India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 17 May 2011 11:13

Being at the mercy of internal politics of four different countries gives me the shivers...

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 17 May 2011 11:23

kmkraoind wrote:Everybody is talking that Typhoon has raw power and best airframe, but not yet matured as Rafale. If Typhoon is selected and some of the features like CFTs, sensory fusion (a whole bunch of possibilities) and radar modes (both A2A and A2G) have not fully developed. Assume that in future if we want to develop new radar modes or new sensory fusion capability, can we partner with any existing EF constriction, say like UK or Germany as a consultant and we fund 100% of that project and keep that technology ourselves (but can sell them as a block to existing EF partners without giving them an opportunity to peek in). If so, then it will be a great future for AMCA building capabilities.

-Mallikarjuna

Cool! You are talking! EF is anytime the best. Sheer power/ airframe /AESA --- and upgradability. Rafale is awesome in low deep. Typhoon might not be the best in the area. Neverthless, Typhoon ain't bad either. With AWACS, jammers etc, battlefield will be different tomorrow.

I see it as the best counter to half arsed stealth like J-20.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 17 May 2011 11:45

First things first, I am happy that both my favourites make it to final list... Although, I feel bad for Mig (SRDE in me reminds me of time when Migs were the only deterrent, if any whatsoever), I am more than happy that MOD showed its gut and showed this nation is not going to be ponny of the unkil. Although some of here argue of teens technical superiorities(which itself is debatable), i will only repeat what our Army guys often say these days --- "We will fight with what ever is available" and will add "and we are free to use it as we wish rather than somebody sitting in white house /Pentagon guiding us"

Secondly, the competition among Tiffy and Kat itself. My understanding tells me that they wont be selected based on their individual aspects (lot of discussion already done by lot more enlightned fellow BRites, so i wont repeat), but rather how they gets mixed/obsorbed into our existing setup. Just to explain my points,

Refulers - we dont have many of them available, rafale here scores with its ability to carry more qty of fuel thereby freeing the limited refulers for other locations

AWACS - Again limited, giving a score to tiffy with its more powerful radar where it can act as mini awacs guiding from the front

AG /AA - Depending upon what IAF perceive, Rafale for AG and Tiffy for AA. However, MKI is playing a two edge sword in the game. The massive multirole capabilities MKI brings in itself is creating a confusion and lot of it depends upon what intended use will IAF resort to for MKI. If it want to use MKI as strike-bomber considering we will be having FGFA and RCS of MKi will make it vulnerable for air superiority, Tiffy scores and if they want to continue MKI as Air superiority platform, rafale scores.

There are many other such point ofcourse apart from cost and political considerations which requires due consideration. I will request others to chip in with such points rather than focussing on individual capabilities.

koti · Post by **koti** » 17 May 2011 12:15

It seems both MMRCA and FGFA will be used for SEAD roles as this is one area where the MKI has some disadvantages. I hence see a lot of points to the AC that can do SEAD better among these two.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 17 May 2011 12:34

SaiK wrote:actually BA has 33% stake, and now owned by marconi, a GE company. so USA still gets 33% here.There is also an anticipation that DASA would merge with BA, and then it would be like 66% USA there.

The 13% spanish CASA can be easily bought over by GE as well.

Leaving 21% under the hands of erstwhile mafia leaders.

quite a bit of risky proposition eh!~..

I think I have scared enough.

I think you are wrong. BAe is a listed company so it cannot have a single shareholder under listing rules. I personally would doubt if any single shareholder even owned 5% of it.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 17 May 2011 12:46

BA = British Airways, no connection to aircraft manufacturers (in that sense)
BAe = British Aerospace or BAe Systems to give it its current name - most owners are investment houses and hedge funds, mostly 1-2%
marconi corp is owned by GE and does not do avionics
the former marconi radars and avionics is owned by BAe, no connection to GE, but was once owned by GEC - another british company (they form the Systems in BAe Systems)
DASA is no more, it is now EADS, and is only partially US owned (Daimler Chrysler Aerospace Division merged with Aerospatiale and CASA)
BAe own substantial US interests, primarily to penetrate the US Defense market
the US does not view either BAe Systems or EADS as US players - considered arch rivals to LM and Boeing

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 17 May 2011 14:19

Where does this strange idea come from, the Rafale offers a better MMI ? Can someone point me to the Rafales' equivalent of the Striker Data Helmet or any hint to direct voice input ?

And what exactly is it that makes Rafale superior in a2g ? So far I see only one advantage, and that is the AASM in certain situations. Libya has been a great PR succes. AASM here an there. Totally cool, and all the fans are drooling about it.
Yet I have to ask why throw those very expensive bombs around when a combination of Brimstone and Paveway does the same for a fraction of the costs ?

Btw both CAPTOR and RBE-2 have terrain following modes and SAR modes. The only true advantage Rafale enjoys in my opinion is the 5 heavy (and wet) stations vs. Tiffys 3. Makes it better at deep strike missions.

India has a quite long northern border, where even 270 MKI's are insufficient in providing full cover, given the topography. Keep the sneaky stuff to the true stealth aircraft. FGFA and MCA will do better at it than any 4th generation fighter.

koti · Post by **koti** » 17 May 2011 17:07

And what exactly is it that makes Rafale superior in a2g ?

EF IMO cannot be compared to Rafale as far as a2g is considered.

Most of the A/C(EF) that are in service have little to no a2g capability. All the promising integrations are slated.
Rafale on the other hand has deployed a2g systems in place that now stand combat proven(not combat tested

).

Cheers.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 May 2011 19:24

good thoughts there, AMCA must have deep strike and strong A2G capabilities and solid SEAD. So, whichever of these two would give us those technologies would go a long way in building AMCA baselines.

koti · Post by **koti** » 17 May 2011 20:49

I love the Rafale, but....

When MIG35 was debated as the best cost for value platform some time ago, there was an argument that gave the Russian firm negative remark. It was the cost escalation in the case of Vikramaditya.
Some were concerned of a similar escalation for MMRCA too.

Now we are seeing a huge cost(&time of delivery)escalation in case of Scorpene Subs too. How much is this going to effect the governaments decision to opt the French?

### I was unable to decide on a better thread for the question. I may move it appropriately if suggested.###

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 17 May 2011 22:12

^^^

I think it's in the right thread since you've mentioned Rafale as part of your point. I think the cost escalation with Scorpenes is because the Indian shipyard was not able to obsorb the technology quickly enough and there were some issues with the navy (or who ever is the procuring agency) not ordering the correct components or systems etc. So it is the customer's fault that the subs are not able to be constucted and delivered in the time frame stipulated in the contract. But with Russia, it is not the customer but the supplier that "miscalculated" the cost and time frame of the refit of Adm. Gorshkov ACC. So we can not compare the Scorpene matter with Rafale procurement in order to reject French origin weapon systems.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 17 May 2011 23:24

^^^ Plus, IAF has been fairly happy with M2000 ASS. But almost all our russian systems have faced some form of ASS problems and as per recent reports even MKI is not immune to these issues.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 18 May 2011 00:50

Viv S wrote:
k prasad wrote:Oh, and wrt Katrina's nose job, Its my non-expert and uneducated view, but I suspect that this whole thing about optimal aperture size could be a reach-grasp matching. What I mean is, why would you light a spot up FAAR beyond what you can hit if the only thing it will do is to alert the enemy? having a reach (tracking ability) greater than the grasp (targetting range) is good, but there is no need to have a torch thats far more powerful than one's reach demands, if you can quickly reach out and track a target (thus requiring less time or intensity of illumination).
Being able to see as far as possible is always a good thing. Its only in one-vs-one head on engagements where the range of the munition is the limiting factor. In 'hot' airspace, the numbers and orientations may be very different. The limitation on the maximum scan angle of the radar for one can tilt the balance of situational awareness - the radar is more or less unidirectional. It doesn't preclude the aircraft from getting flanked. For example an fighter A can track a fighter B at twice the range its MRAAM, at this point it has the luxury of bugging out or pulling back and waiting for back up (depending on the odds), or passing on tracking information to an allied aircraft C at 10 o'clock to A, approaching B but out of its radar cone.

Agree with most of your above observations Viv. However, I'm not so sure that its a universal truth. Qualified truth maybe.

In GENERAL, I agree that not being able to see as far as possible is a limitation, but being able to see as far as possible MIGHT just become a liability if our eyes glow bright enough to draw unwanted attention.

Moreover, radars are getting better and better azimuthal scan angles these days. The limitations are being supplanted by passive ESM sensors. In fact, there is a huge trend now towards increased ECM and Non-Radar Sensor capabilities. These will get better and longer ranged very soon, as they become more sensitive and gain larger apertures. The power of 4 and power of 2 rules for radiation means that passive detection might be a lot better if sophisticated processing and receivers are available.

I'm certainly saying have a 1.5 or 2x tracking vs targetting range. But anything above that and we risk being seen, thanks to better passive sensors these days.

From my reading of your post above, you feel that more range is good for giving the pilot more time to plan the strategy. What if you help the pilot so much that he can make a decision very quickly? Then, he won't need that info too much earlier. And if you give him enough lethality that he's confident of killing anyone before they have a chance to see him, i'm sure he'll be happy. Thats the way the french look at this.

Because as important as the extra time that extra range gives YOU, the extra range also gives the OTHER side more time to plan their own attack. And when you are, as you said, in a hot area, with a lot more enemy assets than your own, thats not always a good thing to have the enemy know exactly where you are, and having enough time to plan out how to kill you.

Its all about mission success rate. To give an analogy, you need to sneak into a place to steal a flag in the middle. To get there, if you stand up, you can see more. But the enemy can then see you as well. so while you might be able to run off quickly and have less chance of getting caught, your success chance also drops a lot. However, if you crawl and keep your head down, u might not be able to see much, but you also have a greater chance of not being seen, and thus, more successful.

The threat of flanking or surprise attacks are looked at to be neutralized by using passive sensors and ESMs.

Thats what i'm trying to understand of the french philosophy here - theres no use of a longer reach if your punches lose all power at that range. It might be better to get inside the other guy;'s punches and land strong, hard and fast killer jabs.

Deep strike requires stealthy and quiet ingress and egress. Which requires zero detection. Which means no stray emissions. And at such times, aircraft are anyway radars off. So it shouldn't make much difference.

HOWEVER, lest I be thought of not having seen the other side, let me point out that THERE IS A LOT I still have doubts about. For one, this whole calculus depends on an extreme overreliance or confidence in the capabilities of the passive sensors and the sensor fusion (the two aspects of the Rafale that have been touted as its killer strengths). It also relies on a relatively big qualitative advantage over the opposing forces in being stealthy and passive sensing. This is something which could vanish very quickly.

However, I don't think the french radar is underpowered. It is at par with other modern radars. If we are cribbing about how its not really good wrt power, lets remember that power is just one aspect of a radar's performance. the processing, integration, sensor fusion, all of these play huge roles. And advances in these might just negate the need for extra power. note the MIGHT - i still have doubts

.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2011 02:39

1. "If I can see you, I am aware you are there. and I hope I can reach to hit you" [radar+weapons].

2. If you can't see me, and I am still aware you are there [given the range scope of weapons], and I get to hit you.

I guess the 2 takes over 1, in any operational sense.

Range is important in one sense, where all this works say 100km range, where I have both radar and weapons to deliver. Now if that can be increased, it would be great to have.

I agree, it is useless illumination and worries if scanning emits can be tracked by enemies. Now, if that can done without them knowing it [scan and track mode, special frequency at which we operate, or some other technique by which we can track], then it is unnecessary over weight of t/r modules on the nose. OTOH, if the range increase comes with additional benefit such that it satisfies case 2 above, then it is wonderful.

Currently, I don't see any long ranged AAMs that is greater than 200km.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 18 May 2011 03:43

K prasad,

I think you forgot one thing. Irregardless of how much range you have (or don't have) on your radar a modern RWR will always detect you earlier than you get a useful return. LPI get's better, as do RWR's. In the end, you've got just a less powerful radar. There is nothing positive about it. Even the Raptor has a very powerful radar, and it has way better stealth than Rafale. Because if you have to activate it, you want as much power as possible. And btw a bigger antenna is more subtile than a smaller one. Simply because you need less power output to get a usefull return.

Further more, typical targets tend to become more difficult to detect, too. While you may detect a 5 sqm fighter at 150km, a stealthy cruise missile will be detectable at considerably less range. And all those passive detection stuff is useless in that very situation. A cruise missiles doesn't emit radar signals. Plus the French diva doesn't even have an IRST at the moment. So much for the superior passive detection qualities.

In the end it boils down to always the same conclusion. Rafale is better at deep strike missions. (Where I would raise doubts about it's stealthines thanks to tons of external stores)

Tiffy is better at airdefense. Radar, Pirate, climb rate, supersonic performance, two way datalink for Meteor, Striker + supermanouverable WVR missles, Libelle... you name it. Only true selling point for Rafale is in my opinion SPECTRA. Transplanting it into a true 5th gen airframe (e.g. AMCA) is a quite mouth watering idea. Remains to be seen if Thales would be willing to share the crown jeweles.
*shrug*

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 May 2011 04:36

k prasad wrote:Agree with most of your above observations Viv. However, I'm not so sure that its a universal truth. Qualified truth maybe.

In GENERAL, I agree that not being able to see as far as possible is a limitation, but being able to see as far as possible MIGHT just become a liability if our eyes glow bright enough to draw unwanted attention.

Moreover, radars are getting better and better azimuthal scan angles these days. The limitations are being supplanted by passive ESM sensors. In fact, there is a huge trend now towards increased ECM and Non-Radar Sensor capabilities. These will get better and longer ranged very soon, as they become more sensitive and gain larger apertures. The power of 4 and power of 2 rules for radiation means that passive detection might be a lot better if sophisticated processing and receivers are available.

I'm certainly saying have a 1.5 or 2x tracking vs targetting range. But anything above that and we risk being seen, thanks to better passive sensors these days.

Passive sensors are a feature of both aircraft and while the SPECTRA has gotten more attention in glossy magazines than the PIRATE/DASS, it have seen no valid evidence suggesting it is better, regardless of the philosophy behind it.

Secondly, with regard to scan angles -the EF's capability is certainly increasing. The swashplate mounted Captor-E will be able to scan upto 105 deg off-boresight compared to about 60 deg for conventional AESAs. In contrast cheek arrays for the Rafale are still plainly in the realm of speculation.

[youtube]_0JvBtbCURA&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

From my reading of your post above, you feel that more range is good for giving the pilot more time to plan the strategy. What if you help the pilot so much that he can make a decision very quickly? Then, he won't need that info too much earlier. And if you give him enough lethality that he's confident of killing anyone before they have a chance to see him, i'm sure he'll be happy. Thats the way the french look at this.

Because as important as the extra time that extra range gives YOU, the extra range also gives the OTHER side more time to plan their own attack. And when you are, as you said, in a hot area, with a lot more enemy assets than your own, thats not always a good thing to have the enemy know exactly where you are, and having enough time to plan out how to kill you.

Give him 'so much' what? And what additional 'lethality' does the Rafale impart over the EF? The Captor-E for one is scheduled to have a dedicated EW channel, while I've heard nothing on the same lines for the RBE-2AA.

And yes ordinarily speaking radar emissions can be detected at ranges that extend well beyond the radar's effective range, but then one of the major advantages of having an AESA radar (in addition to reliability and jamming resistance) is its LPI characteristics. So while a very sensitive RWR may detect hostile feed, the fact that it would be jumping frequencies and be transmitted in bursts, would make getting a 'fix' on the emitter a very improbable result.

The threat of flanking or surprise attacks are looked at to be neutralized by using passive sensors and ESMs.

Passive sensors usually have a limited range and are their efficiency can vary a great deal with operating conditions. ESM features have limited utility against AESAs.

Deep strike requires stealthy and quiet ingress and egress. Which requires zero detection. Which means no stray emissions. And at such times, aircraft are anyway radars off. So it shouldn't make much difference.

That's all well and good if the subject is a F-35 or PAK-FA. The Rafale on the other hand will be flying in a dirty configuration, making it very susceptible to both hostile AEW&C aircraft and ground based missile air defences (particularly S-300 class systems).

However, I don't think the french radar is underpowered. It is at par with other modern radars. If we are cribbing about how its not really good wrt power, lets remember that power is just one aspect of a radar's performance. the processing, integration, sensor fusion, all of these play huge roles. And advances in these might just negate the need for extra power. note the MIGHT - i still have doubts .

Underpowered is a relative term and depends on what you take as the benchmark. Its not at par with the EF's radar which is what's important. And yes having a decent back-end is necessary (no advantage for the Rafale there), its the output power that defines the most important characteristic of the radar i.e. its range.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2011 07:17

jee, I can edit a post.. it could be firefox.

another disadvantage for swash plate is say, we have a target locked in the 105* zone. Now, we need to scan and track another target which is entirely in the opposite quadrant. swashing technique is no good here.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2011 07:22

We are assuming side lobed arrays will not be fit with Rafale., which IMO is more valuable than swash-plate, where the target is illuminated readily where as the swash plat has to take time to turn.

this post went to a null device.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 May 2011 07:51

SaiK wrote:another disadvantage for swash plate is say, we have a target locked in the 105* zone. Now, we need to scan and track another target which is entirely in the opposite quadrant. swashing technique is no good here.

'Disadvantage' would imply, that some other radar could do so, which is not in fact the case. The idea is to get a shot or two off and then get out of the enemy's FoV, by moving across it, while still keeping the enemy aircraft illuminated.

We are assuming side lobed arrays will not be fit with Rafale., which IMO is more valuable than swash-plate, where the target is illuminated readily where as the swash plat has to take time to turn.

It could be fitted to the EF for that matter. Point is, there's only been speculation in that regard. With the additional power and cooling requirements, its not no simple task technically. If requested Dassault could develop an IAF specific variant with cheek arrays, but its unlikely the AdlA or Mn would be very interested given that most of the 180 ordered would have been delivered by the time, this variant is developed. Bottom-line is, the IAF hasn't been offered such a feature and retrofitting it is not really an option, it therefore deserves to be treated only as speculation.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2011 08:01

To get a shot at first, you would have to be the first one to lock, (fire ) and get out. Now, the first step would not have taken place, let us say the target for argument is at 150* to the radar plate angle.

Let us assume, he has not yet scanned you, meaning he has a poor radar, or you are not in range, then you get a chance to know him only when you turn or come in within radar sensors. Would that be a normal practice for a deep strike mission with an established objective to coordinates where you heading?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 May 2011 08:28

SaiK wrote:To get a shot at first, you would have to be the first one to lock, (fire ) and get out. Now, the first step would not have taken place, let us say the target for argument is at 150* to the radar plate angle.

Let us assume, he has not yet scanned you, meaning he has a poor radar, or you are not in range, then you get a chance to know him only when you turn or come in within radar sensors. Would that be a normal practice for a deep strike mission with an established objective to coordinates where you heading?

150 deg to radar plate angle? Is that 60 deg or 150 deg off-boresight (in the rear quadrant)? I'm really not sure what it is that you're asking. With a hostile unit in vicinity, the aircraft will have to manoeuvre into a favourable firing position/vector or break off. In any case, this manoeuvring doesn't have a bearing on the overall direction in which the aircraft is bound (unless the target is at the extreme end of its operational range).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2011 08:39

Yes, 150* off-boresight, in the rear quadrant. The question is what purpose would be if we have a swash plate actually say in tracking another target at 60* (front) and swashplate is in straight line facing the first target trying to lock on it and fire a missile.

Now, the enemy a/c at 150* might not be known at all.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 18 May 2011 09:05

Bah, All these tiny radars on planes make no difference.. Get more awacs in the sky, get your vectors for the eyes in the sky and search the sector. Spend more money and more assets there.. A 20% distance increase in any direction isn't going to change anything.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 May 2011 09:16

k prasad wrote: From my reading of your post above, you feel that more range is good for giving the pilot more time to plan the strategy

Prasad, that's the point.

See them first. Be stealthy. Never allow them to come in the firing distance. Hit them at the farthest.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 May 2011 09:16

SaiK wrote:Yes, 150* off-boresight, in the rear quadrant. The question is what purpose would be if we have a swash plate actually say in tracking another target at 60* (front) and swashplate is in straight line facing the first target trying to lock on it and fire a missile.

Now, the enemy a/c at 150* might not be known at all.

You're right it wouldn't be known. Unless the aircraft tracks the enemy while his wingman scans the airspace for threats (usually fighters fly in pairs). In either case fact remains the Rafale's RBE-2AA in the same place will not be able to detect a hostile aircraft in the same orientation.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 May 2011 09:39

I have just one question to the pundits ... Since we are discussing the radar ranges here, please illustrate to me scenario of when any one the opponent fires a A2A missile and how does the scene roll out from there?

My underlying thought is state of art planes can beat beat state of art missiles heralded at it by further than 40 kms, at which distance planes both planes would be glowing red in each others screens ... So what difference does it make in operation to have a 180 km radar vis-a-vis a 120 km radar.

Once we have decoded this I would like to make a it a little more complicated. Suppose we are hunting in formations (almost always the case) ... with the upgraded Su-30 radars, one would be able to look quite far indeed and nobody is going to shoot off missiles from 100 kms away ... so there should be enough warning before hand.

So my basic question is simple, given today's status quo what is the point of going on and on about how far my radar can see when I can't do anything at that distance, except taking a U-turn before I light up the enemy radars?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 May 2011 10:24

indranilroy wrote:I have just one question to the pundits ... Since we are discussing the radar ranges here, please illustrate to me scenario of when any one the opponent fires a A2A missile and how does the scene roll out from there?

Not a pundit, so opinion needs to be taken FWIW.

My underlying thought is state of art planes can beat beat state of art missiles heralded at it by further than 40 kms, at which distance planes both planes would be glowing red in each others screens ... So what difference does it make in operation to have a 180 km radar vis-a-vis a 120 km radar.

It would make world of a difference, because the aircraft that spots its adversary at 180km has the initiative. It will script the resulting fight. It has the option of assessing the odds and backing off if need be. I haven't seen the IAF's BVR training book and I can't tell you what will occur next. But I were to guess, I'd say on spotting the hostile(s) on his scope, the pilot would go into an immediate climb to get as much energy into his missiles at launch. Or he'd turn 80 deg and cut a wide arc to appear at 9o'clock to his enemy (or 3o'clock), well out of his FoR (beaming manoeuvre). Or carry out the same exercise in the vertical plane, i.e. dive to flank the enemy from beneath. Or if its a four ship formation, two aircraft close in and launch a salvo (spoilers) to force the enemy to take evasive action and then break away(F-pole) while the other pair comes in wide and fast on both sides, in a pincer action and tries to get on the enemy's tail (after it breaks formation). Or some other combination of the same. All this is assuming the enemy aircraft was equipped with jam resistant AESAs, and MRAAMs, else the aircraft can play with jamming and assisted/silent launches. Point is that seeing first allows the pilot to dictate how the combat in the air plays out. Or at least have a greater degree of control over it.

Once we have decoded this I would like to make a it a little more complicated. Suppose we are hunting in formations (almost always the case) ... with the upgraded Su-30 radars, one would be able to look quite far indeed and nobody is going to shoot off missiles from 100 kms away ... so there should be enough warning before hand.

In peacetime or in smaller scale conflict (like Kargil), the IAF will have the luxury of preparing mixed formations. In all the recent wars the NATO has participated in, it decided on the pace and structure of air combat and air to ground operations. But in a full scale war, its very likely the whole service will be throwing itself against the adversary, with missions and sectors allocated by unit. The IAF's Jaguars, MiG-27s will need to be provided with air cover/escorts and the Tejas', Mirages and MiG-29s would probably be more effective with MKIs backing them up as well. The IAF would be glad to have units that don't require a dedicated Sukhoi complement to carry out their objectives.

So my basic question is simple, given today's status quo what is the point of going on and on about how far my radar can see when I can't do anything at that distance, except taking a U-turn before I light up the enemy radars?

You're assuming that its inevitable that he'll see you. You can dive into ground clutter or move out of scan zone or launch first even if its out of range leaving him with an unenviable choice when his MAW blazes away - take evasive action and lose sight of your aircraft, or carry on regardless of the incoming missile and gamble on how much energy the missile has. Even if its at a premium, extra range is always a valuable thing to have.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 May 2011 10:29

Adding to what Indranil said, I think we should look at our fighter assets as a whole, rather than piecemeal ones. Also maybe we should go for composite squadrons, with Su-30s and other assets together. What this does is that it disperses the strength of the Sukhoi over to larger squadrons. Why not have a Su-30 and MMRCA paired together. Such a combo means that the enemy has to deal with two entirely different sets of equipments for ECM etc. Also in case of LCA in airdefence , have a Su-30 baby sit 3-4 LCA. Use the lower RCS of LCA combined with the huge Radar of Su-30. Such composite squadrons sure increases the logistic and maintenance headache of a squadron, but most air bases anyway support multiple types, so the spares issue is already taken case by existing logistic chains.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 May 2011 10:35

Adding further the name of the game these days is Multirole. So we have multirole ships, subs, well the Israelis even came out with multirole tank ( tank carrying troops into battle). Even corvettes are being made multirole. In case of Fighters, multirole means packing as much in as small a package. So ever increasing aircraft size, engine power. The best combination is a Su-30 radar on a LCA. Small RCS, huge radar..

. Have multirole squads....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 May 2011 10:38

imo we need a $8b budget for additional 12-15 Phalcon AWACS a.c + support infra for the air defence role such that even upg M2K, Tejas, MKIs, Mig29upg can get shots in using minimal onboard radar. they also need better missiles (range, datalinks) and perhaps astra mk1 will fill some of that hole, with meteor quite unlikely in all three or pakfa. Rus needs to step up and deliver a new missile for pakfa too. its not just about MRCA - its about the whole IAF fighting as one, with fleetwide ODL, full AWACS support and superior missile power and EW.

if IAF can fight in networked and redundant fashion like USAF, the pakis and chinis will suffer HUGE REVERSES by day2, run with tails between legs and hide in manchuria and iran by day7. no one platform does it, but a army of ants becoming a massive 'organism' does.

15 eventual Phalcons and about 30 EMB15 should permit high quality, in depth and 24x7 coverage of most vulnerable areas in times of need.

the Phalcon2 could be the new stretched IL76 housing more console, aux fuel tank and a better version of the Elta radar.

in DPSA front we need to step uo Sudarshan induction as the standard 'cheap' LGB , develop wing glide kits and work on a brimstoneish version of Helina...probably $1-$2b of additional funds and JVs needed there for a start.

the critical thing up in the air is what is the state of Rus future AAM developments - replacements for R73 and R77..we all agree its needed...when is it coming and what does it look like?

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 18 May 2011 10:48

Singha sir, the best AAM in future for us can only be Astra. This needs to be done ASAP. A aam which no one possess. Have at least two versions, 60-80 and 120-150 km ranges. This missile should be developed with all due speed.

Also on the DPSA, in the medium future, AURA ucav would truly put everything in a 1500-1800 km range at risk.

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 18 May 2011 12:44

indranilroy wrote:I have just one question to the pundits ... Since we are discussing the radar ranges here, please illustrate to me scenario of when any one the opponent fires a A2A missile and how does the scene roll out from there?

My underlying thought is state of art planes can beat beat state of art missiles heralded at it by further than 40 kms, at which distance planes both planes would be glowing red in each others screens ... So what difference does it make in operation to have a 180 km radar vis-a-vis a 120 km radar.

Once we have decoded this I would like to make a it a little more complicated. Suppose we are hunting in formations (almost always the case) ... with the upgraded Su-30 radars, one would be able to look quite far indeed and nobody is going to shoot off missiles from 100 kms away ... so there should be enough warning before hand.

So my basic question is simple, given today's status quo what is the point of going on and on about how far my radar can see when I can't do anything at that distance, except taking a U-turn before I light up the enemy radars?

I'm under the impression you think to much in absolute terms. Say your radar x has 180 km vs. 5sqm target. Radar y has 120 km vs the same target. Now reduce the signature size auf your target. Radar X now can track it at 60km, while radar y is reduced to 40 km range. Quite a difference.

Plane x doesn't defeat missile y at range z. I thas a chance to do so. And not all targets are of the same quality. Reduced radar range just limits your choices. And since assets like AEW aircraft are a limited resource I can't embrace the idea that onboard sennsors are not necessary. If that where the case, Raptor and JSF wouldn't be fitted with large powerful radars.

paramyog · Post by **paramyog** » 18 May 2011 16:58

I was wondering, a few days back when Rafale was said to have been rejected as per media reports.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/frenc ... s/447745/2

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4042443

So now that Rafale is in the final 2, what were the possible reasons for this rejection and then re-selection..?

Nikola & Carla at work...?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 May 2011 17:01

or disinformation by vested interests via lifafa journalism?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2011 17:40

I am always thinking of Geo stat sat of capable S,L or X doppler antenna that give live updates of various moving targets in a given scope of things. I am not sure we have matured technology for this, and it has to be all weather.

Also, the ground based large array installations should be on the LPI mode scanning and tracking, and providing coordinates to AWACs or deep strike A/cs live., so that they never have to get themselves known.

Integration of all these signatures and target acquisition system can be networked for all three command forces.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 18 May 2011 17:42

'anything can be networked', but unless the forces get joint operations into their psyche and culture, nothing will help
they have to want to do it

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2011 19:54

If ANC must succeed and advance, there is a high possibility into what we are talking.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 May 2011 20:19

Was reading some reports on the Rafale field performance in Libya - Maintenance (on board the Charles De gaulle and other airbases) complaining that htey kept having to change the configurations depending on the missions - ground strike or air intercpetion role.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 May 2011 20:23

That is not operationally good for a genuine multi/switch role fighter. But if it is all few LRUs, still the reconfiguration checks and stores will take time to setup for a mission that is needed right now.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 May 2011 21:02

Viv: Thanks for your reply. You are probably right in saying that if I can see early I can strategize faster, which might translate into me gaining height or going off bore sight or taking refuge of ground clutter. But after doing that if I use active scanning, at around the 100-140 km mark I will start showing up on my opponents radar (most modern radars have that range). Unless I have passive tracking capability from this 100 km range onwards and my missiles don't need radar guidance, I would be illuminating my opponents screen from 100 km onwards.

Now how much time does my opponent have to the point that they can start firing things at let say (40km) : Assuming that their average relative velocity is 1200 kmph, the time is 3 minutes. Most modern fighters reach their flight ceiling in less than a minute. any other maneuver takes lesser time.

I am not discounting that we should have the ability to look as far as possible. I am not that big a novice. But that advantage mitigates quite fast since my missiles can't hit that far.

Well then what about stealth? If I can look very far, but can't hit so far, then let me become invisible till my firing range or become kinematically agile within this range. F-35/F-22 applies the first logic and Su-35 applies the later.

But just putting a big radar on the same "4++ gen" airframe with similar missiles (and limitations) is not going to change the game by much. And this was displayed by the much publishes Rafale vs EF face-offs.