Jump to content

Oh Dear ..........


vtecjack

Recommended Posts

There's nothing wrong with self-promotion, and as the score shows, they waxed the RAF within visual range. Great pilots, great aircraft, and congratulations are due :thumbsup:.

The Su-30 is an extremely manoeuvrable aircraft, and in the right hands, in a knife-fight with a Typhoon will out-fight it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear indeed, though the 12-0 scoreline does reflect somewhat artificial conditions.

The article cites IRST (so, presumably the HMS was the key element in the close dogfight, though not mentioned.) Seems like the Russian built version gets to the punch quicker than the BAE one. Bit disappointing that the 2v1 resulted in the Su-30 decisively winning the engagement. I wonder if the 2nd WSO crew member was a factor? More questions than answers so far.

They don't say how badly their guys did in the flight-sized engagements. Would be interesting to see a different perspective on the exercises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a big surprise that the Su's are very good at close-range-combat, but I honestly doubt that 1v1 / 2v2 within visual range are the combats that are going to happen. It would be far more interesting to see how a fight would develop if it starts at >50 miles, with the Captor/Pirate/Meteor - team vs. the russian ones. Including live firings, to check the real capabilities of the self protection suites. But maybe it's better not to know that, as only a real fight would give a clear winner...

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that the Su-30 is a very dangerous opponent in WVR environment and the Indian pilots seem to have constantly improved over the time, as testified by the very good results achieved in the various multinational exercises over the last few years. Kudos to them, they're doing a very good job!

At the same time we should always keep in mind that exercises are always designed to test certain tactics and are set to certain rules. The aim of an exercise is to learn, not to show who's best and I'm sure both parties learnt a lot of useful things from this exercise. Drawing conclusions about how good or not an aircraft is from an exercise is impossible without knowing all the parameters and for this reason I wouldn't worry too much about the Typhoon capabilities.

So that's why the indians bought Rafale and not Typhoon then ?

I'd assumed they went that route because we our overseas sales process can't grease enough palms not because the product is pants.

The Al Yamamah contract has shown that the British industry has all the skills required to succeed in an international competition of that kind

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be a balance between propaganda and good manners. I wonder how much reality there is in that result.

It should wake up a lot of Typhoon drivers if there is any truth in it.

Though it sound like a case could be made now for all those Typhoon updates that might need to be funded.

Nigel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Al Yamamah contract has shown that the British industry has all the skills required to succeed in an international competition of that kind

Beautifully put :clap2:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that's why the indians bought Rafale and not Typhoon then ?

I'd assumed they went that route because we our overseas sales process can't grease enough palms not because the product is pants.

India cancelled the bulk of that this week as they could not agree terms with Dassault. (as many neutral observers suspected it might)

Whether the remaining order for 30ish direct from the French production line goes ahead remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If memory serves me correct, when Typhoon was ordered and that order slashed from 250 units many of its capabilities were watered down to save costs and in a similar post on this site, the Typhoon will not be as capable as the Tornado it is replacing intill late this decade (air to ground). Odd that as the Typhoon is already a decade into its 25-30 year lifespan so you cannot blame the Indians for not wanting to buy the L model ' Cortina ' ( Typhoon ), instead going for the 'Ghia' model( Rafale) that is pretty much fully developed. I am not surprised by this at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a surprise is it; the Typhoon bested the F-22 Raptor in a dogfight, but this is pointless; why be good at a dogfight when your enemy is using BVR and will nail you from miles off?

Dogfighting seems to be well and truly over now (I realise this was said when the F4 Phantom was designed, maybe I'm making the same mistake). The Typhoon doesn't even have a working cannon on it, so there's no point dogfighting! The EE Canberra could out-manoeuvre ANY RAF fighter jet throughout it's service which, again, counts for nothing.

Maybe it's not a surprise that India chose the Su-30 for it's dogfighting capabilities. India is most likely primarily concerned about being able to counter it's neighbour's F-16 and Chengdu fighters and due to these neighbours sharing a border engagements are likely to be close quarters.

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly a surprise is it; the Typhoon bested the F-22 Raptor in a dogfight, but this is pointless; why be good at a dogfight when your enemy is using BVR and will nail you from miles off?

Dogfighting seems to be well and truly over now (I realise this was said when the F4 Phantom was designed, maybe I'm making the same mistake). The Typhoon doesn't even have a working cannon on it, so there's no point dogfighting! The EE Canberra could out-manoeuvre ANY RAF fighter jet throughout it's service which, again, counts for nothing.

Maybe it's not a surprise that India chose the Su-30 for it's dogfighting capabilities. India is most likely primarily concerned about being able to counter it's neighbour's F-16 and Chengdu fighters and due to these neighbours sharing a border engagements are likely to be close quarters.

Ben

The Canberra could out-manouver many fighters during its career, but not at all heights: the large wing and low wing load made it formidable at high level but down low things were not so clear.

Speaking of "wargames" and Canberra, I was told that over the years there was a lot of "playing" between Italian fighters and the RAF Canberras heading for Malta. The Italians knew that the Canberra were scheduled to overfly the country heading to Malta and took advantage to exercise at high level interception. The mainstay of the fighter force was initially the Sabre Mk.4 (actually ex RAF aircrafts) and these really struggled against the Canberras and these could shruh off the Sabres with no real problem. The introduction of the F-86K made things much easier for the fighters as this variant had an afterburner and had much better performances. However the PR.9 variant was an even better performer at high level and even the K could hardly hope to intercept the latest recce Canberra. It was only with the M2 F-104 that the fighter force could finally intercept the Canberra.

Hope that the OP will excuse me for wandering off topic, just let me finish by saying that the Canberra was IMHO overall the very best military aircraft built in Britain after the war

Edited by Giorgio N
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typhoon does have a working cannon on it.

If memory serves me correct, when Typhoon was ordered and that order slashed from 250 units many of its capabilities were watered down to save costs and in a similar post on this site, the Typhoon will not be as capable as the Tornado it is replacing intill late this decade (air to ground). Odd that as the Typhoon is already a decade into its 25-30 year lifespan so you cannot blame the Indians for not wanting to buy the L model ' Cortina ' ( Typhoon ), instead going for the 'Ghia' model( Rafale) that is pretty much fully developed. I am not surprised by this at all.

Not quite.

1. The Germans - or more accurately defence minister Ruhe - sought to have Typhoon cancelled. This failed. Then, there was an attempt to water down the capabilities (no CAPTOR, use APG-65 instead, etc). This was rebuffed as well.

2. The Typhoon's weapons integration programme was carefully planned, but the assumptions which underpinned it were overtaken by events; unfortunately, the MoU was not as easily changed. The idea was that Typhoon replaced the F3 (in UK service), F-4F (Germany) and F-104 (Italy), while the Spanish saw it as a useful, but not quite as urgent replacement for the Mirage F1. Of the partner nations, the UK was most interested in the air-ground role, but the air-ground role was more than adequately covered by the Tornado GR, Harrier and Jaguar fleets. Typhoon was not meant to be a replacement for the Tornado GR (that was the now long-dead Future Offensive Air System), but for the Jaguar.

The problem was that the Tornado GR force was reduced in size more considerably than planned, while the Jaguar and Harrier fleets are both long gone. The RAF attempted various cunning gambits to get air-ground capability integrated more quickly (noting that it might harm export sales), but the programme management, through NETMA, has been glacially slow; the UK was always outvoted by the partner nations about speeding up air-ground weapons clearances. The Italian AF became very concerned that their politicians would start asking whether the F-35 was really needed as soon as they realised how capable in the air-ground arena the Typhoon could be (would be if the weapons integration was sorted), and their needs were covered by the Tornado IDS and the AMX; the Germans have a constitutional issue regarding the use of air-ground capable aircraft and weren't that interested in speeding up the process because their needs were covered by the Tornado IDS. And the Spanish had the F/A-18, which covered all their needs, as Spanish AF officers on exchange at Staff College over here were all-too ready to inform readers in their research papers (all of which had different titles and apparently different subjects, but all of which ended up telling us how great the Hornet is. Mmmm).

The change came when the Saudis in effect waved large wodges of cash at NETMA (with the RAF cheering them on in the background) and being very demanding customers; I would not be surprised, if the money can be found from the reinvestment now permitted, if the RAF doesn't get Storm Shadow onto Typhoon a little ahead of the current plan.

We need to be clear - the delays in integrating planned weapons capability have nothing to to with the quality of the aircraft and everything to do with the politics of international collaboration. NETMA's management processes may well have cost Eurofighter the Singaporean contract, and pretty much killed off Typhoon's chances in the South Korean contest as well; in both instances, the pilots from the respective air forces were very impressed - the problem was that their procurement people (quite reasonably) did not believe that the air-ground capabilities they wanted would be ready when they wanted them. In the Korean instance, I'd suggest that didn't really matter, since the answer was always likely to be an American aircraft, but in the case of Singapore, there has always been a sense from pilots I've worked with (both Singaporean and British) that the Typhoon would've been in with a chance.

Which brings us to the Indians. First, there was a strong pro-Typhoon lobby in the IAF; the problem of course - as has been well documented - is that Rafale was cheaper. Similar capability at considerably less cost swung it - it wasn't a case of the Indians getting a much more capable aircraft. Unfortunately - as has been equally well documented - the Indians then discovered that the price wasn't quite as low as they'd thought it was, and that some of the terms and conditions they were expecting (and to be fair to Dassault, some of these were not reasonable) were not possible. Which is why they've now cancelled the contract for 126 (and, indeed, the whole programme which led to the contract) and gone for a direct purchase - which, according to some media sources, is now running into bother.

Now to the Su-30s. I'm afraid, to be blunt, that it is getting to the point where someone needs to take the Indian high commissioner to one side and to tell him that if the Indian press is going to print disingenuous, inaccurate and distorted nationalistic, gentlemen's appendage waving bovine scatological output which then causes embarrassment for their hosts because a credulous press laps it up, then the Indian AF will need to seek new partners who will not object to the Indian press coming out with this rubbish. Defence diplomacy does not involve issuing tales of humiliation of your exercise partner, particularly when said tales are untrue - granted, not as bad as the Pakistani media tales about the F-16 beating RAF Typhoons at Anatolian Eagle (the problem being that the Pakistani AF F-16s participated at one AE, and the RAF hadn't sent any Typhoons to that iteration of the Ex...), but still annoying and damaging since you know that the likes of Lewis Page will use it to further their own ill-informed anti-Typhoon agenda.

The exercise was rather less flattering to the Su-30s than the Indian press would like us to believe - indeed, when the arrival of the Su-30s was announced, there was speculation as to what form the inevitable 'IAF Su-30s batter RAF Typhoon force' would take, and I have seen a couple of spoof news reports written before the ex started which are frighteningly close to what is in the story... Don't believe everything you read in the press - particularly when it's the Indian press attempting to 'big up' their air force...

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

disingenuous, inaccurate and distorted nationalistic, gentlemen's appendage waving bovine scatological output

so, it's all actually lies and completely untrue then? The press don't surprise me these days, but it's a big stretch for me at least to believe that an entire story was completely and maliciously made up, rather than merely misreported or inaccurate,which is the usual journalistic standard.

Is there another account from a more reputable source we can compare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect, that's not what I said - what I'm saying is that the Indian press are attempting to persuade their readers that the Su-30s turned up and enjoyed a perfect record against the Typhoons during the whole of the exercise. Which is wrong.

My suggestion is that the Indian press knew this hence my use of 'disingenuous, inaccurate and distorted'. I believe that there is a polite rebuttal on the verge of coming out from the RAF (it may already have appeared) placing the story in context; the Su-30s did not have everything their own way for the duration of the exercise.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for picking up that small piece of your otherwise highly informative and illuminating post XV107.

It sounded to me like they were bragging about their performance in the 1v1 and 2v1 close range turning dogfights. When it came to the flight vs flight tactical engagements the article went suddenly coy, suggesting a different outcome which was not reported in any detail. I think it's not quite true that they suggested the Su30 had a perfect record across the whole exercise - there's definitely a whiff of backpedalling regarding the larger engagements.

I think the article was inaccurate and biased in the usual tone of journalistic hyperbole, and definitely takes a nationalistic slant, but personally it looks to me like they asked some pretty big questions of the Typhoon in the close range encounters which deserves further investigation. Similarly, the Su might have exposed some of its own tactical shortcomings in the area of flight coordination in complex engagements, which would also be worth hearing more about.

Thanks for the reply!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always a matter of the exercise layout... I knew some F-5 Tiger pilots, who had absolutely no problem to give a hard time to F/A-18 pilots. As long as you could trade height for turns, they were even. When getting to the bottom of the exercise area, they lost, as predicted, as they had no means to gain some energy. It's maybe an extreme example. But I wouldn't bet anything on a Tiger fighting a Hornet in real life!

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...