I wish any one of these aircraft should be chosen for the MRCA,but the way you go on repeating the same things makes it a bit tiring for the others.
Lets not start a debate again about the good and bad points of the Flanker.I am sure it has been debated endlessly in this fora and elsewhere and I dont agree with your views on that one.And contrary to what your feelings are,I am sure the IAF is indeed very much impressed with it as a very good BVR platform.
BTW,you didnt answer my earlier question.In ID the missions were not representative of actual BVR scenarios,on the other hand you claim JOUST is.So how come you said this:
everyone who is read into the exercise seems confident that JOUST was a pretty good predictor of what real world results would be
RayRLol, im not interested in that 😮 . What I meant was can you direct me too any good sources from the IAF point of view.
You can look into this thread.Particularly look into post #53.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72168&page=2
RayRYes I will believe it. May I ask what IAF sources you used, not to question you have them, but for my own interest.:)
Friends and acquaintances.It doesnt matter if you question whether I have them or not,because they wont change anything.:)
RayRThat’s harsh, Planeman.
In many circumstances, the ‘Flanker’ remains a potent threat. In close in, WVR combat, the combination of HMSS, a HOBS weapon, and thrust vectoring makes the aircraft a tough challenge – especially if it’s lightly loaded.
With the wrong RoE, Typhoon, Rafale and F-22 would all find the ‘Flanker’ a tough opponent, especially while they all lack a helmet, and while Rafale and Typhoon lack TVC, too.
The Typhoon does have the advantage of acceleration and performance, and at combat speeds probably has an edge, but sucked into a slow speed fight, I would not be complacent.
But JOUST was about BVR.
So you have gone into the same arguing mode which you use to prove that the Typhoon is so so much better than the Rafale….where you diss the Rafale all around and make it up by saying intermittently that “Oh the Rafale is a bloody good aeroplane..”
Very funny jack.
Unfortunately many people see through your ruse.
Anyway,about JOUST and ID,in ID the missions werent even proper representatives of actual BVR warfare,so how come you claim that
everyone who is read into the exercise seems confident that JOUST was a pretty good predictor of what real world results would be
and do stop making broad generic statemsnts like ” it is clear”..or “no one believes”.Okay!
RayRI do not agree, The MKI may have caused problems but would be dispatched by the typhoon. Frankly the only advantage I see the MKI having is thrust vectoring and range, and the previous can be seen as completly useless in most circumstances.
You can believe all you want to.And I will believe whatever information I recieve from IAF sources…and that says that there is nothing to suggest that the Typhoons can blow off the MKIs.
TVC..quite useful in WVR and even in BVRs.
Sign In
