Mort Walker wrote:Its not all about the number of T/R modules in the radar. You'd have to look at their efficiency as well as geometry. If you add to many modules, then proper beam forming can become difficult along with possible uncontrolled side lobes (which is a problem for clutter control). It is possible to do some engineering tricks to improve sensitivity, dynamic range and SNR. Raytheon has considerable involvement in the Thales radar and communications system when Thomson-CSF became Thales. I doubt we will get great details.
It is about the number of modules in the radar. All other things being equal - the more the better. If you have efficient design and geometry, then more modules of an efficient design and geometry are better. All the engineering tricks that improve performance work even better on a larger radar face with greater number of modules.
There are fully functioning operational systems with thrice that number without problems.
ramana wrote:Badar, Thanks. So in effective combat capability these 7 squadrons will be as effective as 10 squadrons of the old planes at a minimum considering the 3x capability and minus the infrastructure and lack of manpower to service them. Even then its a good shot in the arm for the IAF.
ramana, I think I should clarify - Forgive me for my run-on tortured sentences (I write them bit at a time alt-tabbing), which sometimes makes it unduly hard to get the import. I was not talking about just the 10 squadrons. Rafale induction results in a air fleet that has doubles the strike potential of the entire existing airforce, not just the MiG-21 squadrons replaced. Against China, our fleet strike potential should quadruple from our existing capability! Your conclusion is more conservative than what I suggested. The impact of Rafale on the IAF is enormous.
Once we know the details we can create a table that compares baseline Mig 21upgraded to Rafale, Jag, & Mirage 2000: throw weight, accuracy(from the RLG), effective damage quotient (throw weight/area of CEP) and sortie rate
That is not very useful I am afraid - what you are suggesting is very suitable for comparing artillery systems for example, but is pointless for air combat systems. It doesn't take into account capabilities increase - An aircraft that allows us to drop a LGB 1000nm away cannot be held equivalent to 10 aircraft dropping one 100nm miles away.
Your metric also doesn't take into account the probability of mission success and survivability which is truely what Rafale brings us in comparison to M2K or MKI against a formidable enemy.
Rafale is an expensive waste and adds zero to net IAF capabilities as compared to M2000 if the objective is to bomb Sri Lanka. But it is a very useful fillip if we are dealing with Pakistan. And it is becomes the vital component of the fleet when dealing with China. There is no universal xRafale=yM2K merit figure. Context is everything.
IMO, the best way to look at it is not in isolation like 1 Rafale is roughly as good as two M2K or 8 MiG-21. Rather take a holistic systems view and see what each platform brings to the overall IAF capability matrix with reference to each threat. And to calculate that we need to wait for the other shoe to drop - Jammers.