|
|
The MIG27 affair - Fighter Pilots reveal what the `defence analysts` forgot to tell
Full News Article
Eksath
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 265
Member Profile
|
 24 Aug 2007 00:56:59 GMT Report for Abuse
|
--THE FOLLOWING IS THE RELEVENT PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT,It has been redacted to make it shorter and easier to read ---
KEY= Basulto is the Pilot and leader of the Free Cuba group. he survived. De la Peņa was the pilot of the second aircraft be shot down.
At 3:20:22, a MiG pilot screamed to ground control: 'I have it in lock on. I have it in lock on. Give us authorization. . . . It is a Cessna 337. That one. Give us authorization, damn it.'
Basulto spotted a dark streak zooming across the sky. 'They threw a MiG at us!' he said with a frightened laugh. 'Wow, they're going to shoot at us!'
At nearly the same instant, Cuban ground control instructed the MiG: 'Fire. . . . Authorized to destroy.'
From two miles above and behind the Cessna carrying Carlos Costa and Pablo Morales, the MiG-29 fired a 10-foot-long R- 73 missile with an infrared homing device. Costa was at least nine nautical miles north of Cuban territory, heading north. Blindsided by a streaking missile, he would not have had even a second's warning.
MiG-29 pilot: 'We hit him. Cojones. We hit him. . This one won't mess around anymore.'
Below him, the mate on the fishing vessel Tri-Liner called to his captain, Tim Reilly, who awoke from a sound sleep and rushed on deck to see a piece of metal the size of a car splashing into the water.
Basulto saw what he thought was a flare, being used by the MiGs to mark his position.
De la Peņa had also spotted the MiG 'Seagull One, there's a MiG in the air. Bogey in the air. Where are you?'
Basulto: 'The bogeys are north of us a this time.'
As Basulto's plane kept heading eastward, de la Peņa was continuing his circle to the north.
Two minutes later, the MiG-29 pilot spotted a second Cessna.
'Follow it,' ground control ordered. Don't lose the other small aircraft.'
'Is the other authorized?' asked the MiG pilot.
'Authorized to destroy.'
Still in shock, de la Peņa radioed Basulto again. 'I did not see a MiG. I saw smoke, and a flare.'
Those were the last words he uttered. At 3:28, seven minutes after the first shootdown, the MiG fired another R-73 rocket. At that moment, de la Peņa was at least 10 nautical miles outside of Cuban airspace, heading north over international waters.
On the Tri-Liner fishing vessel, Tim Reilly looked up just in time to see a rocket burst from a streaking MiG. It struck the tiny Cessna, and a flash of fire lit the sky. Metal rained down.
'The other is destroyed,' gloated the MiG pilot. 'Fatherland or death, sh - -, the other is down also.'
Edited By - Eksath - 24 Aug 2007 01:50:47 GMT |
Eksath
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 265
Member Profile
|
24 Aug 2007 01:10:02 GMT Report for Abuse
|
SenaM
(here is part III of my answer)
But it is my belief the 'low-level air-defense system' now deployed, is based largely on missile batteries inter-linked to controlling radars, and an associated command & control system. (These would be light-weight missiles). F-7s are probably seen as part of a 'dual' (or redundant) system, installed to make 'doubly sure' the LTTE raider does not return to base.
I disagree with you. You are basically going for what we call 'zone' defense. The problem with a zone defence it continually puts you in defensive position and gives the aggressor the ability to pick you apart. The LTTE hs proven itself time and time again to be able to surreptiously probe and prod until it finds a weakness in the system and then exploit it. Ask yourself how many potential targets of military value exist in SL. I would not be exaggerating if i told you that number is in the thousands. Every military camp to checkpoint to naval base becomes a potential target.
Looking back at the the last three attacks by the LTTE using their small aircraft, notice how they did not repeat a target but tried to SPREAD the defence, They first struck KAB, the PAB and then soft economic targets in Colombo. I gurantee you it will be far cheaper AND effective to deploy a squadron of MiG 29s than build a radar controlled missile net that covers all militrary and economic targets in SL PERIOD.
(sidenote: the F-7 even with the newer Western avionics is no comparision to the F-16. The only scenerios is when the pilot quality in the F-16 is low. The PAF had to rely on the F-7 due to the US arms embago hence they talked up the F-7 as that was their primary defence against the IAF) |
SenaM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1625
Member Profile
|
 24 Aug 2007 09:41:04 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Eksath
I believe your argument makes a 'strong' case for 'look-down' radar, and associated missile system as found on the Mig-29 type operated by the Cuban AF .. not so much for the Mi-29 as such.
Hope SLAF will be getting a 'good' look-down radar system like the KLJ-10 with the F-7Gs they are due to receive. Should have also, missilery and necessary equipment 'fit' for night-time operations. (Understand, J-10 a'cft is equipped with the KLJ-10 look-down radar).
With the F-7Gs equipped with suitable radar, and with the 'low-level air defense system' (utilising radar controlled missile batteries), deployed .. GOSL should be in a 'good' position to deal with the LTTE 'night-raider', when it calls again.
Edited By - SenaM - 24 Aug 2007 17:18:54 GMT |
Eksath
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 265
Member Profile
|
24 Aug 2007 21:14:52 GMT Report for Abuse
|
With the F-7Gs equipped with suitable radar, and with the 'low-level air defense system' (utilising radar controlled missile batteries), deployed .. GOSL should be in a 'good' position to deal with the LTTE 'night-raider', when it calls again.
The SLAF has openly stated that they want look-down shoot-down capability. It would be safe to say that any new F-7s will need this capability.
Perhaps, the Chinease will put together another hybrid aircraft especially for the Sri Lankans. :-)
Like the current SLAF F-7BS (F-7B fuselage/tail and Chinese avionics combined with four-pylon wings of F-7M).
sidenote: SLAF pilots have long since prefered the easier ergonomics of the KFir cockpit to the F-7 when it came to shooting the guns etc. The workflow is a lot more easier in the KFir. It may sound trivial but in a hot situation, it may make the difference between getting a kill or getting splashed oneself.
Edited By - Eksath - 24 Aug 2007 21:21:36 GMT |
SenaM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1625
Member Profile
|
25 Aug 2007 05:27:27 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Eksath
Some-thing to 'chew' over re- Cuban Mig-29 interception of 'intruding Cessna 337s'.
You've said there were some 25 'raids' earlier by 'Free Cuba' a'cft on this type mission. That would mean the Mig-29s would have been 'scrambled' earlier. So, is the success rate 1 in 25 or perhaps a little better than that ? Not very impressive
We may note, these were all 'day-light' missions - which should be easier to intercept than 'night-time' raids of LTTE a'cft. Also, 'heat' signature of the Cessna 337 would be larger .. probably twice that for the LTTE craft .. similarly for radar 'reflections'. It would seem, the Mig-29 look-down/shoot-down system will have more difficulty coping with the LTTE 'raider' .. than with the Free Cuba Cessna 337s.
One more argument which goes against 'total' reliance on the Mig-29 .. With some 25 'intrusions', and the experience gathered there-by (for preparations to meet the challenge), the Cuban Migs were not able to destroy the intruding a'cft 'before' they came over Havana, and accomplishing their 'mission'. They were 'caught-up' on the return flight .. strictly out-side Cuban 'air-space'. If we translate this aspect to the 'local scene' .. it means, even if we had Mig-29s in readi-ness actual interception of the LTTE raider is most likely on its return journey viz. after it had 'dropped' the bomb-load (accomplished its mission).
I believe the 'picture' that emerges is .. interception by aircraft (Mig-29 or other) can at best ensure that the LTTE raider is 'brought down', on its return journey to base. If we are to prevent the a'cft from dropping its bomb-load on an intended target .. we have to count on air-defense units .. they have to be in 'position', and crews 'alerted'. With a little luck we should be able to 'bring down' the LTTE raider, just before it is 'over-head'.
(Believe, best way of dealing with this particular threat is - Locate these LTTE 'assets', and Destroy them, while still 'on ground').
Edited By - SenaM - 25 Aug 2007 06:12:16 GMT |
Eksath
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 265
Member Profile
|
25 Aug 2007 08:38:11 GMT Report for Abuse
|
You've said there were some 25 'raids' earlier by 'Free Cuba' a'cft on this type mission. That would mean the Mig-29s would have been 'scrambled' earlier. So, is the success rate 1 in 25 or perhaps a little better than that ? Not very impressive
Actually, the Cuban Gov. position is that they worked through normal air traffic regulation,diplomatic and political means with a steady increment of the strength of language aimed at cease & desist until they could not bear it any more and hence exercised the 'final option'.
The mechanism for shooting down a 'N registered' (US Civil registry) aircraft whose only provocative action is to drop paper is a bit different than shooting down a similar aircraft dropping 250lbs of high explosive. The Cubans -in their own mind- tried to justify their actions by 'waiting' to shoot down the aircraft. They claim they waited for months and only did so when they could not wait longer.
The shoot down of these aircraft's caused huge ramifications that continue to this day.
1) The Cuban gov. was subject to condemnation by the international community.
2) The civilian lawsuits filed by the dead men's families have led to the seizure of millions of USD of Cuban money.
3) The shoot down remains a black mark on Cuba. It interfered existing efforts to raise the US trade embargo on Cuba.
So in summary...
If the 337s were dropping munitions on Havana airport, their life expectancy would not have been 25 intrusions and Cuban 'restraint' would not have been such.25 Intrusions were defined as 'breaking' of the 12 mile limit.
We may note, these were all 'day-light' missions - which should be easier to intercept than 'night-time' raids of LTTE a'cft. Also, 'heat' signature of the Cessna 337 would be larger .. probably twice that for the LTTE craft .. similarly for radar 'reflections'.
But, i do like to point out that the airways between Cuba and the US are a lot more crowded than in SL. There is a lot of regular small aircraft the fly the skies between the continental US and islands such as Jamaica,Pueto Rico,South America etc. Hence there is a lot more 'radar clutter' to deal with.
It would seem, the Mig-29 look-down/shoot-down system will have more difficulty coping with the LTTE 'raider' .. than with the Free Cuba Cessna 337s.
While the 337 uses two in line pusher/puller engines to the current threat of one engine, there should not be much of a difference given the fidelity of the system.
One more argument which goes against 'total' reliance on the Mig-29 .. With some 25 'intrusions', and the experience gathered there-by (for preparations to meet the challenge), the Cuban Migs were not able to destroy the intruding a'cft 'before' they came over Havana, and accomplishing their 'mission'. They were 'caught-up' on the return flight .. strictly out-side Cuban 'air-space'. If we translate this aspect to the 'local scene' .. it means, even if we had Mig-29s in readi-ness actual interception of the LTTE raider is most likely on its return journey viz. after it had 'dropped' the bomb-load (accomplished its mission).
Actually, the reason is that it appears that the Cubans jumped the gun. On this occassion the 337s appeared to still be in International airspace and beginning a sweeping turn that would have put them slighty into Cuban airspace. By international law, the notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponds with the maritime definition of territorial waters as being 12 miles out from a nation's coastline. The whole crux of the world condemnation and successful lawsuit was that the actual shootdown occurred 16 miles from Cuban coast. The Cuban's claim the final position is 5-7 miles. Looking at the radar tracks and circumstances, the Cuban Air Force put up a CAP that picked up the approaching intrruders in International Air Space, got authorization from Ground Control and splashed two out of three. If they had waited till the flight was dropping leaflets over Havana, the outcome would have been the same. It is very hard to establish a threat coming from paper leaflets.
I believe the 'picture' that emerges is .. interception by aircraft (Mig-29 or other) can at best ensure that the LTTE raider is 'brought down', on its return journey to base.
Please see above.
If we are to prevent the a'cft from dropping its bomb-load on an intended target .. we have to count on air-defense units .. they have to be in 'position', and crews 'alerted'. With a little luck we should be able to 'bring down' the LTTE raider, just before it is 'over-head'.
Like what happaned when the trained SLAF airman shouldered a SAM and could not get a lock?
Also, ask the LTTE how many times they have tried same to bag a SLAF aircraft on a bombing run. their success rate to shootdowns is quite low when you compare the rate and length of SLAF ops.
If you look back on the 'KFir mishap averted thread',Mig29c very nicely laid out the scenerio and how/why it is difficult for a ground based SAM operator to get a target lock. WHile a small aircraft does not have the same speed, the darkness of the night and size comes into play.
Shooting a small aircraft at night,low level (limited time to acquire target and come up with firing solution by a MANPAD) is a challenging task.
(Believe, best way of dealing with this particular threat is - Locate these LTTE 'assets', and Destroy them, while still 'on ground').
In reality, the best way is to not put all ones eggs in one basket.
The combination is all three off the above.
1. Deploy CAP.
2. Ground radar controlled defense and disciplined ground fire.
3. Deny the air over the enemy areas by AWACS and hunter/killer missions.
Edited By - Eksath - 25 Aug 2007 10:30:48 GMT |
SenaM
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1625
Member Profile
|
25 Aug 2007 10:51:43 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Eksath
Like what happaned when the trained SLAF airman shouldered a SAM and could not get a lock?
No .. A 'proper' low-level air defense system missile battery would be 'cu-ed' via digital 'in-puts' from the radar unit it is 'linked' to. The missile (while in its cradle), would be 'swung' automatically onto the target. All that the operator is expected to do - is 'acquire' the target in his 'Thermal' type viewer (lock-on), and press the release button - to send the missile on its way.
(Believe they are not 'basic' shoulder fired SAMs, that are 'in place' .. but 'auto' cu-ed units, as indicated above).
Edited By - SenaM - 25 Aug 2007 11:01:24 GMT |
Eksath
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 265
Member Profile
|
25 Aug 2007 11:01:06 GMT Report for Abuse
|
SenaM,
Most airbases world wide -in threat areas- are defended by such systems. However, some points to ponder.
1) Is it easier to train 10 pilots for interception that 5000 radar battery men to operate spot on for 10 seconds - one day?
2) How many batteries does SL buy and deploy? We go back to zone defence versus man-to man.
3) What risk exists of such a battery being compromised and 'going over' to the other side?
4) If you look at successful interceptions world wide the majority are air-to-air.
But i do agree that SL needs systems but i defer with you in what is most important.
-) |
KURAL
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 5530
Member Profile
|
 29 Aug 2007 13:24:43 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Nation,
I HVE RED THE CHAPTER IN THE PERFECT MANNER
PLEASE NOTE THAT Vijaya landed in 5BC and do more readings and find out wheAlthough ther the pandya kingdom was existing by that time
Bla Bla Bla Bla...
Does mahawamsa say king wijeya Married a Tamil King?????
Definitely No ! Mahawamsa say King Vijaya married a Tamil PRINCESS from Madurai, the capital of the Pandyan dynasty !
Ex 1 Any one can marry an Indian woman or srilankan woman but can you say whether that lady is eithr sinhala or tamil or any other cast
And also please not that King wijeys died without any children
Lets talk about the most important part
Yes back in the days the kings use to marry from their neighbouring kingdoms
IF there was a kingdom in srilanka by the time wijeya landed here why he bypassed the Tamil kingdom and had a woman from Indian kingdom why not from SL
That only clearly shows hat there was no other kingdom in Sri lanka by that time
And again bla bla bla bla bla...
No more arguing with a man who don't know his own history, bye !
Indian Kingdoms were just more powerful than any Sri Lankan Kingdoms ! It's why Vijaya researched allies in South India.
Vijaya was a vassal of Pandyan Kingdom. It explains perfectly why the Madurai King gave his daughter.
Edited By - KURAL - 29 Aug 2007 13:32:57 GMT |
KURAL
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 5530
Member Profile
|
 1 Sep 2007 14:08:43 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Nation (**answer in edition**),
The oldest Sinhala inscriptions were written in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE the oldest existing literary works date from the 9th century CE
Should i assume that Sinhala language was created in less than 2 century ? Ok...
The Sangam literrature is estimated by experts to be 3BC-1CE.
So the oldest Tamil existing literacy is older than the Sinhala one..
And the earliest clear evidence of the presence of the Tamil people in modern Tamil Nadu are the megalithic urn burials, dating from around 1000 BCE and onwards, which have been discovered at various locations in Tamil Nadu, notably in Adichanallur. However their own literature speak about a mythical lost/submerged continent where Tamil culture grown.
And it is well known that in 3BCE at least three Tamil dynasty were ruling the ancient Tamilakam.
And as i already mentionned to you, Greeks , Romans and Chineses all the ancient civilization talk about Tamils and their ability for the maritime trade ! But noone seems to talk about Sinhalas !
The earlier mention of Sri Lanka are done in Sanskrit and Tamil literrature !
If they were no Tamil Kingdom in Sri lanka in the early time, why the hell Greeks mentioned/invented the 5 Ishwarams (Hindu temples) that still exist today ??
No chance that it is fiction.
But there are lot of chance that you are telling more and more BS to try to correct yourself from the Mahawansa huge mistake.. Yes Vijaya married a Pandyan princess.. He He He , you will not change.
BTW your nature was revealed few comments above.
Oh i missed, you should be a Sinhala scholar to reinvent the meaning of the Tamil word 'Ilam' !
Don't tell rubbishes.
Edited By - KURAL - 1 Sep 2007 14:14:57 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions