Mig-29 K/kub Fighters For India, First pictures - Page 3

Archer · 02-14-2007, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tphuang

super, I was looking for a zhuk-mfe brochure. Although, with the development of Zhuk-MAE, not sure if MFE will ever be put in service anywhere.

I actually got a brochure of Zhuk-ME too.
http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/2257/zhukmeav9.jpg

Yes, range performance for the ME has improved. TWS figures are reasonable.
I concur about the MFE, its dead, so is the MSF, and the MSE..Phazatron will directly try to sell the MAE derivatives.

BTW, NIIP has made a presentation to India about an AESA FCR, India might go for that over the Irbis for a MLU. The Bars is regarded better than sliced bread by the IAF.

Garry · 02-15-2007, 08:14 AM

Had amazing talk with my old friends in January! Was sitting quite and listenning... when guys discussed about - WHO WOULD MAKE Active Array Antena first...

From what I understood. Phazatron is way AHEAD. It has a working design already. IT IS TESTED on aircraft.

NIIP is laggin behind. They have something they call an active antena but put many reservations on that.... they are following Phazatron and even make some of the chips of the Phazatron's antena.

Leninets is just hoplessly behind the race...

From what I understand - Phazatron has designed something, but NIIP has build a line producing small volumes of galium chips needed antena. They need much more of these chips to complete tests... In general Russia is just couple of years behind having a tested antena

tphuang · 02-16-2007, 22:42 PM

Quote:

Yes, range performance for the ME has improved. TWS figures are reasonable.
I concur about the MFE, its dead, so is the MSF, and the MSE..Phazatron will directly try to sell the MAE derivatives.

yeah, ME pretty much achieved comparable performance to PESA radar. And realistically, I don't think you really need to be able to engage more than 4 targets concurrently anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

Had amazing talk with my old friends in January! Was sitting quite and listenning... when guys discussed about - WHO WOULD MAKE Active Array Antena first...

From what I understood. Phazatron is way AHEAD. It has a working design already. IT IS TESTED on aircraft.

NIIP is laggin behind. They have something they call an active antena but put many reservations on that.... they are following Phazatron and even make some of the chips of the Phazatron's antena.

Leninets is just hoplessly behind the race...

From what I understand - Phazatron has designed something, but NIIP has build a line producing small volumes of galium chips needed antena. They need much more of these chips to complete tests... In general Russia is just couple of years behind having a tested antena

That's what I thought too, which could be why NIIP kept on saying that it's PESA radar is as good as many AESA radar.

Archer · 02-18-2007, 12:11 PM

The Bars cant do all that an AESA can ..but its definitely equal to several AESAs out there..in terms of KPs
The Zaslon upgrade ditto..
NIIP does have some point to stating that AESA for AESAs sake is not optimum. An APG-77 otoh with DDS, is optimal.

kams · 02-18-2007, 14:06 PM

Link

Quote:

IAF to acquire 120-km range air-to-air BVR missiles

New Delhi, Feb. 18 (PTI): To maintain its unchallenged dominance in beyond visual range (BVR) combat in the South Asian region, Indian Air Force has embarked upon a major plan to acquire longer range air-to-air missiles.

India's dominance in offensive air superiority operations is being dented by the supply of similar BVR missiles to Pakistan by the US in government-to-government sales.

This sudden move has spurred IAF officials to make quick efforts to purchase 120-km range air-to-air missiles. The acquisition of such missiles, which sport ramjet propulsion, will make IAF the lone Air Force in Asia to have such an unparallelled capability, top IAF officials said.

Acquisition of these missiles is being undertaken in tandem with moves to induct combat aircraft with active phased array radars.

The new 40 Sukhoi-30 advanced version MKI, whose purchase in a deal worth 2.6 billion dollars has been cleared by the government, and 126 medium range combat aircraft, tenders for which are expected to be floated by this month-end, will be equipped with the new radars, officials said.

These new radars will for the first time give the IAF the capability to detect targets as far as 300 km away and the means to fire such longer range air-to-air missiles.

Till now, the IAF had an unchallenged dominance in beyond visual range combat with its array of MiG fighters equipped with R-27 REI and R-27 RETs missiles with a target lock-on of 35 km for close combat and the longer range R-77 and French R-550 Magic Mantra missiles capable of shooting down targets 60 km away.

But the recent decision of the US administration to clear the supply of AMRAAM and AIM-9M Sidewinder beyond visual range missiles to Pakistan has eroded the IAF's dominance in air combat, officials admitted.

The US government has cleared the sale of AMRAAM and Sidewinder air-to-air missiles worth 240 million dollars to Islamabad to equip its new batch of 50 F-16 fighters.

"There are moves also to start indigenous development of such long-range missiles by DRDO with possible foreign collaboration," a DRDO sources said.

With the induction of three Phalcon airborne early warning and control aircraft between November this year and 2009, the IAF would get the capability to conduct and control airborne operations upto 400 km inside hostile airspace.

The new Su-30MKI, which India would be acquiring by 2009, would be equipped with Ibris active phased radars which will transform the fighters into a dedicated information weapons platforms.

Thanks to a large number of fighter exercises carried out with foreign Air Forces, IAF pilots have mastered beyond visual range combat even in an AWACS environment. "The pilots are all agog to train with longer range BVR missiles," an IAF official said.

IRBIS is ready? and which Ramjet BVR these guys are talking about? Meteor?

Garry · 02-19-2007, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer

The Bars cant do all that an AESA can ..but its definitely equal to several AESAs out there..in terms of KPs
The Zaslon upgrade ditto..
NIIP does have some point to stating that AESA for AESAs sake is not optimum. An APG-77 otoh with DDS, is optimal.

Especially if we through in some economics... AESA has edge over PESA but its costs is much higher... So the difference in costs is actually a price which is paid for few additional features like independent beams (that what I heard). Even the guys who were discussing both directions and very obvious fans of AESA admitted that PESA will stay as a viable design long after AESA will be serially introduced. What I heard was that PESA does most of the things MANY times cheaper

Archer · 02-19-2007, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kams

Link

IRBIS is ready? and which Ramjet BVR these guys are talking about? Meteor?

Kams, I would love the report to be true, but its BS.

Its by Sengupta, what he writes, could be reproduced by a dozen monkeys on pot.

Archer · 02-20-2007, 09:31 AM

Vishnu flies the F-16:

Quote:

Dear Friends ... I thought long and hard about putting in this post ... since, in a sense, it is similar to what I have written in the past. However, I am extremely tempted to share with you my experiences at Aero India where I flew on the F-16 and the MiG 35 prototype. A week or so prior to that I had flown on the MiG 29UB trainer near Moscow. For an aviation enthusiast .. the last few weeks have been more than a dream come true.

I have posted extensively on the MiG 29UB sortie ... so this is about the F-16 and MiG 35 ride. I also believe I now have enough experiences to compare and contrast the flying characteristics of the various fighters I have flown on.

Also ... first up ... a sincere apology to all the BRfites at the stall at Yelahanka ... I was unable to meet you guys. The nature of television journalism is such that there is often no real time for genuine engagement with people who know and understand. I was simply too busy filing stories on Ratan Tata's sortie ... the IJT crash or the air displays. This is all for a larger audience and not stuff which would necessarily interest an expert audience ... like many of you over here.

I flew the same F-16 as Ratan Tata ... my pilot was Paul Randall of Lockheed Martin. I was invited by the US Ambassador to fly the jet. Prior to the sortie, the Lockheed Martin people were very specific about medical examinations. I underwent a full fledged medical at the CME at Subroto Park Delhi. What should have been a basic physical (so I thought) turned out to be an ECG, a urine test, a blood test, hearing, eyesight, reflex, ENT, BP and a basic examination of the spinal cord. The Group Captain who examined me made it clear that he intended being entirely rigorous and to `please let us do our job.' So I shut up ... and went through 4 hours of tests. The end result ... fully fit ... and certified to fly though I was told to kill 2 kgs. Later, the Lockheed Martin flight surgeon who spoke to the Group Captain was told I was a `a fine physical specimen !' I was relieved.

At Yelahanka ... Paul ... my pilot ... had been briefed on my previous flight experiences and asked me specifically what I wanted to do. I told him that I had done 6.2g in the past without much difficulty and wanted to test the 7 g threshold. I made it clear that I wanted to experience the flying aspect of the sortie ... though they made it clear that they intended to demonstrate some of the systems on board including the radar's operations. (My comment AT vISHNUS priorities, LOL!!)

The F-16 cockpit is narrower than the cockpit of all the other fast jets I have been on. Behind the side-stick controller is a small elbow rest and the position of the right arm is extremely comfortable ... and far more ergonomic that a conventional stick. Also, remember, the side-stick is pressure sensitive ... and doesnt move more than an inch or so in all directions. As always, I needed to know some basic operations for the flight: emergency O2 supply, intercom operations and arming the ejection seat.

I have a flight overall already and gloves which Boeing gave me when I flew the Hornet at the Farnborough airshow last year. On this occasion ... I wore a Lockheed Martin supplied kit ... with boots and G suit.

Before I could get anywhere close to the jet ... I had to practise sliding in and sliding off the oxygen mask ... Believe me, its really difficult.

After being briefed and strapped into the cockpit ... by a 70 year old man (someone who has been in the company for decades) ... we rolled to the edge of the runway ... for what would be a full burner take-off.

I immediately noticed a couple of things about the jet which I did not like. The 02 flow into my mask wasnt smooth ... and the position of the intercom ... under and ahead of the throttle ... was difficult to reach. It would be much much tougher while pulling gs.

Rear visibility on the F-16 twin ... contrary to what I though ... is mediocre ... the main hinge of the canopy folds and closes directly in front of the rear pilot.

The take-off run on full burner ... is absolutely stunning ... the acceleration is breaktaking ... far in excess of what I experienced on any of the other jets I have flown on. We went vertical, did a half loop ... straightened out and headed to an area northeast of Yelahanka.
Paul fired up the radar .. and put it into ground mapping mode ... the resolution on this Block 50 aircraft which had flown straight from the Iraq conflict ... was acceptable ... given the generation of the radar ... far inferior, though, to what I had seen on the F-18 F Super Hornet last year. There were (understandably) blindspots when we flew over a few hillocks. I was also shown the moving ground target attack mode ... where we locked on to what I was told were a few trucks ... the resolution of the radar was too poor for me to see what we had locked onto ...
The flying characteristics of the jet ... are simply amazing ... and though the MiG 29 and 35 pull the same g ... I feel the instantaneous rate of turn and the responsiveness of the controls are superior to the Russian jets. I base this on extensive personal experience ... though I will add no further to this aspect of the sortie.

Anyway, we continued turning and burning ... and Paul took me straight to 8 g ... which is bloody painful. For the first time, I felt close to blacking out ... though I recovered the second he let go of the controls. What made things worse was the position of my back/neck ... I was actually neck down when we pulled ... and in a high g maneuver ... if you dont have your head back ... you are essentially in trouble !!! Next time around ... I made sure I was in the correct position ... and we pulled clean to 8.2 g. What amazed me was Paul's ability to speak to me through the 8 g experience ... with no major change in the tone of his voice. Believe me ... pulling more than 6 g hurts like hell ... For starters, you feel the g suit is disembowelling you ... and then at about 7 your vision starts going. I went home that day with a pain in my back.

My sortie lasted about 35 minutes ... as we returned ... we tracked a few civilian jets in the area ... and interrogated them using IFF ... They pinged correctly ... so we didnt shoot them down !! ...

I noticed the ATC controller's commands were very difficult to understand ... and we were being consistently given difficult to understand instructions. In fact ... on a few occasions, Paul asked me if I could understand what the ATC said .. and I said I didn't. Paul kept asking the controller to repeat his instructions ... In fact, there was an element of uncertainty even while we were on finals.

Tough down was perfect ... though the runway at Yelahanka is an up and down hill ... My F-16 sortie had come to an end ... and with that my Falcon sortie.

Coming up ... sometime soon ... all about my ride on the prototype of the MiG-35 ... the first non-Russian to get a ride on the jet ...

Cheers
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor
NDTV

..and the MiG-35!

Quote:

OK guys ... here it is ... For all of you who have specific technical questions (the answers to which you may not get here) ... please email me ... and I will get them for you.

For starters ... I was not supposed to fly the MiG-35. About a week or so prior to that I had flown a sortie on the MiG 29UB trainer at the Gromov Flight Centre at Zhukovski near Moscow. On that occasion, I had asked for permission to be given a sortie on the UB since the pictures I would collect would make a huge difference to my story. Which it did.

The Russians were obviously impressed and they approached me about the possibility of a MiG sortie at Yelahanka and asked me to pen in a request. I DIDN'T do this since, frankly, I was not certain my editors would be too keen on yet another `Vishnu goes flying' story on air. Besides, I would already be flying the F-16.

Anyway, about a day or two prior to the show beginning .. MiG got in touch with me confirming the possibility of a sortie. I didn't want to look a gift-horse in the mouth ... and since Ratan Tata's sortie had generated enough attention ... I felt that it would be possible to do this story as well. Just about. As it turns out ... we aired the story on the day Tata flew the F-16. So at 8 pm, we had two back to back stories ... `Tata flies high' and `Vishnu flies high !!'

At the onset ... let me tell you ... and this is true ... that while the MiG 35 sortie was a high ... having the opportunity to sit down, eat lunch and have a couple of drinks with the great test pilot Pavel Vlasov (a Hero of the Russian Federation) ... and Mr. Byntin, the Chief Designer of the MiG 35 was wonderful. In fact ... I had had the opportunity to meet Pavel in Moscow as well, also at a lunch shortly after he flew the MiG-29KUB at its media debut (incidentally, the actual first flight of the KUB of which I have footage) took place two days prior to the media debut ... so the Russians, no fools, knew the thing flew before they brought in the international media.

Anyway ... lets fast forward to Yelahanka. My pilot would be Mikhail Belyaev who spoke reasonable English .. though with a heavy accent. We both realised the importance of keeping our conversation to a minimum ahead and during the flight so that we could get the pre-flight basics right. Later on, I would discover that Belyaev was an absolute clown ... supremely confident as a pilot with a sense of humour to match.

For starters the g suit. BRfites will be happy to know that after all these sorties ... I am confident about strapping onto a g suit all by myself !! But even before we got started with the g suit ... there was a problem ... flight overalls .. the Russian flight overalls were too small for me ( I am about 6'3) ... so ... we went to plan b ... I pulled out my own Boeing provided flight overalls ... and voila we were set to jet off. Alas, the MiG guys didn't provide me a pair of proper flight boots ... so my formal pair of black shoes remained. I am a bit of a sticker about uniforms ... and it just didn't feel right. Anyway.

As we approached the Fulcrum ... a senior Communications person at Boeing (who I have worked with extensively on my Hornet sortie last year) came up to be a touch irritated. "Vishnu, you'll fly just about anything won't you?" she asked.

She had obviously noticed my Boeing flight overalls (which didn't of course say `Boeing' anywhere). I let go a sheepish grin ... she already knew the answer ... and for those of you out there who don't ... in one word, the answer is `Yes.'

We were now next to the Fulcrum ... and I was given my bone dome ... and a cloth head cover (typically Russian) just before I got into the jet. A couple of points here ...

The Russian pilots helmet is the real deal. This one was obviously compatible with the IRST system. It was considerable heavier that the American/French/British helmets I have worn in the past. It was also, much, much, much more comfortable. In the American helmets, the sun visor is attached to the outside portion of the helmet. On the Russian ones, it is located inside ... and you need to push a release on either side of your eyes with both your hands to bring it down. It fits perfectly with the oxygen mask ... and the clarity is perfect. Belyaev later told me ... "We take our helmet to American .. and tell them ... `this is helmet for fighter plane. Your helmet meant only for small scooter." I must also confess, the Russian flight gloves (black leather) are far trendier than the heat resistant and loosely fitting American flight gloves but I am being superficial.
Russian step ladders to their jets also have a small upward facing brush (just like a broom brush) attached to the lowest step. This is meant to dust off snow from ones boots prior to boarding the jet.

The MiG 35 cockpit is considerably larger than the F-16 cockpit. Getting into the rear of the F-16 is quite difficult ... and as my pilot Paul Randall had told me .. there is no graceful way of getting in. Not so in the Fulcrum, you step off the ladder to the LERX just away from the gun exhaust and step right in ... one leg at a time. Guys, I am not wasting words here ... the act of stepping in and out of a fighter, as I have come to realise ... is a major issue.

The first thing I noticed on sitting down ... and being strapped in ... was the quality of the cockpit. For those of you who ogle at the cockpit of the Rafalle (I actually sat in one on the Charles DeGaulle carrier) ... let me be quite clear: this cockpit is as good ... for the following reasons ...

(a) Space: Because there is no clutter in the cockpit .. there is a sense of space ... Also, the new, broader canopy on the MiG 35 gives you a roomier feel as compared to the MiG 29 UB I flew.

(b) Cockpit ergonomics and configuration: There are 3 huge MFDs in front of you and a small one that serves as the HUD repeater.

(c) There are minimal switches under the arms of the pilot ... this is an out and out HOTAS fighter.

(d) Forward vision (HUD repeater) ... and this is an important point ... if clarity and depth perception is the priority ... the HUD repeater on the MiG 35 is state of the art ... streets ahead of anything I have seen on the other fighters. (Note, however, the Sea Harrier trainer, which I flew, has perfect forward visibility and does need a repeat of what the pilot in front is seeing ... It does, however, have a repeat of the HUD symbology.) My only ... small complaint about the MiG 35 rear HUD repeater is that the screen ... mounted along the pilot's line of sight ... is slightly small but considerably larger than the weird mirror image the periscope provides in the MiG 29UB trainer.

Oh yes, prior to the flight ... Mikhael asked me what it is that I wanted to do ... I was consistent with what I had told the other pilots ... `Mikhael ... the F-16 pilot took me to 8 g. Can we do the same?' Prompt came the reply .. `No problem ... we do 8g, Cobra and tail slide. OK?' I could only mumble a muted `da' in reply.

Anyhow, engine startup was like the other jets. I had been briefed on the emergency O2 system ... and the position of the intercom switch (which was on the throttle ... like the 29UB ... just where I like it). I was also shown the position of the hot switch in case I wanted to permanently keep on the intercom ... which is irritating since you hear the other pilot breathing loudly in your ear. This is where the Mirage 2000 is streets ahead of the other jets I have flown. It has a wonderful voice activated intercom ... no buttons ... no heavy breathing sounds.

As we rolled down the taxiway ... my focus was on the MFDs in front of me ... the INS display on the extreme right, engine parameters in the centre and the artificial horizon, AOA, airspeed indicator and the g meter on the extreme Left. The multi colour MFDS are large and extremely clear. I wanted to us the metric system for my airspeed and altitude ... and this had been set for me with a button push prior to the flight.

The take off run on the MiG 35 ... feels like a 747 compared to the F-16 .. it is slower ... much more refined ... and the difference between a single engine and two engines is perceptible. Don't get me wrong ... a full burner take off on any jet is still loads of fun. Mikhael veered left at low altitude on take off and then went vertical ... did a half loop and rolled out into the direction of our heading. We had done about 4.5 g ... but I felt almost nothing. That may be because the speed of the jet was slower than the F-16 ... but also may be because I have come to anticipate when the gs kick in. Also, the oxygen flow in the MiG 35 was outstanding ... very easy to inhale ... and no pressure on the lungs.

Mikhael then went into a lengthy explanation of the INS system ... pointing out our heading ... and some of the symbology on the unit ... He then said `You pilot, Vishnu' and I took control ... did a sharp bank to the right ... which he corrected by telling me to to head in the direction of the indicator on the INS display.

We kept flying for a while ... when Mikhael let me take over the controls ... we did a few hard turns ... and rolls. He then asked me if I was interested in a Cobra. No guesses on what my answer was. Anyway, there is a button on the Master Caution panel on the front right on the pilot which says "Cobra." That button has to be pushed before the maneuver can be done since the flight control system has to be overridden. What made the Cobra maneuver all the more enjoyable was the knowledge that this was a non TVC aircraft. The Cobra maneuver itself is a lot of fun ... Mikhael goes `Cobra now' and yanks hard on the stick ... the nose pitches right back ... and then he pushes the nose hard forward ... as we get into the negative g scenario .. which makes it feel like going down a psycho roller coaster. Like in the case of the tail slide … the ground rushes at you awfully quick … but there is immense power in this jet and we soon level out.

At this stage Mikhael demonstrates to me the stability of the jet by violently moving the stick around its axis … with absolutely no impact on the forward motion of the jet. The F-18 F pilot I had flown with at Farnborough had demonstrated the same thing.

We soon returned to a `You pilot Vishnu’ scenario … the part of the sortie (like in previous cases) where I choose to censor what I write though I will mention that we did 8.2g for which the Russians later gave me a certificate.

It was time now time to head back … but there was still time for a touch and go … we lined up with a runway … but touched down a touch fast … and bounced right back into the air … and which stage Mikhael decided that he would show off … plain and simple … He said `Ok Vishnu, now we do military style landing’ so he yanked hard and left … gaining altitude as we flew parallel to the runway in the opposite direction. We pulled into a violent 6 g left bank … lowering undercarriage … and leveling out pretty much on top of the runway before making a perfect touchdown. It was brilliant.

And I must say, it was another brilliant sortie … a whole lot of fun.

I anticipate a couple of questions from you guys …

1. The Zhuk radar … well, we did have it on for a short while and the resolution of the radar in the air to ground mode was considerably better than the F-16 Block 50 jet I had flown on.
2. The new Electro-optronic system … There was a huge language issue with the Russians here … they kept referring to it as a passive attack system … so I am afraid I have no details here.

Ok then … that’s it for the moment. That’s all the time I am going to spend on this article on my precious day off … You will have to hear about my lunch with Vlasov, Belyaev and Byntin at a later stage.

Cheers
Vishnu Som

MarquezRazor · 02-20-2007, 13:22 PM

Some guys are just too lucky!

highsea · 02-20-2007, 19:53 PM

Quote:

"Paul fired up the radar .. and put it into ground mapping mode ... the resolution on this Block 50 aircraft which had flown straight from the Iraq conflict ... was acceptable ... given the generation of the radar ... far inferior, though, to what I had seen on the F-18 F Super Hornet last year. There were (understandably) blindspots when we flew over a few hillocks. I was also shown the moving ground target attack mode ... where we locked on to what I was told were a few trucks ... the resolution of the radar was too poor for me to see what we had locked onto ... "

I don't know about the Russians, but I can guarantee you that in an American plane, airshow incentive rides are never offered with combat-coded AC.

If this Viper came from Iraq, it would have had an airshow tape loaded for the demo rides. There are declass versions of the software that are used for these kind of events.

The APG-68(v)9 has 2 ft. resolution in SAR ground imaging mode. What the author saw was not what a Viper driver sees in combat.

Vishnu · 02-23-2007, 08:42 AM

Dear "High Sea" ...

A couple of clarifications:

Firstly, I am not entirely sure what you mean by by "incentive ride." Whose incentive ? Mine as the journalist who has agreed to fly the sortie ... or Lockheed Martin's for having a story done on them by India's largest 24 hour tv news network?

Anyway.

You wrote : "incentive rides are never offered with combat-coded AC.If this Viper came from Iraq, it would hav had an airshow tape loaded for the demo rides. There are declass versions of the software that are used for these kind of events. The APG-68(v)9 has 2 ft. resolution in SAR ground imaging mode. What the author saw was not what a Viper driver sees in combat."

I regret to inform you that your information is not correct. The twin seat Block 50 F-16 I flew did indeed come from Iraq. Secondly, I have worked extremely closely with Lockheed Martin for this sortie which was offered to me. I was not allowed to film the cockpit ... but there were NO restrictions whatsoever in what was shown to me. Here are some more details on the circumstances in which the ground imaging mode on the radar was switched on ...

The area cleared to us for maneuvering during our sortie was Northeast of Yelahanka airbase, near Bangalore. For several minutes we flew over villages and small towns ... before the pilot said he was switching on the ground imaging mode on the radar. We then flew back over the villages I HAD SEEN and as we neared one .. the radar image sharpened considerably ... though it was not a patch on what I had seen on the F/A-18F Super Hornet when I was given a sortie at the Farnborough Airshow last year. THERE WAS NO ELABORATE SCHEME TO SHOW ME A CENSORED IMAGE SHOT ON A DECLASSIFIED TAPE, NEITHER WAS THERE ANY EFFORT AT SHOWING ME AN IMAGE THROUGH A LESS THAN OPTIMAL VERSION OF THE INSTALLED SOFTWARE. It would not be in Lockheed-Martin's interests to have done so ... and there couldn't conceivably have been a security concern since I didn't have a camera on me. Neither am I an expert.

Also, you wrote I had had made a "pretty stupid mistake" in apparently not knowing the difference between smoke and contrails. Now you are being plain silly.

Let me elaborate ... I was at the Gromov Flight Test Centre at Zhukovski, near Moscow for the media debut of the MiG 29 KUB. It was approximately -- 12 degrees outside ... but there is a HUGE difference between contrails and the hideous black smoke a Russian jet generates. The comparison between the MiG 29UB trainer which was the chase plane and the MiG 29 KUB could not have been more stark. Right from engine startup to take off to a low speed pass ... it was very clear the MiG 29 KUB was comparatively smoke free ... though NOT completely smoke free. I have extensive footage of all of this ... engine startup ... take off and the low speed pass ... In all three phases the KUB is NOT completely smoke free. The old UB trainer (which I happened to fly the next day) is of course very very smoky. As far as the MiG 35 is concerned ... besides flying on the jet (where it was not possible to monitor whether we were smoking) ... I happened to see several displays of the jet ... and it seems the aircraft was not smoking.

Vishnu Som
Associate Editor
New Delhi Television Ltd
vishnu@ndtv.com

kams · 02-23-2007, 09:23 AM

Vishnu,

Welcome to WAB.

highsea · 02-23-2007, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vishnu

Dear "High Sea" ...

A couple of clarifications:

Firstly, I am not entirely sure what you mean by by "incentive ride." Whose incentive ? Mine as the journalist who has agreed to fly the sortie ... or Lockheed Martin's for having a story done on them by India's largest 24 hour tv news network?

Vishnu, welcome to WAB.

An incentive ride is the term used for any ride offered to someone who would not otherwise have the chance to ride in the type. It could be anyone from someone who is considering a career in the air force, to journalists like yourself, businessmen, community leaders, etc. It's a generic term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vishnu

You wrote : "incentive rides are never offered with combat-coded AC.If this Viper came from Iraq, it would hav had an airshow tape loaded for the demo rides. There are declass versions of the software that are used for these kind of events. The APG-68(v)9 has 2 ft. resolution in SAR ground imaging mode. What the author saw was not what a Viper driver sees in combat."

I regret to inform you that your information is not correct. The twin seat Block 50 F-16 I flew did indeed come from Iraq. Secondly, I have worked extremely closely with Lockheed Martin for this sortie which was offered to me. I was not allowed to film the cockpit ... but there were NO restrictions whatsoever in what was shown to me. Here are some more details on the circumstances in which the ground imaging mode on the radar was switched on ...

<snip>

THERE WAS NO ELABORATE SCHEME TO SHOW ME A CENSORED IMAGE SHOT ON A DECLASSIFIED TAPE, NEITHER WAS THERE ANY EFFORT AT SHOWING ME AN IMAGE THROUGH A LESS THAN OPTIMAL VERSION OF THE INSTALLED SOFTWARE. It would not be in Lockheed-Martin's interests to have done so ... and there couldn't conceivably have been a security concern since I didn't have a camera on me. Neither am I an expert.

When I refer to the tape, I am not talking about a video tape or some type of alternate images fed to the back seat displays. The term refers to the software build that is running. It is a carryover from the days of loading the software with paper tape readers. Obviously we use portable computers to actually load the program these days, but the terminology remains. It's analogous to the "batch" files on your PC, which are a holdover from the days when computer programs were run by loading a stack of batch cards into a reader.

A new tape can be loaded in a matter of minutes, and this is the program that runs the radar. All incentive rides are given with declassified builds, unless you posess the appropriate clearance. Considering your profession as a journalist from India, (and presumably you are not a US citizen and therefore ineligible for one) I assume you do not hold a US security clearance.

Even foreign users do not get the same tapes that the US runs, so this is not a slight on you, it's just the way it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vishnu

Also, you wrote I had had made a "pretty stupid mistake" in apparently not knowing the difference between smoke and contrails. Now you are being plain silly.

If you read the thread, you will see that it was not me that suggested you did not know the difference. In fact, I believe I quoted your comments wrt the amount of smoke you witnessed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vishnu

Let me elaborate ... <snip>... In all three phases the KUB is NOT completely smoke free.

Which is what I said...

I have a question for you. You said:

Quote:

Anyway, there is a button on the Master Caution panel on the front right on the pilot which says "Cobra." That button has to be pushed before the maneuver can be done since the flight control system has to be overridden.

Are you saying the alpha limiter override has actually been labeled as the "Cobra" switch? I'm only asking because to me, this is one of the funniest things I have ever heard.

Vishnu · 02-23-2007, 10:30 AM

Hi ... yes ... the AOA limiter override switch is clearly marked Cobra in English ... its on the panel to the right (and slightly below) the HUD repeater.

I understand the point you make on the software which runs the radar. However, it seems silly for Lockheed-Martin to demonstrate a less than optimum radar image to some of the most experienced aviators in the Indian Air Force who flew the jet ... let alone aviation enthusiasts like me. Remember, Lockheed Martin is campaigning very very hard to win the MRCA deal to supply the IAF 126 jets. Demonstrating inferior radar capabilites (that too on an older non AESA equipped jet) makes little sense. Also, if they were showing me something inferior ... I am sure they would have mentioned that that the radar resolution provided to USAF pilots was actually better. The last thing Lockheed Martin or Boeing want to do is shoot themselves in the foot when everyone from the Swedes to the Russians are hard-selling their jets. I may add ... the quality of the strategic relationship between India and the United States has gone well beyond what exists between the US and many of its NATO partners. Security protocols which may have existed have certainly changed in many instances.

Let me enquire once again ... this may take some time

Cheers
Vishnu

highsea · 02-23-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vishnu

Hi ... yes ... the AOA limiter override switch is clearly marked Cobra in English ... its on the panel to the right (and slightly below) the HUD repeater.

That's hilarious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vishnu

... the quality of the strategic relationship between India and the United States has gone well beyond what exists between the US and many of its NATO partners. Security protocols which may have existed have certainly changed in many instances.

I am more aware of that than you probably realize...

02-23-2007, 08:42 AM	#41 (permalink)
Vishnu New Member Join Date: 02-23-07 Location: New Delhi Posts: 3 Country:	Clarifications Dear "High Sea" ... A couple of clarifications: Firstly, I am not entirely sure what you mean by by "incentive ride." Whose incentive ? Mine as the journalist who has agreed to fly the sortie ... or Lockheed Martin's for having a story done on them by India's largest 24 hour tv news network? Anyway. You wrote : "incentive rides are never offered with combat-coded AC.If this Viper came from Iraq, it would hav had an airshow tape loaded for the demo rides. There are declass versions of the software that are used for these kind of events. The APG-68(v)9 has 2 ft. resolution in SAR ground imaging mode. What the author saw was not what a Viper driver sees in combat." I regret to inform you that your information is not correct. The twin seat Block 50 F-16 I flew did indeed come from Iraq. Secondly, I have worked extremely closely with Lockheed Martin for this sortie which was offered to me. I was not allowed to film the cockpit ... but there were NO restrictions whatsoever in what was shown to me. Here are some more details on the circumstances in which the ground imaging mode on the radar was switched on ... The area cleared to us for maneuvering during our sortie was Northeast of Yelahanka airbase, near Bangalore. For several minutes we flew over villages and small towns ... before the pilot said he was switching on the ground imaging mode on the radar. We then flew back over the villages I HAD SEEN and as we neared one .. the radar image sharpened considerably ... though it was not a patch on what I had seen on the F/A-18F Super Hornet when I was given a sortie at the Farnborough Airshow last year. THERE WAS NO ELABORATE SCHEME TO SHOW ME A CENSORED IMAGE SHOT ON A DECLASSIFIED TAPE, NEITHER WAS THERE ANY EFFORT AT SHOWING ME AN IMAGE THROUGH A LESS THAN OPTIMAL VERSION OF THE INSTALLED SOFTWARE. It would not be in Lockheed-Martin's interests to have done so ... and there couldn't conceivably have been a security concern since I didn't have a camera on me. Neither am I an expert. Also, you wrote I had had made a "pretty stupid mistake" in apparently not knowing the difference between smoke and contrails. Now you are being plain silly. Let me elaborate ... I was at the Gromov Flight Test Centre at Zhukovski, near Moscow for the media debut of the MiG 29 KUB. It was approximately -- 12 degrees outside ... but there is a HUGE difference between contrails and the hideous black smoke a Russian jet generates. The comparison between the MiG 29UB trainer which was the chase plane and the MiG 29 KUB could not have been more stark. Right from engine startup to take off to a low speed pass ... it was very clear the MiG 29 KUB was comparatively smoke free ... though NOT completely smoke free. I have extensive footage of all of this ... engine startup ... take off and the low speed pass ... In all three phases the KUB is NOT completely smoke free. The old UB trainer (which I happened to fly the next day) is of course very very smoky. As far as the MiG 35 is concerned ... besides flying on the jet (where it was not possible to monitor whether we were smoking) ... I happened to see several displays of the jet ... and it seems the aircraft was not smoking. Vishnu Som Associate Editor New Delhi Television Ltd vishnu@ndtv.com Last edited by Vishnu : 02-23-2007 at 09:32 AM.

02-15-2007, 08:14 AM	#32 (permalink)
Garry *Defense Professional* Join Date: 06-18-04 Posts: 1,528	Had amazing talk with my old friends in January! Was sitting quite and listenning... when guys discussed about - WHO WOULD MAKE Active Array Antena first... From what I understood. Phazatron is way AHEAD. It has a working design already. IT IS TESTED on aircraft. NIIP is laggin behind. They have something they call an active antena but put many reservations on that.... they are following Phazatron and even make some of the chips of the Phazatron's antena. Leninets is just hoplessly behind the race... From what I understand - Phazatron has designed something, but NIIP has build a line producing small volumes of galium chips needed antena. They need much more of these chips to complete tests... In general Russia is just couple of years behind having a tested antena

02-18-2007, 12:11 PM	#34 (permalink)
Archer *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 10-13-03 Posts: 2,888	The Bars cant do all that an AESA can ..but its definitely equal to several AESAs out there..in terms of KPs The Zaslon upgrade ditto.. NIIP does have some point to stating that AESA for AESAs sake is not optimum. An APG-77 otoh with DDS, is optimal.

02-20-2007, 13:22 PM	#39 (permalink)
MarquezRazor *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-03-06 Posts: 1,269	Some guys are just too lucky!

02-23-2007, 09:23 AM	#42 (permalink)
kams *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-22-06 Location: Piscatawy, NJ Posts: 1,431 Country:	Vishnu, Welcome to WAB.

02-23-2007, 10:30 AM	#44 (permalink)
Vishnu New Member Join Date: 02-23-07 Location: New Delhi Posts: 3 Country:	Hi ... yes ... the AOA limiter override switch is clearly marked Cobra in English ... its on the panel to the right (and slightly below) the HUD repeater. I understand the point you make on the software which runs the radar. However, it seems silly for Lockheed-Martin to demonstrate a less than optimum radar image to some of the most experienced aviators in the Indian Air Force who flew the jet ... let alone aviation enthusiasts like me. Remember, Lockheed Martin is campaigning very very hard to win the MRCA deal to supply the IAF 126 jets. Demonstrating inferior radar capabilites (that too on an older non AESA equipped jet) makes little sense. Also, if they were showing me something inferior ... I am sure they would have mentioned that that the radar resolution provided to USAF pilots was actually better. The last thing Lockheed Martin or Boeing want to do is shoot themselves in the foot when everyone from the Swedes to the Russians are hard-selling their jets. I may add ... the quality of the strategic relationship between India and the United States has gone well beyond what exists between the US and many of its NATO partners. Security protocols which may have existed have certainly changed in many instances. Let me enquire once again ... this may take some time Cheers Vishnu