As previously alluded to in these pages, the Indian Air Force came west, young men, for to try their skills at Red Flag. With them they brought the vaunted SU-30MKI, against which were counter-opposed Eagles and Falcons and Hornets, oh my.
Turns out? Not all that and a bag of chips.
The cowboys win again.
Comments are made about the relative merits of different vectored thrust schemes and electronically scanned arrays, pilot experience levels, the advantages of integrated fighter-to-fighter datalinks (I sense a business opportunity), a gentleman named “BOB*”, and the Perfidious French. All at the unclas level. Supposedly.
Warm commentary on the advantages of having a hot gun in a fifth generation fighter (like the F-22 Raptor has), and an evident reluctance to discussing the F-35 (which has none). Because we just never learn a damned thing.
* Blue on blue
Nice find, audio quality sucked a little if you’re a non native US english speaker.
Now I don’t think that will last long on youtube. India, US and Russia, one of them will probably complain.
It’s fantastic when we can get one of those rare glimpses into the warfighter’s realm with a candid appraisal of various systems and how well they perform. Certainly, the individual giving the briefing certainly seemed to be someone well qualified to speak on the topic. I found his comments regarding the F-22 in WVR combat to be most illuminating, and quite a contrast to the bile that Pierre Sprey, Chuck Riccione, and others have been spewing at the F-22. I found the comments regarding the MiG-21 Bison upgrades, and the development of the MKI aircrews to be especially prescient. Fascinating stuff.
Did this particular Red Flag not involve any naval aviation? I wonder how the Hornet compares against the Su-30MKI in close. Would any MKI drivers be singing “I wish I had the alpha of a Hornet……”?
For the folks like me that love jets and wish they were fighter pilots, that was pretty amazing. I’m surprised that stuff was unclassified, though. I also wasn’t aware of the F-22 missile limitations, although of course it can carry a lot more (at the expense of all that fun stealthiness).
Great find, Lex; thanks for that. Given the stories I’ve heard over the years about French proficiency with industrial espionage, the part about the Rafales “listening in” was not surprising at all.
I’ll echo what Larry said. As a civi that gets to peak in from time to time at that world, I’m impressed.
However, is this really unclassified? And if so, should it be?
Granted there is Janes, and granted, the “other guy” is not sToOpiD either, and in todays world, there is significant information out there should one do the digging. But as fascinating as that was to watch those, I can’t help but feel some other good info was let out that perhaps should have been held a little closer to the vest.
F-35A has a gun; B and C do not.
Lex,
Steve Trimble has much more on the original post: http://iagblog.podomatic.com/entry/2008-11-05T15_41_04-08_00
Airborne guns are fun. And their dumb bullets never seek chaff or flares. They always go were pointed, regardless. They can’t be jammed. They are versatile. They don’t seek the sun. They fly through smoke and clouds. They are cheap. They can be recovered unspent without restriction. They can put fear into the enemy even when fired out of parameters and normal envelopes. They are a ‘multiplier’. And occasionally, even in modern airborne weapon systems and beyond visual range engagements, guns still come in handy in some instances.
So ask the downed aircrew in enemy territory whether they would like to see a gun-equipped or a ‘gunless’ aircraft flying above them, while waiting for a SAR rescue.
As the bad guys close in on the downed crew, there is nothing more wonderful than a wingman-with-a-gun firing a short burst of 20mm between you and the encroaching bad guys… and doing it again if necessary.
Fire the gun; save a crew. Gotta love the gun!
Change: Fliterman and I agree on something.
It’s working!
I had an odd idea while watching this, which is the gun is pretty much the perfect dumb kinetic weapon but, for all the advantages of you can’t jam it or distract it, the biggest problem is aiming it.
So we off-load the whole aiming problem to a missile and some radar or infrared seeker, the idea being it’s better to fire and forget and hope than to train and depend upon the original fire-and-forget belt-fed weapon system.
Then it struck me. We already have this airplane that can fly itself off an aircraft carrier. What if, instead of slaving a radar to fly a missile into a target, we slaved the aircraft’s radar to piloting the aircraft for a missile shot or gun shot, and once the pilot had positioned the aircraft properly he could drop horizontal and take his 7G blackout limit out of the picture?
By lying flat, like the astronauts?
The whole airplane becomes a radar-guided weapon system, with multiple payloads, and the pilot is just there to get it behind the target. Once slaved to the targeting radar, the pilot goes into a flat position hands off the controls and the electronics select heet-seeker, radar-homing, or guns depending upon target and distance and signature.
Once out of the hunt, either for loss of target or other reasons, hydraulics boost the chair back into upright position and Our Aviator resumes control of the aircraft.
You know, it’s not that far-fetched… The limitation on the airframe is still the fraility of the pilot in a turn. Eliminate that, but retain his strategic ability to guide the fight, you’ve opened up a whole lotta envelope to play within.
Or maybe, like a few other things I’ve done, it merely seems like a good idea at the time.
– Max
7G blackout limit? Geez, Max, that sounds like a Hoover kind of thing. I may be a bit old school, but our Phantom crews were notorious for cutting the air bags out of their speed jeans and still being able to laugh at you pulling 8.5-9G’s. Been there and seen it, so no BS in the retelling of it.
I did hear, however, how the Zoomies were rearranging the body’s internals in the F-16′s lounge chairs at moderate to, ahem, high G loads; strained ligaments and organs doing weird things…something like that…
I never quite understood the thing about the F-35 having only one engine. Rocket science not being my major, I still get that dual engine VSTOL is muy problematico, but why the Zoomies and NavAir would go there with the other versions beats me. Sounds rather McNamarish to me.
I mind the time when a former SLUF driver at Pt Mugu commented on the Navy NEVER again funding a single engine project for duty around the boat. His opinion was that it was principal among the myriad reasons why, as Lex so fondly describes Il Bug, God’s Jet found so much favor in NavAirDom; notwithstanding its stubby legs.
About the only problem that I recollect the Russian engines having had, was related to the seals on the vectored nozzles. It seems that they leaked or would blow out entirely while the much vaunted vectoring nozzles were engaged in making the aircraft do the rather entertaining, but nearly useless, tail walking thing…Cobra…or Poo Goo Chev…
Very cool to watch, however. Me’za got video! Want some?
Final blurb: In a previous lifetime our helo drivers used to shoot 2.75″ rockets at adversaries in WTI Yuma. A great strategy, especially given that one was unable tell the difference between smoke from a mindless 2.75″FFAR and the, oh so clever, Stinger. Dart, Dart, Dart!! As Chic Hearn of the World Champion Los Angeles Lakers used to say ” No Harm. No Foul!”
A friend of the female gender insists that “BOB” really stands for battery operated boyfriend, not blue on blue.
I never quite understood the thing about the F-35 having only one engine. Rocket science not being my major, I still get that dual engine VSTOL is muy problematico, but why the Zoomies and NavAir would go there with the other versions beats me. Sounds rather McNamarish to me.
No bucks, no buck rogers. That is pretty much it. One engine is cheaper than two in buy cost, maintenance cost, manning, etc. Huge diff in total ownership cost, in short. And their reliability has become amazing (says me who flies with two) although the jet engine has yet to be invented that can digest a well-placed rock.
I thought the reason the F-35 only had one engine was due to the weight penalty the second one would impose and also the idea that engines these days are more reliable than in previous eras.
Though I have only seen them used on tests and ranges, 2.5”s w/flechettes seemed pretty cool.
That was the sales pitch, engines had become so reliable that they’d never fail. Ever.
It also helps out on fuel consumption/range. It’s easy to stuff twice as many engines in an airframe, harder to put in twice as much gas.
Flit- concur.
Taxi – Engine reliability IS amazing these days. Most airlines don’t pull engines for “regular” inspections or re-works anymore. We just watch the performance data for a negative trend (which indicates a problem) and then pull them.
That being said – I don’t think that buys you much when you talk about Battle Damage Survivability. Doesn’t take a lot of airframe damage to start affecting motorwerks.
I’m surprised that the USAF didn’t take that dude out behind the hangar and give him a lead injection in the back of the noggin’ for talking about F-22 Capability/Limitations.
Lex/Flit: congratulations to both of you for reaching across the aisle on the issues that divide Americans of good will, and coming to consensus to reach a position where you both agree on something non-existent…
next step: agreeing on something that DOES exist. i propose puppies or unicorns. discuss amongst yourselves….
OK, dammit. How do I post a picture next to me?
Go here, young man. Follow the carefully written instructions, suited to the plainest understanding.
Tell your friends.
Funny thing about the engine reliability
bit. I think it was the Ruskis, of ALL people–they of the 20hr engine–who first produced the academic studies on the reliability/desirability of single-engined a/c, while we here in the land of the super-reliable resisted for a goodly while….
Oookay, at the risk of sounding dumb: the F-16 is single-engine, and it’s a pretty good combat aircraft. So why the fuss?
Or are the service rates worse for the -16, compared to the -15?
The Navy has been all over engine reliability for, well, ever. They went all-radial at the start of the 30s, didn’t they?
Same thing with USAAC/AAF bombers; all radial. No in-line engines.
It was my impression the Navy preference for two-engine jet fighters was based on the relative unreliability of first-generation jet engines.
The engines for the Demon weren’t all that great. On the other hand, the Skyhawk was a good design, no? Not to mention the “gunfighter” Crusader.
It was a good video that I was really surprised to see on YouTube.
I was disturbed by the enthusiasm of the speaker for using the F-22 in gunfights.
If our half-billion airplanes are going for guns against ten thousand dollar Mig-21s then we are in really serious trouble.
That video suggests to me that some adult supervisor should remove the guns from the F-22.
“Phantom crews were notorious for cutting the air bags out of their speed jeans and still being able to laugh at you pulling 8.5-9G’s.”
9G’s in a Phantom?? Where’s my old BS flag.
Jim,
If he’s so enthusiastic about using the F-22 in a gunfight, perhaps we should ask ourselves why we spent so much money on the F-22 instead of a gun fighter. Perhaps we were seduced by technology.
Amusing when the briefer said we might have to fight along side the Koreans, the Brits, and “God forbid” the French.
With these hyper reliable engines that never fail due to mechanical discombobulation, what about when the odd Canadian goose intervenes?
Casey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig71MzbPYKo
re: what about when the odd Canadian goose intervenes?
I’m guessing you get to fly the Martin-Baker penetration.
Probably one of the most informative things I’ve seen recently on air combat. And amen to a new gunfighter.
Really really surprized to see this on you tube. Bet the videographer was doing this surreptitiously. Although not specifically classified, I always admonished my audiences that Tactics are at a minimum FOUO. And the stuff he was releasing I’d rate higher. Although some would say that the stuff is already out there, I’d just rather play it safe, no sense it making it easy for the gomers.
Suprized a little re the FOD comment on the Tumanskii’s. The russians always had crappy runways, with chest high weeds in some cases. On the older planes, they actually closed the inlets and had a set of louvers on top of the intakes for taxiing and limited runs. Then again, if I had to ship all engines back to mother russia, I’d be a little more careful too.
I can understand Jim H and Jimmys comments re guns on such an expensive platform. Realize the additional imposed limitations due to weight, space etc. However comma, it’s a war machine, gie it bullets. I’m wiling to bet that a pod becomes available at some point in the future.
PS thanks for the GRAVATAR link
You tube link is dead
After all the hype I really wanted to see this!
Adam, e-mail me to work something out for copies I have of it. Both around 10Mb .FLV – they may not make it through e-mail file size limits or your mailbox file size limit when encoded as attachments…
Oops!: lucyfer “at” msn.com.au is e-mail for SpazSinbad.
It’s on Youtube…search: Redflag 2008
or here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/home/default.aspx
If he’s so enthusiastic about using the F-22 in a gunfight, perhaps we should ask ourselves why we spent so much money on the F-22 instead of a gun fighter.
Just prior he allowed as how the F-22 didn’t carry enough missiles and they’d inevitably take it to the merge, wherein having a gun in a platform like the F-22 (as opposed to, oh, say the F-35C…)
- SJS
Mark thanks. More Utube URLs for reposts of the 2 part USAF retiree Red Flag briefing: Reposted (in triple) by various youtube video posters – 1 here:
P1 http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU
P2 http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w