India selects Typhoon & Rafale for MMRCA shortlist - Part 2

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 May 2011 11:56

ramana wrote:The AASM looks like a family of weapons with great flexibility.
Now we know what IAF meant by re-attack capability. So what was done is to package the basic dumb bomb with a variety of electronic sensors that communicate with the launch aircraft and couple that with a boost motor to give stand-off range. But $300K is too much for point target defeat on large scale.

Soon after Desert Storm there were conceptual designs in US for mating a boost motor to an LGB for stand-off or give high velocity for penetration. Guess they fell to wayside.

Yes, the AASM family of weapons is pretty potent. However, given the $300K per unit cost, IAF would not use it in mass as per its design, especially the 125kg and 250kg class. At $300K/unit, it would be prohibitively too costly to destroy individual tanks/vehicles.

For a larger AASM in the 500kg (IAF's preferred bomb size) and 1000kg class, it would make sense to use these for attacking heavily defended C2 centres from stand-off ranges (15km to 50km). Rafale could come in low (Terrain Following modes) and launch the AASM in the popup mode (AASM powers up upwards trajectory and then drops straight down on the target) to evade long range SAMs. In this role, it would serve similar role as the ALCM but at a lower cost ($300K vs $1million) and being able to hit the target with a bigger ordnance size.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 May 2011 13:03

Karan M wrote:^^ Yet to see any Eurofighter flight evals around its low flying capabilities, with and without using TFR (ie covert/discreet versus RF) or even any reports around what is definitively being offered to the IAF. Without CFT, the EF is behind the Rafale, little doubt about that at least in the A2G mission. IIRC, the Rafale can carry two Scalps and some 2-3 droptanks plus a couple of Micas in the A2G mission. But the EF cannot thanks to the landing gears getting in the way. Similar payload configs suggest the Rafale has a greater ROA in the strike mission.

CFTs are in development for the RAF's Tranche 3 batch. I'll see if I can dig up the link

Personally, I prefer the EF, but like Rakall noted, the Rafale appears to be a better complement for the Su-30 MKI & FGFA. While the radar range is an issue, at 10% less than that of a F-16 Block 60, it still comes to around the 180- 200 km mark for a 5 sq mtr target, which is a fairly respectable performance & should be able to support the Meteor. Latest reports on Chinese homebrewn Flankers suggest they have managed to get to this performance level in the frontal arena (i.e. 5 Sq Mtr for a clean airframe). AESA should be able to handle their jamming in a much more effective fashion & Spectra + RBE 2 AA should allow for a long range Meteor shot.

Its a decent fit against the current Flankers, but over the next decade, its the J-10 and derivatives, as well as the J-20 the decade after, which will be the primary threat. All of which will field AESAs of their own.

Also, the EF offered to India incorporates the standard AESA - if so, the swashplate AESA is mentioned in a PDF linked earlier in this thread as a future development, which means scan angles on both fighters are similar. Range on the EF AESA should be quite superior though, with range increase of even 50% over the current Captor-M itself translating to a hefty performance. The Captor M is the best MSA (non ESA) FCR developed so far with performance beyond the RDY-2 and Zhuk-ME.

The AESA tested by the IAF was a standard unit but both, the unit being developed by Euroradar and the one contracted to Selex-Galileo are swashplate types. One can be fairly certain, the AESA offered to the IAF is not a conventional unit.

Rafale pilots mention they can detect a Typhoon at twice the range of a Rafale. It has not been mentioned whether its on a loaded or lightly loaded config, but eitherway seems to support the assertion the latter has a smaller RCS. It most certainly is a more compact airframe though, with the cockpit being as tightly designed around the pilot as the LCA's!

Twice the range is simply hot air. Unless they are referring to the range at which they can detect the Captor-M's emissions. Even assuming, the Rafale's power output equals that of the EF (fat chance), it'll need to have a RCS equalling a quarter that of the EF. Considering tht fact that both will carry an external payload (including semi-conformal stores on the EF), calling that a stretch would be charitable.

On political factors, dealing with the French (price apart) is more predictable than dealing with 4-5 European nations, all with their own green, HR, vatican/NGO/conversion and what not lobbies. The French can also be a nuisance (e.g. Sarkozy around Orissa riots time) but they haven't ever imposed sanctions on India and are a fairly known quantity. On the offsets and TOT side EADS may be able to offer far more in terms of offsets than Dassault (EADS is huge), but negotiating workshare for the EF assembly itself is going to be tricky.

True enough. But a stake in EF Gmbh and workshare agreements will allow a greater degree of sovereignty and flexibility. When the time comes to upgrade the Rafale with the touted next-gen GaN modules or whatever, the French will have us over a barrel, and will use that leverage to the hilt.

Hard choices all around.

Well the very worst possible outcome of ordering the EF, would be the IAF/MoD having to independently contract companies to resume cancelled upgrades. Considering that this is going to be amortised over a build of 126-200 aircraft (a bigger order than the 112 unit Tranche 3A), its not going to affect the unit cost a great deal.

We're looking at a defence budget, very conservatively estimated at about $80 billion by 2020 (unadjusted for inflation). Given that the MRCA will be to the IAF then, what the Su-30MKI is to it today, opting for the better aircraft makes sense, instead of hedging against a possible price escalation.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 16 May 2011 14:01

Some newbie questions about EF production in India. Assuming the consortiums works now only because each of the four contries produce a part which only they know how to produce.

1. If India joins the consortium, would they redistribute the production %s among five of us? Parts which only we can produce and no one else "should/will" ? Will GoI agree to such a set up?

2. Suppose India gets ToT from all 4 partners (some point in future), and gets to make all the parts in house. India would be at an advantage. Will the consortium members agree to this?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 May 2011 14:34

i would imagine that final assembly of IAF EF's will be in India, and these will be fed from component/sub-assembly factories in other partner countries. similarly India will make some sub-assemblies which will go to the other assembly factories. not known yet are things like software workshare, etc. seems to me that EF is more geared up to participation than Dassault

atul.arvind · Post by **atul.arvind** » 16 May 2011 15:08

ok somebody please explain me why there is a painted pic of Tiffy(infantry road bangalore )

among other devlopments of drdo and hal.....near infantry road on walls all the devlopments like lch,Lca prithvi,brahmos are painted and rite in between there is Tiffy....could it be an honest mistake or smthing else....

manum · Post by **manum** » 16 May 2011 15:12

atul.arvind wrote:ok somebody please explain me why there is a painted pic of Tiffy(infantry road bangalore ) among other devlopments of drdo and hal.....near infantry road on walls all the devlopments like lch,Lca prithvi,brahmos are painted and rite in between there is Tiffy....could it be an honest mistake or smthing else....

click few good shots of the same, It'll be nice to fabricate few more reasons...

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 16 May 2011 16:14

Some info on the Typhoon:

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/we ... 1-2011.pdf
notice the map of desh that they have used...

http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter- ... world.html

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 May 2011 16:37

k prasad wrote:
SaiK wrote: Do you have that link btw??

Most pilots I spoke to at AI were mighty impressed by what the Tiffy could do, and they would take her name as their preferred date

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opi ... epage=true

sudhan · Post by **sudhan** » 16 May 2011 17:29

A pair of Austrian Eurofighters escorting the Turkish President..

http://www.tccb.gov.tr/playVideo.asp?vid=18091

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 16 May 2011 18:21

ramana wrote:Manish, Extensive use of composites.

Thanks Ramana, hopefully this will leak into LCA Mk II too. In case they are using lighter/stronger composites then Tejas.

srai wrote:Rafale is designed to perform roles previously filled by an assortment of dedicated platforms and replace them:

* Jaguar - close air support
* F-8P Crusader - carrier-based air superiority jet aircraft
* Mirage F1C/R/T - interceptor/reconnaissance/ground attack
* Mirage 2000-5/C/N/D - multirole/interceptor/strike (nuclear/conventional)
* Etendard IVPM - Nuclear Strike
* Super Etendard - carrier-borne strike fighter

That's why it's a "true omni-role" combat aircraft because it was designed from the onset as one.

On the other hand, EF was originally designed primarily for air-superiority role.

Thanks srai, seems like Rafale has both the Ms of MMRCA covered nicely.

In case of full blown war Rafales with their 7 wetpoints compared to typhoon's 3 will make a huge difference if one looks at the big picture. Imagining 200 Rafales with their 7 wetpoints and more payload with fuel sipping engines seem to paint a sadder picture for porki/panda forces than typhoon with its 3. I think Rafale it is going to be. We'll have enough air-superiority platforms in AMCA/Tejas/Rambhas/FGFAs.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 16 May 2011 18:54

andy B wrote:Some info on the Typhoon:

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/we ... 1-2011.pdf
notice the map of desh that they have used...

http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter- ... world.html

Haha, thats nice! We still rule over POK!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 16 May 2011 19:28

atleast EF's Indian consultants managed to earn their money!

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 16 May 2011 19:54

So the following are touted to be the advantages of the AASM according to the piece posted by arthuro
AASM :

Relying on the AASM extended stand-off range, the French Rafales were tasked to suppress and destroy Libyan SA-3 air defense sites during the initial phases of the conflict.During these strikes, Rafales utilized on-board sensor fusion, to integrate data obtained from on-board sensors and external sources, delivered over Link-16. This capability enabled pilots to generate strike coordinates based on real-time data, and feed it to the weapon in flight...
...A significant advantage of the AASM is the ability to retarget the weapon from the cockpit, just before launch. A Rafale carrying six weapons, each loaded with six different targets prior to takeoff. The pilot can select different targets for each weapon, or decide to engage the same target twice, in case the targets is not destroyed by the first strike.

1) That it can be reprogrammed while the aircraft is in the air. Is this really so spectacular? AFAIK the ~20,000$ vanila JDAM can also do this.

a mission success rate of over 90%, compared to 70%, achieved by unpowered (gliding) laser guided or geo-targeted weapons. The later are have inherent limitations in mission planning, restricted by gliding envelope and laser designation ‘basket’ effecting flight envelope, trajectory, impact angle and penetration.

2)It is claimed to perform better than gliding weapons. So what about limitations caused by the AASM itself, such as increased weight and lower range compared to a glide bomb.

Another important capability, particularly in today’s hybrid warfare, is the weapon’s flexibility in striking ‘time critical targets’. During the recent attacks in Libya, a Rafale pilot clearly demonstrated such method, when spotting a Libyan Soko G2 Galeb aircraft flying near Misrata. As the Libyan plane landed at the base, the Rafale pilot acquired its coordinates as a ‘target of opportunity’, fed the data to the weapon and launched the GPS/INS guided AASM against the target. As the weapon dropped, it homed in on the exact spot and destroyed the Libyan aircraft on the tarmac.

point no 1 repeated again and again.

The way I see it this is purely marketing BS. The Rafael go out more for the photo opp strutting its AASMs, while Khans birds do most of the heavy lifting in the background with its cheap and ugly bombs (that are just as effective) in Libya.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 16 May 2011 19:58

ramana wrote:The AASM looks like a family of weapons with great flexibility.
Now we know what IAF meant by re-attack capability. So what was done is to package the basic dumb bomb with a variety of electronic sensors that comm ... h aircraftand couple that with a boost motor to give stand-off range. But $300K is too much for point target defeat on large scale...

Just to be clear AFAIK the AASM does not have a datalink.(it cannot communicate with the aircraft after launch)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 May 2011 20:06

We could work on the reattack la brahmos.. and a nice way to learn for our lab boys, plus reducing the cost of these missiles.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 16 May 2011 20:42

SaiK wrote:
k prasad wrote: Do you have that link btw??

Most pilots I spoke to at AI were mighty impressed by what the Tiffy could do, and they would take her name as their preferred date
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opi ... epage=true

Thanks... its odd actually. I would expect the reverse to be the case, with kat impressing in the Man-Machine interface and Tiffy wowing with the item number Jhatka-turns

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).

This would , of course, lead to good LPI performance and much better surprise element while attacking. However, it would require incredible sensor fusion and processing to achieve the maximum from these sensors, and might still remain vulnerable to the possibility that something has escaped it (this is something that seems to not be a problem, given how confident the french are about their bird).

Moreover, the only real way to negate VLO and retain competitive edge is to detect and track at the same range as you are seen from, which means more power output. Its simple physics. It might not be needed all the time, but you never know when you'll need something on the battlefield, and its better to have more.

As for the radar, a smaller aperture will lead to less stray emissions. However, there are definite advantages to larger apertures - even if it is with the same number of TRMs (better directionality and sensitivity for one - for other advantages, see Talking Radars. Moreover, I don't see why the same results cant be achieved by controlling which TRMs are on and which are off.

I think the IAF reviewers are best placed to evaluate this.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 May 2011 20:54

This re-attack business is due to lack of powerful warhead (125/250 kg). The idea should be one warhead one target. Kill them with one warhead.

What India should do is add a boost motor for Sudharshan kit and make the rear fins large for that model. Would be able to get most of the capability.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 May 2011 20:57

sure, but if I understand this correct.. lpi is mandatory for any bvr engagement., that I presume includes not continuously illuminating to track and scan. you would have better situational awareness with longer ranged radar rather the right sized for the weapons you deliver. And, this is all life or death in matter of minutes and seconds for the pilot and our security of the country. I agree IAF is more qualified to judge than this understanding, but we are definitely not wrong in discussing here for our knowledge. I hope BReapert clarifies this.

passive tracking and frequent pulse mode active scan as feed into track corrections, could increase LPI. So, I agree passive receivers takes an important feature for BVRs.

we are also not sure, if we are intending on KS172/novotor or similar ranged integration with MMRCA.

rakall · Post by **rakall** » 16 May 2011 21:16

Viv S wrote:
Its a decent fit against the current Flankers, but over the next decade, its the J-10 and derivatives, as well as the J-20 the decade after, which will be the primary threat. All of which will field AESAs of their own.

.

Su30MKI can take care of J10 & derivatives in Air-to-Air.. Rafale can be an excellent strike option; with its own excellent Air-to-Air capabilities it would be more than a match to j10 & derivatives (only speculating the capabilities of J10)..

In to the next decade and after by the time J20 comes into picture, PAKFA will be the platform that should bring technological parity (or even superiority).. Ofcourse the greatest liability for IAF w.r.t China will always be "numerical" !!! And that is something that a "poor country" like ours, additionally burdened with "spineless & vision-less politicians" may not be able to change for a looooong time. (Unless I become the RM or PM

)

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 16 May 2011 22:31

sure, but if I understand this correct.. lpi is mandatory for any bvr engagement., that I presume includes not continuously illuminating to track and scan. you would have better situational awareness with longer ranged radar rather the right sized for the weapons you deliver. And, this is all life or death in matter of minutes and seconds for the pilot and our security of the country. I agree IAF is more qualified to judge than this understanding, but we are definitely not wrong in discussing here for our knowledge. I hope BReapert clarifies this.

passive tracking and frequent pulse mode active scan as feed into track corrections, could increase LPI. So, I agree passive receivers takes an important feature for BVRs.

Absolutely right SaiK!!

My comment about IAF evaluators was aimed at the other posters who I think have been a bit too quick to jump to sometimes not-considered judgements about the superiority of one type or tech over the other. To these posters, I'd say that its really hard to make a considered comparative evaluation even with all the data and experience, let alone with the bits and pieces that we're working with here. Thus, I see no reason for either rigidity or dogmatic support positions in this thread

.

wrt LPI and ranges, let me illustrate my point.

Lets say you are walking in the dark with a gun, a big Lathi and a torch. Being scared, u carry a really big powerful torch and keep it alwys on. This would only lead the dacoits to you quickly.

So you decide to keep it on only for very short quick bursts so that the daakus cant catch your position. The problem of course is that even these short bursts are attracting the attention of daakus from 500 m around, and they're coming towards ur general location and are then shining their own torches to find you.

Then u realize that u could solve this by shooting the dacoits the moment you see them. So u shine the light in bursts. When u see a daaku, u hold, aim and shoot. Again, u find a problem here - because u take some time to aim, and ur torch has a much longer range (say 500 m) than ur gun (say 100 m). So the dacoits are able to see you much better if you aim in advance. So you cannot aim too much in advance, and when u do aim, u should aim really really quickly and fire before they do. Which means that YOUR POWERFUL TORCH IS ACTUALLY A LIABILITY HERE, UNLESS YOU CAN FIRE BACK AT THAT RANGE AND QUICKLY.

Ideally, u want to scan very quickly before the other daakus see your torchlight, and if you do aim, aim only when you are close enuf to be able o fire quickly. And AIM quickly, before they can aim in return and fire.

So its a tough situation you're in - to know where the daakus are, u need to keep scanning. And you need to fire at them before they geet a chance to even notice. But the longer you keep scanning, the greater the chance that they detect you. And then you're a goner. So you need to be in the situation that if they DO detect you, you can aim and shoot them first.

Which means that you make a tough choice - you quicken your reflexes and scanning ability. You only scan quickly and have a torch that is less bright so that far away and other dacoits dont see you there till its too late. Instead, you put the torch range at say 200 m, so that far away dacoits don't detect you and come closer, and instead, you can only be detected by those you know you can take on quickly -, ie If you're looking for something, make sure that when you find it, you are ready to kill it. Otherwise, you have just given up the element of surpise and are now a sitting duck.

Of course, like i mentioned, that would require you to have really really good reflexes to shoot first, and shoot well

.

Thats the philosophy i was referring to in that post before. Situational awareness is really good, but sometimes, too much of situational awareness might be dangerous.

Plus, excellent passive sensors will let you figure out whats going on far away without having to go active. That is the design philosophy behind the Rafale sensor suite - a perfect fit between the length of the arm, the speed of reflexes and the effective range of the eye.

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 May 2011 22:40

abhik wrote:...
a mission success rate of over 90%, compared to 70%, achieved by unpowered (gliding) laser guided or geo-targeted weapons. The later are have inherent limitations in mission planning, restricted by gliding envelope and laser designation ‘basket’ effecting flight envelope, trajectory, impact angle and penetration.
2)It is claimed to perform better than gliding weapons. So what about limitations caused by the AASM itself, such as increased weight and lower range compared to a glide bomb.
...

With gliding weapons (and unpowered PGMs), there is some restriction on the launch profiles. To get the maximum range, it has to be launched from high altitude and flying towards the target (or pointing towards). Don't know about its range when launched at low altitudes.

On the other hand, because the AASM is powered it has the ability to be launched off at targets at even 180 degree angles in relation to the launching aircraft. The missile will do the turn using it's own power and head in the direction of the target. This allows a Rafale to hit 6 different targets over a dispersed area (at 90 degrees, 180 degrees angles, etc in relation to the aircraft) in one single pass. That's why the claims of over 90% mission success rates.

But obviously, AASM is not the solution for all types of strike, especially given its high price tag of $300K per unit.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 May 2011 22:51

great post there k prasad. alternatively, we could let a third device (either AWACS or satellite based/like Rakesh said) be integrated to do the track while scan and small nosed Kat is good enough with her slimline tigress bikinis.

I am sure dakkus will not have a range to fire at 300km wala.

good one

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 16 May 2011 22:57

Both KAT and Tiffy are superior platforms than the rest in the competition, the difference between these 2 are mostly academic. Those difference can cause life and death situation in some negligible percentage of total engagements when the opposition are paki and chinese airforce but overall won't change anything from strategic outcome.
Technically either should be fine and non technical reason should have more weight between the selection of these 2.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 May 2011 23:03

thinking like a bhaniya, we would like to pit one against the other, so that we could get the real prize squeeze going. accepting either one would be fine may give up some negotiating power. just..

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 16 May 2011 23:25

When selecting foreign weapon/product for a significant percentage of total inventory, the following principles appear more logical.
a. All things relatively equal, select a weapon/product that is coming from single source to minimize points of failure.
c. Select the weakest single source as that provides the most bargaining position.
b. Keep another weapon/product as a backup.

Since we already have an excellent backup multi-role aircraft in Rambha, selecting Kat will be a more logical option since we have to engage only the French. The same principle worked well earlier while selecting/creating Rambha because we had M2000 as backup.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 16 May 2011 23:39

Tiffy producing nations already has an umbrella agreement. Now it is obvious that the contract will include legal clauses not to shaft each other. So while adding a new partner is possible, none of the existing partner can be completely removed or made irrelevant; there will be fierce opposition from that country's aerospace industry and the pound of flesh asked for that kind of independence would be astronomical. It won't make financial sense when 'Al iz vell'. (We do not/ did not get that kind of independence from SU itself which was a much closer friend to us than all of the rest put together). So, When comes to actually use Tiffy, it will need only one of the 4 existing partners to wake up on the wrong side of the bed to throw a significant spanner on a major weapon system of IAF. And it would be foolish to provide 4 different countries such leverage in a single deal.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 May 2011 00:39

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.

srai · Post by **srai** » 17 May 2011 01:45

Kailash wrote:Some newbie questions about EF production in India. Assuming the consortiums works now only because each of the four contries produce a part which only they know how to produce.

1. If India joins the consortium, would they redistribute the production %s among five of us? Parts which only we can produce and no one else "should/will" ? Will GoI agree to such a set up?

2. Suppose India gets ToT from all 4 partners (some point in future), and gets to make all the parts in house. India would be at an advantage. Will the consortium members agree to this?

Typically, India, joining late to the partnership, would get a much lower overall percentage workshare compared to the 4 original partners in relation to the size of orders. This workshare would only apply to the new production (i.e. post Tranche 3A/B which have already been negotiated between the 4 original partners). The percentage of Indian workshare would be relative to the units being produced for the IAF (higher workshare) versus ones being produced for other clients (lower workshare). There will be a fifth final assembly line in India (on top of the four current ones in UK, Germany, Italy and Spain).

But all in all, a partnership with workshare denotes an industrial integration with the European manufactures as compared to licensed manufacture--which is just parts assembly of kits supplied by OEM and some parts produced locally under license. Partnership also provides an input in future upgrades and on new developments (after lots of negotiations and agreements among partners), and those upgrades taken in lead by the IAF would likely contain higher Indian workshare. There will be an opportunity for profit-sharing.

On the other note, there is no such thing as 100% TOT. From an economic perspective (cost of purchase, infrastructure setup, etc), it does not make sense. TOT is applied mostly for critical technologies that India would want to acquire the know-how of.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 May 2011 02:47

rakall wrote:Su30MKI can take care of J10 & derivatives in Air-to-Air.. Rafale can be an excellent strike option; with its own excellent Air-to-Air capabilities it would be more than a match to j10 & derivatives (only speculating the capabilities of J10)..

In to the next decade and after by the time J20 comes into picture, PAKFA will be the platform that should bring technological parity (or even superiority).. Ofcourse the greatest liability for IAF w.r.t China will always be "numerical" !!! And that is something that a "poor country" like ours, additionally burdened with "spineless & vision-less politicians" may not be able to change for a looooong time. (Unless I become the RM or PM )

The IAF is not going to have the luxury of waiting, identifying the type of ingressing fighters and then vectoring/scrambling the appropriate type to intercept them.

Coming to a comparison of fighters - you hope for the best, plan for the worst. Its far from certain that the Su-30MKI will be able to 'take care' of future J-10 derivatives or a mixed force of J-10s and Flankers, particularly when its going to be outnumbered. While planning, its safer to assume the PLAAF aircraft will have AESAs, will have improved sensor fusion, will have reduced RCS (possibly in the EF/Rafale class), may have been fitted/retrofitted with IRST systems and will almost certainly have superior numbers. Point being, there isn't or at least shouldn't be any such thing as 'adequate' air-to-air capabilities. Every little bit of advantage may be end up being the decisive factor in combat.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 May 2011 03:04

I am pretty positive MKI will have AESA upgrades in the near future.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 May 2011 04:02

SaiK wrote:I am pretty positive MKI will have AESA upgrades in the near future.

I'm aware of that. But while that will allow it to dominate the primarily JF-17 equipped PAF, the same doesn't apply to comparable or close to comparable Chinese aircraft.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 17 May 2011 05:55

Has anyone put the question, to the two vendors (Dassault and Eurofighter), how they would react to the IAF's integration of nuclear weapons with their aircraft? Any mention of this in the press?

From what I can tell, by my estimation (considering history and cultural mores), the French wouldn't make a big fuss about it and may even help; while the other Europeans wouldn't like it one bit, and may even resort to a spares embargo if this is done.

The Germans, in particular, have become staunch doves (post WWII), and will not like to see the Typhoon as a nuclear weapons platform -- I can pretty much guarantee you this.

Any thoughts?

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 17 May 2011 05:57

Typhoon or Rafale would not be the designated aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons. For one thing, you need a two man crew to deliver nukes. Two man is the rule. Only the Su-30 planes can do it. there was one other aircraft that could do the job but I forgot.

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

Ravi well to think about it we are jugaduu types onlee, remember we got the M2Ks to carry the old vintage free fall bombs during Kargil ? In a worst case scenario what will happen if one will drop a 200-500Kt nuke like a WW-II era free fall bomb ? The pilot will miss the bullseye by ~1-2 km (and I know I am exagerating for modern bomb sights shall keep the CeP within several hundred meters)? Big deal .

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 May 2011 07:20

Ravi Karumanchiri wrote:Has anyone put the question, to the two vendors (Dassault and Eurofighter), how they would react to the IAF's integration of nuclear weapons with their aircraft? Any mention of this in the press?
Any thoughts?

Two.

First, aircraft aren't the weapon of choice for delivery of a nuclear payload. Missiles will always be the first (and usually only) option. A tactical nuclear strike will be carried out rarely enough (even after being sanctioned by the CCS) to warrant expending a Nirbhay or a modified Brahmos on the mission. The IAF was an alternative back when India's ballistic and cruise missile designs/inventories were still fledgling/immature.

Secondly, even if its carried out on a select aircraft, details of any modification done to facilitate integration of nuclear weapons will remain classified for everyone. To date, the IAF has released no information on the types or units in its ORBAT capable of employing nuclear weapons, and all publicly available material deals only with educated guesses. In any event, both MMRCA aircraft are exempt from any physical checks to ensure compliance with the IP regulations. UK's aircraft are not monitored by Germany or vice-versa, there's no reason to suspect India would be subjected to the same if it were to join the consortium.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 May 2011 08:33

Nevertheless, I think it is a good question on the tactical nukes delivering those 0.3 shakti types to smoke out ladenic phackies. When we have the source code and APIs, we should be able to integrate special ops weapons, and we should be able to use MMRCA to deliver them, leaving aside doctrine and requirements for a second.

Capability wise, there exists all possibilities.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 17 May 2011 09:16

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

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 17 May 2011 09:20

Hitesh wrote:Typhoon or Rafale would not be the designated aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons. For one thing, you need a two man crew to deliver nukes. Two man is the rule. Only the Su-30 planes can do it. there was one other aircraft that could do the job but I forgot.

Why wouldn't the Rafale be the designated nuke carrier ? It is after all the designated nuclear platform for the French with the ASMP. Granted that we don't have anything like the ASMP, but considering the Rafale's terrain following capabilities, it is ideally suited to penetrate at very low altitude, possibly even at night, and accurately drop the nuke on its target and egress quickly while still being capable of defending itself if required.

bmallick · Post by **bmallick** » 17 May 2011 09:35

In all this talk about which aircraft would be better for the IAF, we should also keep in mind our present predicament of falling numbers. If we select a fighter like the Typhoon and even if we pump in the money needed, in case of any development delay, we would end up with not so multirole fighter in the medium term. Such a slippage of development schedule would always be a sword hanging on our capabilities.

What the IAF needs, I believe, is a fully capable platform now, without worries about slippages, so that it can bolster its numbers quickly with a mature fighter. Hence the Rafale.

Its a choice between, not so top of the line A2A performance but adequate numbers in the short-to medium term, or great A2A performance but a very distinct possibility of short on numbers in the short-to-medium term.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 May 2011 09:57

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.