uss novice[QUOTE=Sens;1339956]
What is low level combat? Are you referring to altitude or something else?
Stay low (<500 feet). See an example about that
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=85882&page=6
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=GBm0UlVRxe4&feature=PlayList&p=7C3801529547B0C0&playnext=1&index=2
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu9riqXXKi8&feature=PlayList&p=7C3801529547B0C0&index=20Air combat is just one part of a local war. The one, who does run the attack missions decides by that, where the engagements will take place and not the other way around.
The Israeli example from 1973 did show, how the EAF was preoccupied by some flights of F-4s. The EAF fighter-bombers stayed in their protective shelters, when most MiG-21s were flying constant CAPs over that ABs, with no real idea, when the next strikers will show up and where. The damage of that attacks were limited, when they managed by that to keep the EAF away from the critical crossing area.
Low level is a performance leveler. With some load all fighters are limited to the transonic speed range, which is still high enough to prevent early recognitation or targeting. Flying low is dangerous for all doing so, be it the attacker or the defender. There is a good chance always to suprise the defender and go away.
The one higher up is in constant danger always. When look-up and shot-up does give a high hit propability, it is not so the other way around. Terrain (ground-clutter) and EW do mask the lower ones, which will be unable to figure out, what is flying below, how many and where to go. Be it friend or foe. In exercises that is no problem, because are participants are briefed about the coming events and how to the rules that. All will be at a given time in a given area and the fighters of the Red and Blue forces are known.
Over an unknown “battle-field” the world is different. At least the attacker does know, where he will go and what to do to achieve that.
In the days of the smart weapons, no serious AF will house its fighters in well known HAS any longer. The smaller AF will disperse and shield their fighters from sensors to be whipped out on the ground. In the GDR all ABs had radar-reflectors, smoke generators and infra-red-nettings. The reflectors did fool the ground-mapping radars, when the smoke and nettings did deal with the other sensors. Mass fighters is risky against an agressive opponent. A well-trained and alerted opponent is difficult to overcome.
Some technical advantages can be helpfull, but will not tip the balance always if at all. There will be no air-battles. Just some limited encounters, when on side did manage to come close to some intruders. 😉
Hmm, agreed that low level flight helps staying below radar and preventing detection. But to what extent when faced with Aerostat type radars? Currently the IAF has the ability to monitor much of the activity at Sargodha and other PAF bases deep within its territory. You think a hostile package will go completely unnoticed? Are today’s radars and equipment just as restricted as those of the 60s and 70s? Also what range of lo-lo-lo missions can PAF fly with already restricted fighters such as F7s? Apart from a few IAF forward airbases a bulk of them will be totally out of PAF range esp. low level. Again, during war time, almost all bases will be on high alert, ready with SAMs/manpad, QRAs – what sort of attrition rates will PAF suffer?
The only effective strategy (and hope) is to use a quick element of surprise and do some damage to forward AFBs. But at best this would give the IAF a somewhat bloody nose, its response will be totally overwhelming and the PAF will be at a loss to prevent the IAF with longer ranged deep penetration assets to achieve air superiority in quick time.
Basically, the PAF suffers massive disadvantages in numbers and quality, its only hope is to defend and possibly manage to provide a small bloody nose for the IAF with a couple of surprises. In the long run, its game is up.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceCan someone help me? How do you put people on an ignore list? Perhaps there is a some technological magic whereby one can avoid the usual suspects?
USS.
Added later: Figured it out, usual suspects have been banished (relieved!) I look forward to fun times at keypubs 🙂
uss noviceIn low level combat the BVR capability is of very limited use if at all.
What is low level combat? Are you referring to altitude or something else?
[QUOTE]As long as the PAF will stay low-level most of the time it can be successfull with the fighters at hand.
Never fight to the terms set by your opponent.
Yes, but sometimes you simply have no choice unless you decide not to fight at all and just surrender 😉
For interceptor work the world does look different. Here the installed radar range has match that of the AAM at least. 😉
If you are referring to the Kopyo’s small range, you do have a point but still it is a solid option. the r-77 can be effectively used in the kopyo’s envelope. Its one of the reasons the bisons did so well against RSAF f-16 blk 50s in Simbex.
USS.
uss noviceU.S.S Allmighty comes here to fight I think. He asks me for links and facts while not providing anything for what he stated.:rolleyes:
Boss, the onus to provide links/sources is on the person who makes claims. All emphatic claims have so far come from you, some of the more eye catching gems are as follows:
Priceless gem #1:
The Rafale and Eurofighter for me are just waste of money.
Priceless gem #2:
Which (small size in WVR) is not much of a boon,
In the face of obvious facts underlined by statements from pilots in exercises such as Indradhanush.
Priceless gem #3:
Rafale and Eurofighter are more expensive than the Super Hornet.
Which flies in the face of the aussie deal. And in light of the fact that the Shornet would be a totally new a/c for the IAF in that it has no commonality whatever with the existing fleet.
Priceless gem #4:
USAF operates different versions of the F 15 which can do all the jobs a SH can apart from carrier based operations. I am sure that is the reason why they don’t operate the SH.
Priceless gem #4:
The effectiveness of such (passive IRST/IIR missile) attacks have hardly been substantiated in any a2a engagements todate.
This amazing observation in the face of the obvious trend of modern a/c (mig-35, su-35, typhoon, rafale, gripen NG, even F-16lblk60) to include IRST sensors.
Priceless gem #5:
Its still the best package in the MRCA deal considering ability.
err based on what? outward canted pylons and missiles i s’pose?
Priceless gem #6:
and SH is only less maneuverable that the tvc migs
Should I go on or is this list good enough to make you use google?
To Scoot,
Your utter bombast, prejudice and hypocrisy are quickly turning the forum into a muckpile of tit for tats. Apart from starting numerous controversial (flaimbait) threads, you have shown an incredible consistency in stirring up a can of worms on most threads by throwing in something that is totally irrelevant. Congrats, you just stooped a few levels below Star (at least he is sincere in his ignorance and there seems to be little malice). Btw, Ankush did a good job in exposing some of that hypocrisy which you bring to the table.
USS.
uss novice1. PAF Had no BVR capability until AMRAAM and SD-10 were recently ordered. All of the “PAF has BVR” nonsense was people (mostly reporters) misinterpreting the whole H-2/H-4 issue, which were found to be air to ground weapons.
2. Were it me I’d rate the air combat effectiveness of the MiG-21BISON significantly above that of the PAF Mirages and arguably equal to the PAF F-7PGs. The Mirages have no BVR capability to consider and aren’t going to be carrying an AAM load exceeding that of the BISON anyway. From an air combat standpoint the BISON is more effective in a 1v1 fight than a Mirage III/V. First shot, move in for an R-73 shot if you missed.
Do the F-7PGs have BVR capability? If not, why would you rate the Bison (which has BVR capability in the R77) “arguably equal” to the F-7s? Something here that we missed?
USS.
uss noviceIn all democracies many factors matter than just the need of the Airforces.
That is why the United States Air Force is only getting far less Raptors than what they wanted. Also Mirage 2000-5 will only fill in the numbers it offers no advantage over the Pakistani upgraded f 16s.
Since you are so well versed with how democracies work would you please care to elaborate a bit? Especially in light of the fact that the requirement for the MRCA was exactly as you have put above – intermediate plan to fill numbers. Also, the US curtailed the raptors mainly based on cost. India otoh, left the much cheaper mirage 2000 deal (great TOT was offered btw) @ ~ $5 billion for a deal thats over twice the cost! Another highly educated analogy here :rolleyes:
Do you think Boeing and Lockheed is competing in this deal with severe handicaps like non sanctioning of weapons like AIM 120D ?
Do you know what exactly they bring to the table? If so, please provide some insight/link to their response to RFPs.
If so they may as well give up before they started. The fact that Boeing has been one of the most active of the competitors mean they really think they have a good chance of winning it.
So? The other contenders are not exactly sleepwalking through the contest. By your standards the Gripen or MiG 35 should have it in the bag by now.
Rafale has not won any export orders to date, and there are clearly reasons for that.
Aah, some more emphatic theorizing, please list those reasons since they are so clear to you.
The Americans offer much mature platforms with already proven and integrated systems.
Riight – such as the F-16IN which has not even flown so far, brilliant!
The Rafale and Eurofighter for me are just waste of money.
Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion, I am sure the IAF/GOI will give it due regard.
They like the LCA are fourth generation fighters developed when the world is switching by and large to fifth generation. It also makes perfect sense for any country opting for fourth generation fighters to go for tried trusted and proven platforms.
Yes tell that to the many airforces in Europe, must be fools in that part of the world to go with anything but US offered options.
1, 1) The Rafale is distinctly smaller than the shornet thereby offering a smaller visual sig in the WVR game (kinda important factor that)
Which is not much of a boon, the Su 30 MKI despite its size is an excellent dogfighter. And contrary to the claims of an airforce Colonel who did not take part in the exercise, it performed well in Redflag in both WVR and BVR. So did the older Su 30 MKs in 2005.
Boss, do us a favor and read up a little more before making absurd claims! In Indradhanush for eg. its large size was one of the main weaknesses of the MKIs vs the typhoons. The typhoon’s ability to quickly accelerate was another decent advantage for it. In DACT between IN shars and IAF fulcrums, the low visibility of the shar caused major problems for fulcrum drivers despite being a far better platform in most other areas a2a. A large platform goes against the rule “First look – first kill” esp. in WVR.
3, The rafale has long ranger IIR MICA which can be used in combo with the OSF to make a fully passive attack
The effectiveness of such attacks have hardly been substantiated in any a2a engagements todate.
So? What effectiveness has the Raptor demoed in a2a engagements todate? Might as well diss its super duper radar, EW suite, supercruise and stealth features, no? Priceless argument this – “never been seen in a2a combat before, so simply not effective” Damn tacticians should be shot for thinking innovatively.
The Rafale is all about will and can, while the Super Hornet already has all these operational.
Yes, such as its ability to supercruise or use IRST I suppose? Btw, dassault has shown its ability to integrate an HMS on its other products.
We would not know as Dassault and Eads never sent their fighters to Aero India while the Super Hornet the F 16, Gripen and Mig 35 were all present. May be these two realize they do not stand much of a chance.
Yes, we leave it to this brilliant new find on AFM to enlighten us on what every contestants chances are. Pearls of wisdom just being scattered here by the rookie.
Once again I think you are quoting the red flag colonel who spoke bull****, for which the USAF had to apologize to the IAF.
Once again I think you should read up a lot more before making blanket statements. I was not referring to Col. Fornoff at all. This topic has been thrashed on this forum for ages. A little reading would have made you understand my point a lot better.
He also said that Mig 21 Bisons did well against them in dog fights ! that too when none of those went to Nellis.
So what exactly is your point bringing in the bison in the context of WVR ? Especially considering that he was clearly referring to the bison’s ability to sneak in and cue a bvr shot thanks to its small RCS and “israeli” radar.
Maneuverability is king when it comes to slow speed wvr combat
Perhaps. But that does not mean the eurocanards are any less maneuverable than the shornet.
and SH is only less maneuverable that the tvc migs.
Prove it! Lets see some figures on ITRs, STRs, climb rates and the like for the MRCA contenders. If you don’t have them, please learn to think a bit before making big statements.
USS.
.
uss noviceBut the Presence of the Radar means it can be done in case of an emergency, in case of the LCA one needs to first integrate a radar which wont be ready in terms of the current conflict.
So what radar does the FC-1 have? Can you provide a source?
Urm those figures in the spreadsheet need some serious rethinking. I think it would be a good score if the comparison was between the IAF and the PLAAF instead of the PAF. As we all know the IAF is doing pretty darned well in terms of combat effectiveness based on their performances at the Cope series, red flag, indradhanush, simbex etc. THey have routinely shown the ability to handle block 50+ falcons without breaking a sweat (even with bisons). So whatever scoring method is being used in the sheet makes about v.little sense.
Does PAF at this moment have 44 falcons? If yes, how many are bvr capable, blk 50+ std? THe IAF mig-29s are all BVR capable and have decent serviceabilty rates too. Ditto with the Mirage 2000. Ditto with Bisons. And the MKI is just too far ahead of anything in PAF horizon. As things stand, the PAF simply does not have a BVR force at the moment while being compared to a force that touts over 300 BVR capable fighters.
What a nonsensical comparison. :rolleyes:
USS.
uss noviceFor the first part, I have never said the F 18 is used in the same sense as the F 15. I was saying why the Super Hornet is not used by the USAF, because it has fighters more suited for its needs.
No? then why state that the shornet is by far more able than the rest of the MRCA candidates? Or do you think that F-15=F-18>MRCA candidates? Bold claim indeed!
As for the Rafales percieved superiority over the Super Hornet, it is still only developing an AESA assembly which will be a generation or so behind the American ones.
Rafale demonstrated its AESA to the swiss very recently and the tech was supposed to be on par with the apg-79.
And how do you compare the Metoer with the AIM 120 D, which would be available when the first aircraft is delivered.
Go on tell us – how exactly do you compare the two? Esp. when its not even certain if India will be cleared for the aim-120D.
Also Rafale offers nothing in a dogfight when compared to the JHCMS + AIM9x combo of the SH. It also has excellent slow speed maneuverability which was demonstrated in Aero India.
Another magnificent claim! here are some things to ponder:
1) The Rafale is distinctly smaller than the shornet thereby offering a smaller visual sig in the WVR game (kinda important factor that)
2) The rafale has better TWR/acceleration, making it more agile.
3) The rafale has long ranger IIR MICA which can be used in combo with the OSF to make a fully passive attack
4) The rafale can also use the ASRAAM a v.decent competition to the AIM 9X
5) The rafale may not have HMS as of now, but can easily incorporate one such as the topsight (as in the case of the m2k)
6) Airshow maneuvers hardly describe a/c ability, how do you know that a rafale can’t do everything the shornet did at aeroindia 07 (and do it better)?
7) Slow speed manouvers are fine and dandy, but the russki birds (mig-35/su-35, which are by far the kings of slow speed manouvers) have been heavily criticized for using manuevers which cause a huge loss in airspeed in a game where “speed is life”. If you really want to tomtom this capability i’d suggest backing the MiG-35 any day.
We are not like Norwegians to shortlist aircraft for the sake of it. If we wanted the MIG 35 or Rafale there will not be a competition between all these fighters.
yes, india has the notorious distinction of completely ignoring its airforce’s needs and preferences (mirage 2000-5) and expanding on a shortlist for the sake of it! Thereby putting the IAF and the nation’s security in a bind. Simply incredible! The damn nordic fools need to learn from india how procurement is to be done.
As regards to ToT Boeing and Lockheed as well as other competitors have already given their proposals and they have already been examined, the trials are to take place next year. The only plane that has a chance of being rejected by now is the Eurofighter because of its high price.
Are you privy to these proposals? If not please note that open source docs only point to tech transfer of critical components (aesa) if okayed by the congress/senate.
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceSee, this is where it stops making sense.
People try to use various lines of arguments in support of their own theories, but these arguments don’t fit together.
LCA is a home grown product. Indian aviation industry is not all that advanced in comparison with US/Russia/some EU states. LCA is meant to be be 2-3 times cheaper than MMRCA contenders. Besides all these limitations, IAF can ask for the moon when it comes to LCA, yet wouldn’t mind compromising on avionics performance when it comes to MMRCA contenders. Why?
Let me try to clarify:
Most MRCA contenders are pretty closely matched – performance/technology wise. There may be differences but they are marginal (10-15%). IOW, they bring pretty much similar stuff to the table. Under the circumstances, IAF/GOI may go for a fighter that is decidedly cheaper and offers greater TOT than another that offers marginally better performance (10-15%) or vice versa.
With the LCA otoh, there is no such RFP type process; ASRs are given, they can be changed at a later date. IAF can be a little more demanding with the homegrown product because a) it is still being developed and b) it is under no compulsion to buy X number of LCA if it finds it inadequate; these liberties are not available with MRCA candidates. other factors such as the LCA team’s inexperience and delays due to sanctions etc do not help either. The MRCA vendor replies to RFP, end game. tech and flight evals start. IAF doesn’t go back and say it wants TVC in addition to your supercruise ’cause it knows the cost/time will go up considerably.
JMT
USS.
uss noviceReally? And yet IAF seems to have been so insistent on having a top notch fighter, i.e. LCA, from Day 1 before they place orders for substantial numbers.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The IAF can be as nitpicky as it wants with the LCA, it is a homegrown product.
Such liberties are not always possible when dealing with aircraft from other sources that are judged on numerous criteria other than performance (eg. political, strategic, economic, TOT etc). The MRCA is an excellent example of
this type of decision making.
For example, just a few years ago (2003) the IAF was salivating over the Mirage 2000-5, which btw cannot operate from high altitudes such as Leh (as seen from an article in this thread). Again, its TWR and that of the Bison are hardly anything fancy. Also, these aircraft are not expected (and I wonder if they were even tested) to perform at sea level. The LCA otoh is expected to perform well both at sea level and high altitude. Why? Because you can very well expect the moon from indigenous stuff; when it comes to other sources, you are restricted to what you are offered.
regards,
USS
uss noviceUSAF operates different versions of the F 15 which can do all the jobs a SH can apart from carrier based operations. I am sure that is the reason why they don’t operate the SH.
Can you provide some kind of link to back up that certainty? The USAF operates the F-15 (and now the F-22) primarily because they want air superiority over perceived opponents (MiG-29s/Flankers in case of the f-15 and Super Flankers etc in case of raptor). The Super Hornet for all its advantages is seriously handicapped by a poor TWR, legacy, non-bvr optimized airframe, outward canted missiles, lack of inbuilt IRST etc all of which are clearly standard features on today’s air superiority fighters such as a Super flanker, Typhoon or even a MiG-35. Ditto with the Rafale, which is an exceptional aircraft for its size and weight.
The Rafale has the SuperHornet on almost every criteria critical for a2a such as –
Supesonic performance
IRST
TWR
speed/accelaration
Fully passive attacks using OSF/Mica IIR combo.
In A2G too it offers abilities the Shornet does not have:
AASM
Scalp EG
Rafale’s only advantage over SH is ToT but given the current political scenario you may yourself be surprised at the amount of ToT the Americans are willing to offer. The SH is also cheaper than the Rafale and the Eurofighter and like I have said manytimes, it can potentially share its engine with the LCA.
As far as price is concerned, the aussie deal does not point to the shornet as any great deal cheaper than the Rafale.
As far as TOT is concerned, so far Boeing has said no permission to share critical tech (read AESA) has been given by the US Govt. There is a reason why the superbug has gotten that moniker of sewerhornet on many fora. Hang around a little longer and you’ll probly find out.
in the current indian context, the rafale offers other advantages over the super hornet such as a degree of commonality with the Mirage 2000, thus reducing supply chain headaches caused by an entirely unique type. Not to mention the fact that the French have traditionally been considered strategic allies by India. IIRC, after the 1998 nuke blasts, the french reaction was markedly less critical than that of the US or other countries.
USS.
uss noviceSimple…………..flight characteristics.:( Which, really doesn’t explain the power issue???:confused:
Aah another wisdom from the resident expert, care to point out what flight characteristics are exactly lacking? From other posts in the thread, test pilots seem to put it ahead of the M2k in some respects. Or is the LCA a flying brick in your book and suffers from such fundamental design flaws that even a 1950s design such as the fishbed outclasses it?
Sigh, I was hoping for a more educated post from the likes of Ankush or Nick76.
USS.
uss novicePlease, this is a European based forum…………..So, we don’t have strong supporters (fan boys) of the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen.
Eh? What sort of logic is this? If its a european forum, shouldn’t there be strong supporters of the eurocanards? But alas you suggest otherwise, priceless.
(PLEASE) Also, again as long as you bring it up. I would love for everybody to check out Vikad (ex-Gorshkov) or LCA Threads. Both programs as very trouble and a joke for the most part. Yet, we have members here that praise them like Gods Gift! Yet, I guess I am the “Fan Boy” and there arguements have merits………..
It is amazing how scooter has more knowledge, greater sympathy, better understanding about all things indian than most indian posters on the forum. Damn Scooter would like us to believe that he is more indian than most indians! 90-100% of indian posters – LCA (despite obvious drawbacks) is overall useful. But nooo, not according to resident expert scooter, no sir – a program or a relationship (as in the case of India-Russia) has merit only if sanctioned by Scoot in his infinite wisdom.
Some need to take a serious look in the mirrior before they start calling the “kettle black”
Yeah and some need to wipe the blinders off their eyes so they can at least see the mirror. :rolleyes: Frankly, I hate to continue with this juvenile stuff but like others I tend to find it aggravating when someone turns up and ruins one thread after another with vapid, provocative posts. I guess scooter is now firmly ahead of Star49 in my book. At least star seems to provide some cool links about russki stuff.
USS.
uss noviceQuick question about the LCA:
Whats all the hoopla about low thrust with this bird? The IAF seems quite pleased with both the bison and the Mirage 2000, TWR of ~ 1.3 (empty weight). The LCA empty otoh, has a TWR of 1.3 in a worst case scenario. I am assuming the test flight weight of 6500kg and GE-F404-IN20 engines. After removing the test flight instrumentation, its empty weight should decrease. Once a 9.5/10 ton engine comes in, the TWR should be top notch (v. similar to the Gripen).
So what is the problem here?
Regards,
USS.
uss noviceYour signature does little to improve the impression i (and undoubtedly others) get with this bias.
Or is it …. is it love ?
What! folks still haven’t figured out Scoot? tsk, tsk, its pretty straightforward really – call it “love” as you put it or “obsession” as others tend to put it, the fact is that Scooter has by now clearly and deservedly won the title of Mr. Prejudice on this forum. His refrain is pretty obvious:
All things western are best (be they fighters, or a/c carriers or nuts, bolts or toothpaste. The logic is profound in its simplicity:
Russian is better than Asian (chinese or indian) X 5
West European is much better than Russian X 10
American is better than west european X 15
American is overall better than ROW X infinity
IOW, “all things bright and beautiful, all things wise and wonderful, all things mighty and powerful, the USA made ’em all” the others simply make little to no difference.
Repeat this mantra from the Scooter bible daily and salvation is certainly yours.:D If you don’t believe me, check him out in the Vikad or LCA threads, he is normally in top form there.
Regards,
USS.
Sign In
