French pilots flying the new Dassault Rafale appeared to be collecting electronic intelligence on India’s even newer Su-30MKI aircraft during a September Red Flag exercise at Nellis AFB, Nev., contends a USAF pilot briefing retired U.S. generals.
The French were originally going to bring the older Mirage 2000-5 until they discovered the Indians were bringing their new Su-30MKIs, he said. They then switched and brought their Rafales with more sophisticated electronic surveillance equipment.
Aviation Week has a full article for AWIN subscribers on the pilot's observations (Update: We've posted it to our homepage here.) The video was made available online at YouTube.com, and our friend Stephen Trimble at The Dew Line has blogged about it there as well.
Foreign air force officials admit that they anticipate intelligence-gathering will go on at an event like Red Flag. India’s Su-30MKI carries the Bars radar developed by the Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design (NIIP), which also designed the Irbis passive electronically scanned array radar for the Su-27SM2 (Su-35). NIIP also is working on the radar suite for Sukhoi’s fifth-generation fighter design, the T-50, to meet the Russian air force’s PAK-FA requirement. Indian pilots told Aviation Week that they were operating the radar only in the training mode, which limited its range and spectrum of capabilities.
Once at Red Flag, “90% of the time [the French] followed the Indians so when they took a shot or got shot” they would take a quick shot of their own and then leave,” he said. “They never came to any merges” which starts the dog fighting portion of any air-to-air combat. He contended that French pilots followed the same procedure during Desert Storm and Peace Keeping exercises. When U.S. aircrews were flying operations, the French would fly local sorties while “sucking up all the trons” to see how U.S. radars worked, he said.
But the U.S. apparently isn’t ignorant of the Su-30MKI’s radar either. The Su-30 electronically scanned radar is not as accurate as the U.S. built active electronically scanned radar carried by the F-22 and some F-15s, he said. Also, “it paints less, sees less” and is not as discriminating.
What about the reports we have seen already stating for example that on a recent MKI tour in England that the radar modes on the jet were limited to certain modes if not entirely turned off?
Was this not the case in other exercises also? I think if other previous reports are looked at, that this may be the case.
Remember that a few years ago, the first Cope India were earlier SU-30Ks and not MKIs. This included the fact that the MiG-21 Bison was a big disrupter in that effort calling out AMRAAMski shots and of course that it had a HOBS/Heater setup also.
So, just as Cope India didnt play the F-15 to full advantage, so too have the latest efforts not put the SU-30MKI to its home area setup.
Great comments in that video re: pilot experience/training and of course the engine reliability.
Some other great comments? Notice how he mentions jamming. The U.S. AMRAAM combat kills have been mostly against targets that had poor avionics and no jamming yielding a PK of around 50% or so. How will the AMRAAM standup to jamming and datalink jamming?
Other points of interest, no mention of what the F-22 thrust vectoring really helps with: Doing a high speed Mach turn after taking a BVR shot. I can touch you, but you cant touch me .
Lots of good info in those videos if one looks closely. Many previous USAF leaders have stated that they do not want to fight a battle based on parity. They want it on superiority. The big SU now offers that parity.... and with the geriatric fighter train wreck of the USAF, total fighter numbers will shrink quite a bit in the coming 20 years. John Young, the top pentagon procurement guy needs to be skilled up. He thinks the completely unproven F-35 is some how an air domination machine. He is out of his depth.
Q. How do you stop a fighter pilot from talking? A. Handcuffs.
I liked the break/chaff/flare/dive move off the podium when someone in the group - senior or retired officers - asked about F-35. "Let's save that for another discussion" means "My interest in guard duty at Shemya AB is limited." Other observations: If the MKI is better all-round than the F-15 and F-16, then what about the much improved Su-35BM? "He's jammming, so your missiles aren't working." The susceptibility of most of the Western air combat fleet to the defeat of one small component - the AMRAAM seeker - is clear. And this applies as much to the F-22 and F-35 as to the F-15, because the missile launch event is just as detectable. I suspect that the concern about FOD may be as much about consequences as it is about susceptibility. They could have been stuck there for a while waiting for a spare engine.
Irtusk - First ve must to deal mit your anger issues...
The question is not one of platforms, but of weapons. LO's not a heck of a lot of use in air-to-air if your only long-range weapons get scrambled by something that I can fit (and afford to fit) on a MiG-21 which, it it had four wheels, would qualify for a collector's license plate.
> LO's not a heck of a lot of use in air-to-air if your only long-range weapons get scrambled by something that I can fit (and afford to fit) on a MiG-21 which
sure it is, it enables you to escape to fight another day ;)
yes, jamming the amraam is an important issue
BUT
there is another important issue
namely that the F-teen is no longer better than contemporary fighters and is showing its age more and more rapidly
no one is suggesting scrapping the current fleet (only 300 or so of them ;), but buying MORE of them?
poor, poor idea
PS it's a lot easier to upgrade a missile seeker head then build 1600 new planes
if you build 1600 new F-16s and then find they are inadequate and continually getting outclassed by opponents, oops
better to go for the plane that gives you more base capability while still being affordable (f-35)
The F-35 won't be running from much if it needs that to survive. It doesn't have the speed, and altitude of an F-22. (and a bunch of other F-22 things). After it shoots its small amount of missiles. Any big SUs left will hunt it down and kill it. The F-35 will have really great S.A, of what will kill it. Then too if you are a B or a C, you may have left the deck that day without a gun.
As for the F-16. Again, not every AEF involves facing lots of first team big Sus off of the Taiwan strait. The F-16 will do for most AEFs. USAF is silly for not having done a lot of new builds to fill the gaps.
The idea that the F-35 is somehow affordable is yet to be proven. Good luck on that one.
many times has anyone fired off 7 or more air-to-air missiles?
> Any big SUs left will hunt it down and kill it.
you can't hit what you can't see
> It doesn't have the speed, and altitude of an F-22
1. i would hope an F-35 would never be running for a raptor because it would mean serious problems with one of our former allies
2. if one is running from a raptor, i hope it gets shot down ;)
> The idea that the F-35 is somehow affordable is yet to be proven. Good luck on that one
the package offered to Israel for early (ie expensive) F-35s was very comparable to the package offered to Australia for SuperHornets (6% more per plane)
> USAF is silly for not having done a lot of new builds to fill the gaps
1. it would be silly to invest a large amount of capital into airframes that are no longer competitive
2. what gaps? you are talking about F-16s being adequate to handle minor bushwars
well the fact is the current fleet is sufficient to handle minor bushwars until the F-35 ramps up
the only time you have a problem is a major conflict with a near-peer competitor
so your argument is that we should build more F-16s (which you acknowledge are not first team) to be cannon fodder in case we do have a big war?
fact: for minor bushwars, we do not need more legacy fighters
fact: for bigwars, you don't want to use legacy fighters anyways
so i ask again, what's the point of more legacy buy?
What is this fascination with Amraam? Yes, it's a good missile and it is still filling the arsenals of most western allies, but like the teen series fighters, it's getting a bit outdated (unless, perhaps, its upgraded with a mini-AESA). Most Euro-NATO countries are already laying out the carpet for Meteor BVRs. Combined with a networked fighter and AWACS support it will give any Sukhoi driver a really bad hair day. A pk of 50% under benign combat conditions is totally unacceptable.
This is in F-16 and Eurocanard-lan (clean, mind you). Also take into consideration that the test programme has yielded better-than-expected climb and accelleration performance.
Was this not the case in other exercises also? I think if other previous reports are looked at, that this may be the case.
Remember that a few years ago, the first Cope India were earlier SU-30Ks and not MKIs. This included the fact that the MiG-21 Bison was a big disrupter in that effort calling out AMRAAMski shots and of course that it had a HOBS/Heater setup also.
So, just as Cope India didnt play the F-15 to full advantage, so too have the latest efforts not put the SU-30MKI to its home area setup.
Great comments in that video re: pilot experience/training and of course the engine reliability.
Some other great comments? Notice how he mentions jamming. The U.S. AMRAAM combat kills have been mostly against targets that had poor avionics and no jamming yielding a PK of around 50% or so. How will the AMRAAM standup to jamming and datalink jamming?
Other points of interest, no mention of what the F-22 thrust vectoring really helps with: Doing a high speed Mach turn after taking a BVR shot. I can touch you, but you cant touch me .
Lots of good info in those videos if one looks closely. Many previous USAF leaders have stated that they do not want to fight a battle based on parity. They want it on superiority. The big SU now offers that parity.... and with the geriatric fighter train wreck of the USAF, total fighter numbers will shrink quite a bit in the coming 20 years. John Young, the top pentagon procurement guy needs to be skilled up. He thinks the completely unproven F-35 is some how an air domination machine. He is out of his depth.
A. Handcuffs.
I liked the break/chaff/flare/dive move off the podium when someone in the group - senior or retired officers - asked about F-35. "Let's save that for another discussion" means "My interest in guard duty at Shemya AB is limited."
Other observations: If the MKI is better all-round than the F-15 and F-16, then what about the much improved Su-35BM?
"He's jammming, so your missiles aren't working." The susceptibility of most of the Western air combat fleet to the defeat of one small component - the AMRAAM seeker - is clear. And this applies as much to the F-22 and F-35 as to the F-15, because the missile launch event is just as detectable.
I suspect that the concern about FOD may be as much about consequences as it is about susceptibility. They could have been stuck there for a while waiting for a spare engine.
why do you think the USAF is so vehemently against buying more legacy fighters?
maybe some of you will realize that buying new copies of a 30 year-old design is not the way forward
The question is not one of platforms, but of weapons. LO's not a heck of a lot of use in air-to-air if your only long-range weapons get scrambled by something that I can fit (and afford to fit) on a MiG-21 which, it it had four wheels, would qualify for a collector's license plate.
sure it is, it enables you to escape to fight another day ;)
yes, jamming the amraam is an important issue
BUT
there is another important issue
namely that the F-teen is no longer better than contemporary fighters and is showing its age more and more rapidly
no one is suggesting scrapping the current fleet (only 300 or so of them ;), but buying MORE of them?
poor, poor idea
PS it's a lot easier to upgrade a missile seeker head then build 1600 new planes
if you build 1600 new F-16s and then find they are inadequate and continually getting outclassed by opponents, oops
better to go for the plane that gives you more base capability while still being affordable (f-35)
As for the F-16. Again, not every AEF involves facing lots of first team big Sus off of the Taiwan strait. The F-16 will do for most AEFs. USAF is silly for not having done a lot of new builds to fill the gaps.
The idea that the F-35 is somehow affordable is yet to be proven. Good luck on that one.
many times has anyone fired off 7 or more air-to-air missiles?
> Any big SUs left will hunt it down and kill it.
you can't hit what you can't see
> It doesn't have the speed, and altitude of an F-22
1. i would hope an F-35 would never be running for a raptor because it would mean serious problems with one of our former allies
2. if one is running from a raptor, i hope it gets shot down ;)
> The idea that the F-35 is somehow affordable is yet to be proven. Good luck on that one
the package offered to Israel for early (ie expensive) F-35s was very comparable to the package offered to Australia for SuperHornets (6% more per plane)
> USAF is silly for not having done a lot of new builds to fill the gaps
1. it would be silly to invest a large amount of capital into airframes that are no longer competitive
2. what gaps? you are talking about F-16s being adequate to handle minor bushwars
well the fact is the current fleet is sufficient to handle minor bushwars until the F-35 ramps up
the only time you have a problem is a major conflict with a near-peer competitor
so your argument is that we should build more F-16s (which you acknowledge are not first team) to be cannon fodder in case we do have a big war?
fact: for minor bushwars, we do not need more legacy fighters
fact: for bigwars, you don't want to use legacy fighters anyways
so i ask again, what's the point of more legacy buy?
there isn't
Acceleration 0.8 - 1.2 mach @30Kf
- requirement: <55 seconds
- objective: <44 seconds
This is in F-16 and Eurocanard-lan (clean, mind you). Also take into consideration that the test programme has yielded better-than-expected climb and accelleration performance.
Regards,
B.Bolsøy
Oslo
So what is needed for 'minor bush wars'? And for major bush wars, for that matter?
I can't see beyond more legacy fighters, A-10s included.