IAF Fighter Roles and Mission profiles --When and how will they be used ?

[deckingraj]

All 3 methods you mentioned are not effective in bringing down the AEW&C, satellite guidance is provided to mostly land attack missiles and bombs, for A2A it has not been used.

For AEW&C, first of all the launching platform has to find and track the aerial platform, and it would be a tough job to do so, but once done, then it will have to launch the missile, so now once launched, the aircraft which launched has to keep the AEW&C in its radar to keep the missile feeding the location of the target to an extend where the missile reaches and its own radar takes over, which i believe is mostly 50-60KM away from the target or so.

So problem now here would be for the launching platform MKI to keep a track of the AEW&C through out the traveling time of the missile, if it looses the track it won't be able to feed the missile where to go and the missile may go to the last location provided, from where the target may have moved on, MKIs can be attacked also during this time period and they may have to get engaged in dog fight thus the missile will again lose the location feeding, plus other such scenario can come up where the aircraft can lose the missile and the missile can go astray.

Anyway, here is some reading which can be useful in understanding how missile and bomb guidance work, both A2A & A2G or even SAMs.

Missile guidance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taimi sir...Don't you think MKI's won't come alone if there mission is to kill the AWACs??? Or they will come in good numbers to keep the irritating interceptors away??? What i am not able to comprehend is that how deep inside Pakistan is safe/comparatively safe for Pakistani AWACS???

here are my points...

MKI's are mini awacs in themselves....If i go by wiki then they have 350 KM search range and 200 KM tracking range....If not wrong Pakistani AWACS have a range of 450 KM....K-100 has a reach of 400 KM....If not wrong then MKI's will have to maintain a distance of atleast 250 KM distance to earn a Kill....Now my question to you is how much strategic depth would be the right depth for PAF to keep the asset safe??? In my eyes it should be atleast 250-300 KM away from India border or else MKI's can fire these missile from well with in India border....On top of that if IAF use their Phalcons to guide MKI's fire missiles then not sure what would be a safe depth...

Can you please elaborate a bit on it???


On top of that how much a threat is once MKI's are equipped with Brahmos???

 

[gubbi]

LR-SAM which is mobile, more likely something on the basis of HQ-9 with minimum 150KM range, 200+KM would be another bonus. They should be mobile, thus hard for the enemy to suppress and destroy.

For now only MKIs are the major threat for us, which we need to counter asap, in shorter term, as mentioned a LR-SAM can do that, in long run, good quality 4.5 gen aircraft, F-16 Blk 52s, FC-20s.

Doesnt the AWACS and the MKI give IAF SEAD/ECM/ECCM capabilities? How would LR-SAMs hold up against such measures?
You are also forgetting the MiG-29s and MiG-21s, both proven dog fighters, especially when almost half of the IAF MiG-21s are upgraded to Bison standards and the MiG-29s are undergoing the SMT upgrades. Then there are the Mirage 2000-H (scheduled to undergo M2K-5/9? standard upgrades)

oh, btw, dont say anything about Dear Sunny Pa'ji. Its unethical to makes jokes against Sardars

 

[Jungle]

Doesnt the AWACS and the MKI give IAF SEAD/ECM/ECCM capabilities? How would LR-SAMs hold up against such measures?
You are also forgetting the MiG-29s and MiG-21s, both proven dog fighters, especially when almost half of the IAF MiG-21s are upgraded to Bison standards and the MiG-29s are undergoing the SMT upgrades. Then there are the Mirage 2000-H (scheduled to undergo M2K-5/9? standard upgrades)

oh, btw, dont say anything about Dear Sunny Pa'ji. Its unethical to makes jokes against Sardars

Pardon me, newbie question.
Wouldn't PAF having AWACS give them the same capability in shooting down our targets or our Phalcons?

 

[ramu]

All 3 methods you mentioned are not effective in bringing down the AEW&C, satellite guidance is provided to mostly land attack missiles and bombs, for A2A it has not been used.

For AEW&C, first of all the launching platform has to find and track the aerial platform, and it would be a tough job to do so, but once done, then it will have to launch the missile, so now once launched, the aircraft which launched has to keep the AEW&C in its radar to keep the missile feeding the location of the target to an extend where the missile reaches and its own radar takes over, which i believe is mostly 50-60KM away from the target or so.

So problem now here would be for the launching platform MKI to keep a track of the AEW&C through out the traveling time of the missile, if it looses the track it won't be able to feed the missile where to go and the missile may go to the last location provided, from where the target may have moved on, MKIs can be attacked also during this time period and they may have to get engaged in dog fight thus the missile will again lose the location feeding, plus other such scenario can come up where the aircraft can lose the missile and the missile can go astray.

Anyway, here is some reading which can be useful in understanding how missile and bomb guidance work, both A2A & A2G or even SAMs.

Missile guidance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure if this is in operation with the Indian forces but even if they were, we will know only when war breaks out.

Novator K-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ramu]

JANE'S MISSILES AND ROCKETS - MARCH 01, 2004
==================================

Novator offers a redesigned KS-172S-1 long-range AAM
Piotr Butowski

Sukhoi has displayed a model of the Su-35 multirole fighter carrying under its wings two KS-172S-1 ultra-long range air-to-air missiles, writes Piotr Butowski. The weapon is an export variant of a missile originally offered to the Russian Air Force by the Novator Company of Yekaterinburg.

Work on the KS-172 air-to-air missile began in 1991. Alternative designations 'Izdeliye 172 (K-172)' and the anglicised 'AAM-L' have also been reported. The basis of the new weapon was the second stage of the 3M83 surface-to-air missile used by the S-300V (SA-12 Gladiator) anti-aircraft system.

A full-scale mock-up of the KS-172 was shown in front of Su-27 fighter at Zhukovsky in August 1993. but over the next 10 years there was no further news of the project. The model shown late last year has a different shape to that of the mock-up shown in 1993. Both versions have a two-stage propulsion system, but in the current KS-172S-1 design the length of the tandem-mounted booster has been increased while its diameter has been reduced. The length of the missile without booster has been reduced so that the overall length of the complete round is unchanged.

According to Novator, the KS-172S-1 is 6.0m long and weighs 700kg, dimensions which are unchanged from those announced in 1993. Its diameter has been reported as 40cm.

In the 1993 design, the nose section of the missile was of smaller diameter than the rest of the fuselage, a configuration which proves additional internal volume for the rocket motor. In the current design, the fuselage is of constant diameter, and the tail-mounted cruciform control fins are of shorter span and longer chord.

The missile is guided to the target by a multi-mode guidance system typical for beyond-visual range missiles. In the first phase of flight, guidance is by inertial navigation with command updates in the mid-course phase. An active-radar seeker is used for terminal guidance. According to earlier reports, the missile carries a directional high-explosive (HE) fragmentation warhead, probably weighing about 50kg, and initiated by a radar proximity fuze.

Maximum range of the KS-172S-1 export variant is 300km; the version proposed for Russian air forces is believed to have a range of 400km. The missile will be used against air targets flying at altitudes from 3m to 30km with speeds up to 4,000km/h and manoeuvring at up to 12g. Typical targets could include all types of aircraft (including AWACS or J-STARS platforms, tankers, reconnaissance and electronic-warfare aircraft), cruise missiles, as well as long and medium-range anti-aircraft missiles which pose a threat to the KS-172-armed fighter.

Several test launches of the KS-172 have been made, but these rounds were not fitted with a guidance system. The firing of rounds fitted only with an autopilot and programmed to fly pre-planned manoeuvres is common in the early stages of air-to-air missile programmes.

The Russian air force did not adopt the KS-172, but opted to back a competing K-37M missile offered by Vympel. It is surprising to see that the Novator weapon is now being offered for export.

 

[deckingraj]

Pardon me, newbie question.
Wouldn't PAF having AWACS give them the same capability in shooting down our targets or our Phalcons?

Depends where you are....In Pak AIR-Space ..No doubt about it....In fact AWACS have proved to be blessing for PAF....Had there been no awacs then MKI's would have made life extermely difficult for PAF...We would have been locking their fighters without even getting detected....

Anyways AWACS will play very limited role in enemy's Air-Space.....they are too valuable target to be risked by bringing close to enemy's border.....So in short if they enter our Air-Space then their fighters are on their own and MKI"s superior Radar and endurance will tilt the probabily of claiming a kill by a significant number....

 

[ramu]

Pardon me, newbie question.
Wouldn't PAF having AWACS give them the same capability in shooting down our targets or our Phalcons?

Yes, however the capability of PAF AWACS is not proven and so is the case with Phalcons. However, Phalcons are known to be the best IMO. The specification of the AWACS are different and the operational performance in a war situation is for anyone to guess.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Doesnt the AWACS and the MKI give IAF SEAD/ECM/ECCM capabilities? How would LR-SAMs hold up against such measures?
You are also forgetting the MiG-29s and MiG-21s, both proven dog fighters, especially when almost half of the IAF MiG-21s are upgraded to Bison standards and the MiG-29s are undergoing the SMT upgrades. Then there are the Mirage 2000-H (scheduled to undergo M2K-5/9? standard upgrades)

oh, btw, dont say anything about Dear Sunny Pa'ji. Its unethical to makes jokes against Sardars

Well i believe for now we are keeping aside the upgrading and future upgrading platforms aside. But yeah these once upgraded would be again potent platforms.

AWAC and MKI have ECM systems but problem with nowadays SAMs is, that if they are being jammed, then they switch to passive homing, meaning they go for the source of the jamming, thus a very good set of counter measures would be needed to jam or counter SAMs. USA has so far a very good record of SEAD.

AWAC i believe can't play the role of SEAD, as they are for aerial monitoring and control of aircraft, thus it can not detect SAM batteries. MKIs equipped with different kind of counter measure systems can play an effective SEAD role. ARMs, good set of counter measures to counter SAMs and then having PGMs to destroy ground air defence units all is needed to change MKI to a SEAD role.

 

[ramu]

I have reasons to believe India has these killers.

Vympel R-37 (AA-13 Arrow)

The new R-37 was developed during the late 1980s to provide a very long range BVR missile for a range of Soviet fighters. It is not as commonly believed a dedicated replacement for the R-33, although the upgraded MiG-31M Super Foxhound was the trials platform for test shots - Russian sources indicate the missile was envisaged for the Su-35, Su-37, I.42 MFI and future types. The role of the R-37 also differs from the R-33 - it was devised to kill large ISR and IW/EW platforms at long ranges, specifically the E-3 AWACS, E-8 JSTARS, RC-135V/W Rivet Joint, EC-130 Compass Call and EC-130 Commando Solo. The missile uses large midbody strakes for enhanced lift, and folding cruciform tail controls for semiconformal carriage. A variant of the Agat 9B-1388 active seeker is employed, claimed to be capable of acquiring a 5 square metre target at 21.5 NMI.

Range performance varies with the flight profile, from 80 NMI for a direct shot, to a maximum of 215 NMI for a cruise glide profile. In 1994 a trial round killed a target at 162 NMI, a record for a BVR missile. The production status of the R-37 remains unclear at this time, but the missile remains a candidate for advanced Sukhoi users.



If India is not an advance Sukhoi user, who else is ?

 

[gubbi]

I have reasons to believe India has these killers.

Vympel R-37 (AA-13 Arrow)

Even better. The R-77 AMRAAMSKI. 1600 on order by IAF.

Source

 

[TaimiKhan]

Taimi sir...Don't you think MKI's won't come alone if there mission is to kill the AWACs??? Or they will come in good numbers to keep the irritating interceptors away??? What i am not able to comprehend is that how deep inside Pakistan is safe/comparatively safe for Pakistani AWACS???

Definitely they will come with escorts, but problem is if they come into Pakistan's air space, it will not only have to face the interceptors, rather also if not destroyed SAM batteries, thus within enemy territory, with BVR equipped interceptors, SAM batteries still active, it is gonna be one hell of a task for the MKI to shoot down AEW&C. Lets suppose even if we have SAM batteries, even before the MKIs enter Pakistani airspace, they will be in the sights of the SAMs and as they approach nearer targets for SAMs will become bigger. As said, it is one hell of a job, high risk, high chances of getting many aircraft downed.

MKI's are mini awacs in themselves....If i go by wiki then they have 350 KM search range and 200 KM tracking range....If not wrong Pakistani AWACS have a range of 450 KM....K-100 has a reach of 400 KM....If not wrong then MKI's will have to maintain a distance of atleast 250 KM distance to earn a Kill....Now my question to you is how much strategic depth would be the right depth for PAF to keep the asset safe??? In my eyes it should be atleast 250-300 KM away from India border or else MKI's can fire these missile from well with in India border....On top of that if IAF use their Phalcons to guide MKI's fire missiles then not sure what would be a safe depth...

Can you elaborate a bit on it???

As far as I know, PAF AWAC would be atleast 250-300 KM inside from the border, even if it had 400KM detection and tracking range, all PAF needs is to see inside of India from 50-100KM deep, to know about any incoming aircraft, as PAF does not needs to look 300Km deep inside in India, PAF wants AWACS for early warning, even a 5-10 minute early warning is more then enough to launch interceptors, and control the fleet in air through these AWACS, we have defensive doctrine for these AWACS, not offensive. Plus, these AWAC are gonna be supported by land based assets, who can also see incoming aircraft from far away, so AWAC is not the only asset for detecting enemy.

So even if PAF AWAC is 300KM deep inside Pakistan, for the MKI to detect it and then keep an eye on it, with what radar specifications you gave, it will have to come into Pak territory or be very very close to the border and i believe the big problem would be that the MKI will have to keep its nose towards Pakistan to keep tracking the AWAC, thus with the nose toward Pakistan, it will have to move in slowly towards Pakistan, as if it changes in flight path and the radar loses its coverage area where the AWAC was, the missile if launched will be not getting its coordinates, and the MKI will have to again position itself to acquire the AWAC once again.

So as said, pretty difficult task and risky one. If PAF SAM system is not harmed much and it still has teeth and its interceptors are flying, MKIs are gonna have a tough time and fight.

AWACS are not gonna be alone, they are gonna be assist by land based radars and GCS which will keep it telling what is where and what is coming.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Depends where you are....In Pak AIR-Space ..No doubt about it....In fact AWACS have proved to be blessing for PAF....Had there been no awacs then MKI's would have made life extermely difficult for PAF...We would have been locking their fighters without even getting detected....

Anyways AWACS will play very limited role in enemy's Air-Space.....they are too valuable target to be risked by bringing close to enemy's border.....So in short if they enter our Air-Space then their fighters are on their own and MKI"s superior Radar and endurance will tilt the probabily of claiming a kill by a significant number....

AWACS are not that much of a blessing, as said there were ground based radars before AWACS were here, radars who have 400+KM ranges, thus we already knew what is going to come and where it is heading.

AWACS give you the benefit of a radar which can detect low incoming aircraft which the land based systems lacked, as well as something which is hard to destroy compared to land based radars and an aerial command center.

PAF still has a very good radar coverage of Pakistan, even before arrival of AWACS.

 

[anathema]

Well my friend obviously we would not be launching a single missile and keep our hands crossed right?? so a salvo of atleast 6 to 8 missiles have to be fired due to the fighter cover around the AWACS

Salvo to where ? It is not as easy as it sounds. For this mission to be succesful the Novator missile either should have a lock on after launch capability or some body should actually guide this missile to AWACS.

Further there should be both passive and active homing heads on this missiles OR there should be two types of missiles in a salvo mode (the way it is with R77). Why ?

AWACS (not sure about SAAB AWECS) is a powerful jammer device. It can easily jamm incoming missile. Further if it is not able to jamm then it can switch of its radar which would cause active sensor to fail but passive can still hom in one radiation caused by the aircraft. But there is still the issue of flairs /chaff's etc....

If there is a succesful shot against AWACS, it would call it a pure luck and nothing else. BUT, what these kinds missions can do is --- Make the PAF AWECS extremely cautious which can be used to advantage , same applies to IAF AWACS. However india has bit more strategic depth which it can use.

However i am unable to comprehend this fooling of AWACS statement by you, why do we need to fool it we want to shoot it. u see once such a high value target goes down air superiority is gauranteed right , i may also be wrong since i am not a authoritative source on air warfare am just a enthusiast with very little knowledge. So u can take this as my presumption.

I think launching a barrage of 10 to 12 missiles (though may sound redundant) is worth the effort when taking out "the eye in the sky".

Defence professionals could provide valuable inputs here as i am a bumbling baby by their standards.

[/QUOTE]

And what happens if we miss ? If the mission is a failure ? What happens if the AWEC is too well protected ?

You see there is no surprises ever since AWACS has come on both sides. .i.e we cannot carry out raids that IAF or PAF used to carry out. Gone are those days !! In this kind of situation how should we counter AWAC situation ? Is there a possibility to fool AWACS ? Can it be done ? How to counter the AWEC situation ?

Like i said Diversionary tactics come into mind but still surprise is not achieved. AWACS killer missile can be used and these may force the respective AWACS to operate well beyond the monitoring range which can be used to advantage but still there is no surprise !!

All in all -- Ever since AWACS has come into picture i feel it is going to be a war about numbers.. .i.e who ever as more numbers and more accurate weapon delivery systems dominates.

Note :- Pakistan will have atleast 6 AWECS -- neautralizing all 6 of them is anything but possible. We may get one but there's just too many.

 

[anathema]

Well if we go by reports then 12-14 Mig-29 are stationed there(obviously denied by GOI and Tajik Govt)....However not sure what are the paradigms of this base...Cna someone tell if we can use that base during war with Pakistan??? This will defnitely provoke a retaliation by PAF...Under such circumstances how secure this base would be?? In other words in was will be an asset or a liability....

P.S : Don't jump on my neck....Just curiosity to raising doubts....

Using Tajik base for Mig29 operations against PAF would amount to Tajik declaring war against PAK. -- This will give China to enter into the war, a situation which is not so good for IAF.

As Dash said - Special ops seems likely. But Tajik base being so far away from western border , what kind of special ops and where would it be conducted ? -- is the question.

 

[anathema]

Sir not only that, keep in mind the target for this missile will be maneuvering and cruising at a speed of around 500-600 knots. The jamming capabilities of an AWAC are extremely potent, it will definitely try to jam the missile of the enemy aircraft which is trying to lock on. IAF will most probably use their SU30MKI to launch the K100, due to MKI's large RCS it will be detected long before the missile is launched. If in the scenario the SU30MKI manages to sneak through and locks on the Erieye, the escort for the Erieye will neutralize the incoming missile with its heat seeking missiles. In conclusion, its not that easy to take out an AWAC. Either the other side must have complete superiority or a combination of extremely good tactics and luck to take out an AWAC.

Su 30 would be launching platform but it doesnt necessarily need to be present to guide the missile all the way.

It can fire the missile from 200 KM (or whatever), guide the missile for some time or let the missile be interially guided(which is a foolish choice i believe) and then let the rest of the guidance be done PHALCON AWACS.
Theoretically it is possible for PHALCON AWACS (or AWECS)to guide a missile towards target --- practically not sure if it has ever been achived. I believe GAMBIT explained this long back.

I agree with the Bold part though...a lot of luck will come into play.