VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1151
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Nikhil T » 15 Nov 2019 21:02

Karthik S wrote:MRFA or any other name, point is additional Rafales are coming along with Tejas. There hasn't been significant addition to fighters fleet apart from contracted MKIs 2 decades ago. Only major multi billion dollar purchases for IAF have been C 17 and C 130j.



You sure about that? Two decades ago we had only contracted 140 + 50 MKIs; we have contracted 82 more MKIs since in piecemeal fashion. We’ve also spent billions in upgrading Mirages, MiG 29s, and Bisons. We’ve added refuellers, AWACS, and IACCS that allow for better airspace control with fewer jets in the air. All that is significant investment in IAF.

Let’s not ignore all that to say that we need multi-billion dollar level investment in IAF to buy Rafales because IAF has been starved of money all this time. There’s simply no money in the bank to buy Rafales or 114 jet tamasha.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 15 Nov 2019 23:06

Nikhil, valid point wrt to investment. However investing in "upgrading" fighters is not the same as inducting a whole new type. There is investment in infrastructure to support the new type, investment in a new set of weapons to support the new type, investment in pilot and airmen training on the new type, etc. Infrastructure takes the big chunk of the investment cost here, which upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s do not have to do. They slot right back into the airbase which has all the infrastructure set up. Also for crew trained on the legacy MiG-29 and Mirage 2000...again the investment is minimal when operating the upgraded type.

With the Rafale induction, the whole set of investment has to be repeated - base infrastructure (special shelters are being built to house two squadrons worth at each air base - Ambala and Hasimara), new weapons (Meteor, SCALP, etc) and training of crew - pilots and airmen. One can see the progress of the construction on Google Maps at both airbases.

The last new type that was inducted was the Tejas Mk1 when No 45 Flying Daggers Squadron was raised on 01 July 2016. Prior to this induction, was the Su-30MKI when No 20 Lightnings Squadron was raised on 27 September 2002. That is almost two decades back. So Karthik S is right ---> there has not been any addition to the *FIGHTER* fleet since the Su-30MKI. Today, the IAF has just one squadron of the Tejas Mk1 and has more than 12+ squadrons of the Su-30MKI.

There needs to be more inductions of Netra AEW&C aircraft (one is pathetic), more refuellers, complete MAFI (Modernization of Airfield Infrastructure) programs at all airbases, increase orders of Astra Mk1s, increase the number Tejas Mk1As (83 is too little)....the list goes on. The most important cost (and often overlooked on BRF) is human resources. There needs to be a greater intake of pilots into the air force. No point in inducting any of the above, if your pilot shortage is acute.

To quote Saab's marketing line ---> a fighter is only effective when she in air. So 114 Rafales or 114 Tejas Mk1As is pointless, if you do not have pilots to fly them. And the IAF suffers from a severe pilot shortage. Statistically, if memory serves me correct, there is less than one pilot to every plane. The PAF has the opposite - they have more than 2 pilots on average to a combat plane. I do not know about the PLAAF, but if you ask them...they will tell you it is fabulous! :) The situation in the IAF is acute because of the lucrative growth of the civil aviation market. Challenging to match the pay and the perks that the civil aviation industry offers.

So while one can argue on the merits (or disadvantages) of inducting 114 phoren fighters, however the above issues are equally important and also need to be addressed. A fighter aircraft - phoren or desi - is only good as the support platforms that assist it. So trained pilots, trained ground personnel, increasing serviceability of present types (across the board, a 75% serviceability must be the goal), weapons stocks for a minimum of 10 days of intense air combat, AEW&C aircraft, refullers, modern airbases with hardened shelters and SAMs, etc are all important for an effective air campaign.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 536
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby souravB » 16 Nov 2019 00:18

Admiral, the pilot issue will be countered with inducting women in combat role.
I'd have love to see one of the first woman combat pilot joining the Tejas Sq.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 16 Nov 2019 03:51

Women, Men or Whoever....just get them in. Obviously, without lowering entrance and training standards. See below. I hope things have changed for the better since this article.

The Indian Air Force’s Big Problem: Not Enough Pilots!
https://thediplomat.com/2015/04/the-ind ... gh-pilots/
April 30, 2015

Furthermore, the IAF’s current fighter aircraft to pilot ratio is 1 : 0.81.”Our sanctioned strength for [combat] pilots is less than that of our adversaries,” the report said, adding that the Pakistan Air Force’s fighter aircraft to pilot ratio was 1 : 2.5, IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly reported.


And this is another growing problem. A problem big enough that even the Air Chief mentioned it.

Not enough done in aviation medicine field: IAF Chief RKS Bhadauria
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 057778.cms
Nov 14, 2019

The IAF chief also spoke about the fatigue and lack of sleep among pilots due to mobile phones and social media. "Technology has not only just revolutionised the working environment but also the social ethos and customs. Mobiles, iPads, etc. are just with everybody. And we have to find ways to discourage young pilots to stay away from this late at night. We have to find ways to recognizing who hasn't had the enough sleep," said the Air Chief Marshal.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 16 Nov 2019 03:53

Rafale verdict will have positive impact on overall military procurement: Ex-IAF Chief Dhanoa
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 055916.cms

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4326
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby srai » 16 Nov 2019 10:35

IAF ratio of aircraft to pilots 1:0.81

We are talking about around 30 squadrons. So much for 42 squadrons!

Part of the problem would be diverse combat aircraft types. It takes a lot of hours to gain an expertise on a type. Dividing a limited pool of pilots to man a diverse fleet would definitely be a challenge. Need to standardize on fewer types going forward.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7385
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Prasad » 16 Nov 2019 14:09

Issue of pilots is overblown. Dhanoa said so in an interview before he left office.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 16 Nov 2019 22:21

France lays out Rafale upgrade path to 2070
https://www.janes.com/article/92555/fra ... th-to-2070

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1195008109002911744 ---> The French Air Force just detailed an upgrade path for its Rafale fleet that goes all the way to 2070, reports Gareth Jennings.

Image

Roop
BRFite
Posts: 257
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Roop » 16 Nov 2019 22:39

Here is a YT link listing the India-specific enhancements (ISE) to Rafale (I don't know how accurate it is, I simply offer it FWIW):


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 16 Nov 2019 22:44

Prasad wrote:Issue of pilots is overblown. Dhanoa said so in an interview before he left office.

That is music to my ears! Any link or source when ACM Dhanoa Sir said this? Any numbers provided?

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7385
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Prasad » 16 Nov 2019 22:59

Starting 15m, 11s.


srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4326
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby srai » 17 Nov 2019 03:51

Rakesh wrote:France lays out Rafale upgrade path to 2070
https://www.janes.com/article/92555/fra ... th-to-2070

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/1195008109002911744 ---> The French Air Force just detailed an upgrade path for its Rafale fleet that goes all the way to 2070, reports Gareth Jennings.

AI will be the next leap forward. Initially, it will enhance human decision making. Over time it will evolve towards autonomous capability.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 17 Nov 2019 04:26

Prasad wrote:Starting 15m, 11s.

Thank you for this video. Very informative.

At 11:40 he talks about breaking down the door as well.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7667
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Gerard » 17 Nov 2019 07:05

Great video. At 17:20 he mentions the Su-30MKI/BrahMos from the Indian landmass as addressing half the Indian ocean, with a refueling tanker, the other half. :D

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2567
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Katare » 17 Nov 2019 21:10

Breaking down the door??

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7385
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Prasad » 17 Nov 2019 22:33

SEAD

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 17 Nov 2019 23:06

@Katare: As Prasad said above —> SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences).

None of the three aircraft - Su-30MKI, upgraded Mirage 2000s and Rafale - that ACM Dhanoa Sir mentioned are in the same league as the F-18 Growler, but the Chief believes they are good enough to take on Pakistani and Chinese air defences. The Super Sukhoi upgrade will make the platform even more potent. Watch these videos, for the “concept” of breaking down the door or SEAD.

You cannot fight what you cannot see. You can still hit the enemy without SEAD, but your attrition losses will be very high and you will lose a good number of pilots. That is why the Chief mentioned that the MiG-21 (and I will add Tejas, Jaguar, etc) will operate under the shadow of the Su-30MKI, upgraded Mirage 2000s and the Rafale.




Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1460
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Sumeet » 18 Nov 2019 09:42

Rakesh we will not get Growlers since we will be getting S-400s. Better to work on escort jammers with Israelis.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3457
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby kit » 18 Nov 2019 11:21

Sumeet wrote:Rakesh we will not get Growlers since we will be getting S-400s. Better to work on escort jammers with Israelis.



Even if the F18s are a good possibility for carrier aviation?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20548
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 18 Nov 2019 11:52

kit wrote:
Sumeet wrote:Rakesh we will not get Growlers since we will be getting S-400s. Better to work on escort jammers with Israelis.



Even if the F18s are a good possibility for carrier aviation?


One suspects that what we may receive may be the "export" genre, the defanged and secularized version.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3849
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Cain Marko » 18 Nov 2019 11:58

Rakesh wrote:@Katare: As Prasad said above —> SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences).

None of the three aircraft - Su-30MKI, upgraded Mirage 2000s and Rafale - that ACM Dhanoa Sir mentioned are in the same league as the F-18 Growler, but the Chief believes they are good enough to take on Pakistani and Chinese air defences. The Super Sukhoi upgrade will make the platform even more potent. Watch these videos, for the “concept” of breaking down the door or SEAD.
]


Well saar, I think he was referring more to DEAD than SEAD considering he specifically mentioned the MKI/Bmos combo. Perhaps the MKI is not sophisticated like the growler but it does carry a massive jamming pod on the centerline when needed along with wingtip sap 518 jammers too. All in all, it will try brute power in lieu of sophistication.

I wouldn't underestimate the Rambha.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4326
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby srai » 18 Nov 2019 14:22

^^^
DEAD operation (Su-30MKI)

  1. Brahmos (450km) & Nirbhay (1000km)—> long range strike to take out Air Defense C2 nodes/network
  2. NGARM (100km) —> take our SAM battery radars
  3. SAAW (100km) —> take out SAM battery launchers, C2 and other support vehicles

Supported by jamming pods (SAP-518 / SAP-14 / DARE HBJ / ELL-8251).

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4609
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Kartik » 19 Nov 2019 01:19

France lays out Rafale roadmap. Some of it will be music to the IAF's and jingo's ears. I really wish the Narendra Modi govt. just purchased another 48 Rafale and ended the 114 MRCA plan and focused its entire attention thereafter on indigenous platforms like the MWF, TEDBF and AMCA and how to develop the other technologies in India itself.

From AW&ST


BERLIN—The French Air Force has developed a road map for its Dassault Rafale that could see the fighter serving on the front line until 2070.

In addition to a new, nuclear-tipped missile in the 2030s, the air force wants to add more conventional weapons, avionics, sensors and connectivity to the Euro-Canard that will pave the way for the New Generation Fighter (NGF) being developed with Germany and Spain as part of the Future Combat Aircraft System (FCAS).

The French Navy, operating the Rafale from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, is also aligned with the plan.


Such a commitment could be music to the ears of potential export customers. The Rafale is in contention for tenders in Finland, India and Switzerland, and would calm customer fears they might be left with orphaned, expensive fleets.

By comparison, the Eurofighter operating nations have said they want to fly later tranches of the fighter beyond 2040, but none have said, at least publicly, how far beyond.

“The Rafale will be the testbed for new technologies,” Maj. Gen. Frederic Parisot told the International Fighter Conference here Nov. 13. “The F4 upgrade in 2025 will lay the initial building blocks of connected combat, expanding the connectivity and software tools for networked operations.”

An important factor is that air force commanders foresee a need to have a second, cheaper-to-operate platform for operations in which the threats are less complex. Parisot points to the ongoing fast jet operations in Africa using various versions of the Mirage 2000. Once the last Mirage 2000 is retired in 2035, the Rafale will take on that mantle, leaving the NGF to deal with the high-end mission.


Additional aircraft will also be purchased; around 60 more will be delivered over the next decade, replacing early model aircraft.

Rafale upgrades are phased. The Rafale community is currently being equipped with the F3R upgrade, which delivers the integration of the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile and the Thales Talios targeting pod, which delivers increased electro-optical acuity and enhanced stabilization. The French Navy is expected to deploy with the F3R-equipped Rafale M in February.

The F4 upgrade, planned for 2023, will introduce the new Mica NG air-to-air missile as well secure radios and satellite communication systems.

Updates to the RBE2 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and the Spectra electronic warfare system are also planned.

The proposed F5 upgrade, planned for 2030, allows for the integration of the ASN4G missile, replacing the ASMP-A. It also paves the way for the use of remote carriers—the unmanned air systems that will complement the FCAS—performing surveillance and electronic warfare while flying ahead of or alongside the Rafale or NGF.

Perhaps the most significant upgrade in F5 will be what Parisot calls a virtual cognitive assistant—an artificial intelligence system capable of reconfiguring aircraft systems in the event of a failure, alerting the pilots to tactical situations, and advising on new routings.

Parisot likened the cognitive assistant to Iron Man’s “Jarvis” from the Marvel comics. Jarvis communicates with Iron Man through voice activation, a feature Parisot says the cognitive assistant will also require, noting it should operate “intuitively without excess chatter ... with a high level of trust, speakability and intelligibility.”

Most crucially, it will monitor pilots’ brain, heart and eye activity, looking out for what Parisot calls “cognitive overload.”

If detected, the system will deliver “cognitive countermeasures,” he explains, with the AI taking back tasks from the pilot and reducing the level of information on visual displays.


Work on the artificial intelligence is already underway through the Man-Machine Teaming advanced study program launched by Thales and Dassault in March 2018.

A critical element in being able to accelerate the upgrade process for the aircraft is ongoing work to separate the aircraft’s flight-critical software from its tactical systems. This is an approach adopted by Saab for its Gripen NG that allows upgrades to onboard systems to be delivered without the need for costly and time-consuming recertification.
Additional connectivity could allow mission data to be updated in real time from electronic intelligence gathering such as the planned CUGE platform to replace the Transall Gabriel Sigint aircraft.

Parisot acknowledges the significant efforts underway to support collaborative operations. But he notes that elements of the Rafale force need to be able to operate in a “nonconnected mode of action ... this is critical for the deterrent mission.”

F6 and F7 upgrade plans are also envisioned and will be aligned with the upgrade path for the NGF.

Several studies are also underway to extend the Rafale’s airframe life from the current 5,000 hr. up to 7,500 and potentially 9,000 hr.


There are also studies taking place into whether additional power could be gleaned from the SafranM88 engine when the Rafale receives the new ASN4G.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1460
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Sumeet » 19 Nov 2019 01:20

chetak wrote:
kit wrote:

Even if the F18s are a good possibility for carrier aviation?


One suspects that what we may receive may be the "export" genre, the defanged and secularized version.



Kit,
If that happens it will be like casting coup of the century. We will have S-400s and Growlers as well :) We can test how effective they are against each other :D

I doubt America will allow us to make Growlers operational in S-400 envelope. If I were Russia I could install some smart software on my S-400s to study and spy on Growlers.


Chetak,
Export version of Growler will also be good for us. It will upgrade our EW/EA capability by leaps and bound. However, best will be to invest in our own capability (home grown solution). We are in process of making HB Jammer, we can make dedicated LB and MB jammers as follow ons and then iteratively improve them. If need be we could work initially with Israelis on this and eventually achieve 100% indigenization. For EW its better to have local capability so that one can keep on upgrading as the need arise without having to run to OEM and pay through our noose. EW is a cat and mouse game.

Also, NGJ MB from Raytheon is causing significant drag on SH which according to Navy is impacting its operational range. That is why USN was reluctant to pursue NGJ HB and LB with Raytheon. I am sure Brar_W (since he is so well informed on US military affairs) will be to fill in more on this point.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20548
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 19 Nov 2019 01:49

Sumeet wrote:
chetak wrote:
One suspects that what we may receive may be the "export" genre, the defanged and secularized version.



Kit, if that happens it will be like casting coup of the century. We will have S-400s and Growlers as well :) We can test how effective they are against each other :D

I doubt America will allow us to make Growlers operational in S-400 envelope. If I were Russia I could install some smart software on my S-400s to study and spy on Growlers.

Chetak,
Defanged version of Growler is good as well for us. It will upgrade our EW/EA capability by leaps and bound. However, best will be to invest in our own capability (home grown solution). We are in process of making HB Jammer, we can make dedicated LB and MB jammers as follow on and then iteratively improve them. If need be we could work initially with Israelis on this and eventually achieve 100% indigenization. For EW its better to have local capability so that one can keep on upgrading as the need arise without having to run to OEM and pay through our noose. EW is a cat and mouse game.

Also, NGJ MB from Raytheon is causing significant drag on SH which according to Navy is impacting its operation range. That is why USN was reluctant to pursue NGJ HB and LB with Raytheon. I am sure Brar_W (since he is so well informed on US military affairs) will be to fill in more on this point.



They may not part with the growlers in any form.

we will get the defanged and secularized version of the non growler variant, if at all, with some face saving, chota mota bells, and whistles.

The growlers are game changers.

You can bet that as soon as the S-400s arrive, they will expect us to "exercise" a lot more but the russkies would have blocked off those options.

It is, however, going to be extremely interesting to see how two competing S-400 systems operating virtually in the same neighborhood get along.

One would also not be at all surprised if one of those cheeni systems is deployed at gwadar to "protect" cheeni assets there and quite "innocently", of course, ends up providing realtime AD cover over a large part of pukiland and maybe eyran as well. They will have over watch on parts of afghanistan too. F-35 flights in the entire region may become scarce.

we may have to continue to look to the israelis for any podded options in this space

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby brar_w » 19 Nov 2019 01:54

There is no export variant of the Growler. There is just one program for the aircraft, and one program for the mission systems (jammers, internal communication systems, receivers, and other specialized equipment). Australia joined as a partner and continued the partnership through to the Next Generation Jammer. They didn't buy just the aircraft but partnered on a whole host of investments required to maintain and upgrade the capability (EW ranges, threat systems, EW labs etc. etc.) Perhaps we will see an export configuration developed or marketed to support sales campaigns in Germany and elsewhere in Europe but I don't think it will be easy. So far, Boeing has received no money to develop an export variant for the Block 1 Growler and such funding does not appear to be on the horizon as it is just months from receiving funding for Block 2 Growlers. Only Australia specific contracts that I have ever seen concerned targeting pods and the ASRAAM.

The Next. Gen. Mid Band is not causing any significant drag over and above what was expected to be caused once the US Navy mandated 65 kW power generation per pod with a 20% margin for growth without altering its outer mold line. The performance closely mirrors what they themselves expected when they did their AOA. The power generation requirements (and the altitude envelope) dictate the pod diameter which is what causes the drag. It is massive and heavy because of the stand off range that was demanded (generally considered to be 200 km for USN SEAD (jamming) and DEAD (targeting) for a post 2020 system - this roughly double that of the older gen. pods and HARM/AARGM missile). The increase in drag often cited by the GAO and others was in reference to original program threshold requirements which were significantly lower and called for a common OML/pod across all three variants. But, the higher drag profile is more than adequately addressed by a more optimized LBJ (ALQ-99 pods all share the same OML and hence drag) pod and the fact that the Block 2 Growler will borrow the Block 3 SH's CFT's. The AARGM-ER is also probably a lower drag weapon than the AARGM and an increase SO range and altitude envelope likely means that they can operate more efficiently. I wouldn't be surprised if the Block 2 Growler comes out (NGJ-MB+LB+ALQ-99 HB and AARGM-ER) as combat radius neutral or even slightly ahead compared to the Block I Growler.

I expect the NGJ-HB to be delayed because there is simply not enough technology out there to pack that much power and jamming into a form factor that the USN will be happy with. I expect that in the post 2030+ timeframe with the current HBJ transmitters handling the workload till then (they were modernized less than 10 years ago). HBJ requirements and envelope was always the hardest to meet (original analysis wanted stand-off jamming within the X band through MMW band envelope). There are probably also many other ways to defeat that threat than a stand-off jammer so that will likely also factor into the AOA.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1460
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Sumeet » 19 Nov 2019 04:29

brar_w wrote:I expect the NGJ-HB to be delayed because there is simply not enough technology out there to pack that much power and jamming into a form factor that the USN will be happy with. I expect that in the post 2030+ timeframe with the current HBJ transmitters handling the workload till then (they were modernized less than 10 years ago). HBJ requirements and envelope was always the hardest to meet (original analysis wanted stand-off jamming within the X band through MMW band envelope). There are probably also many other ways to defeat that threat than a stand-off jammer so that will likely also factor into the AOA.


In that case how DRDO/DARE is making HBJ, are we going to operate within very strict parameters as far as jamming power, stand off range etc are concerned ? Do you have any observations about this ? Or we are just making a self protection jammer for which requirements aren't anywhere in that range ?
Last edited by Sumeet on 19 Nov 2019 04:59, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby brar_w » 19 Nov 2019 04:43

It is a factor or stand off range, the diversity of emitters you are trying to defeat or degrade, and other parameters like number or targets etc. The Next gen. jammer was re baseline and split into three because optimizing a pod around the most stressing requirements would befriend meant a pod significantly larger and more powerful then the mid band pod currently flying - it would have been designed around the needs or the High Band Stand Off mission.

Developing a high band jammer is not the hard part but doing one that could perform the same Stand Off mission the USN specified was considered damn near impossible hence it was separated and was to be pursued in the mid to late 2020s when technologies like GaN on Diamond or microfluidic cooling were more mature. The current ALQ-99s have high band transmitters but in those configurations you are limited to stand in or escort missions. As frequencies increase you loose efficiency thereby requiring a lot of power and cooling. There was a reason that some of the RAT pod designs studied under the original NGJ tech development efforts were approaching triple digit kW in terms of power generation. A SO HBJ like the one the USN originally wanted likely would have needed that much.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Rakesh » 19 Nov 2019 07:07

kit wrote:
Sumeet wrote:Rakesh we will not get Growlers since we will be getting S-400s. Better to work on escort jammers with Israelis.

Even if the F18s are a good possibility for carrier aviation?

Growler is not coming. Even if the S-400 deal is cancelled, still the Growler will not come. That is a highly sensitive piece of equipment which the Khan will share with only "select" and "compliant" poodles like Australia.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3457
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby kit » 19 Nov 2019 08:31

Rakesh wrote:
kit wrote:Even if the F18s are a good possibility for carrier aviation?

Growler is not coming. Even if the S-400 deal is cancelled, still the Growler will not come. That is a highly sensitive piece of equipment which the Khan will share with only "select" and "compliant" poodles like Australia.



i was thinking of growlers for the navy., India has already deployed sensitive US equipment in a number of platforms including the Poseidon / Neptune. It does make sense for an expeditionary force to have such force multipliers against peer adversaries like China. It is in the US interests to build up Indian Naval capabilities. The presence of both French and UK attaches in the Naval IFC is an indicator of an understanding with western powers in "policing" the IOR.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby brar_w » 19 Nov 2019 08:58

How will the IN Employ the Growlers from a STOBAR carrier?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20548
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 19 Nov 2019 10:44

kit wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Growler is not coming. Even if the S-400 deal is cancelled, still the Growler will not come. That is a highly sensitive piece of equipment which the Khan will share with only "select" and "compliant" poodles like Australia.



i was thinking of growlers for the navy., India has already deployed sensitive US equipment in a number of platforms including the Poseidon / Neptune. It does make sense for an expeditionary force to have such force multipliers against peer adversaries like China. It is in the US interests to build up Indian Naval capabilities. The presence of both French and UK attaches in the Naval IFC is an indicator of an understanding with western powers in "policing" the IOR.


we are operating US equipment in India more because it suits the US's game plan that we do so. They have locked us down in all those alphabet soup agreements just so they can make us do it their way.

In any case, India shies away from the very concept of "an expeditionary force".

re growlers, why would the US give them to the IN and not to the IAF.

What would stop the IN from operating alongside the IAF in a supportive role.

This scenario is not as outlandish as it sounds because this is exactly what happened in earlier wars, notably in 1965, 1971 and kargil. The role of the carrier borne Bréguet Alizé of the IN has been underestimated in the few writeups available of the events of that period. In kargil, it was the IN dorniers which provided support.

The US will deny technology on a country basis and not futz around choosing favorites in a specific country.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3457
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby kit » 19 Nov 2019 11:53

brar_w wrote:How will the IN Employ the Growlers from a STOBAR carrier?


from a future EMALS carrier., it is certainly not feasible with the vikrant

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20548
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby chetak » 19 Nov 2019 12:04

kit wrote:
brar_w wrote:How will the IN Employ the Growlers from a STOBAR carrier?


from a future EMALS carrier., it is certainly not feasible with the vikrant


EMALS is in the same category as the fighter engine tech. :)

Its a game changer.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3457
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby kit » 19 Nov 2019 16:01

chetak wrote:
kit wrote:
from a future EMALS carrier., it is certainly not feasible with the vikrant


EMALS is in the same category as the fighter engine tech. :)

Its a game-changer.


i don't think the US would have compulsions sharing the EMALS tech with India, China is likely to field in their next-gen carriers.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby brar_w » 19 Nov 2019 18:19

kit wrote:
brar_w wrote:How will the IN Employ the Growlers from a STOBAR carrier?


from a future EMALS carrier., it is certainly not feasible with the vikrant


That carrier, if sanctioned, is probably 12-15 years out. The SH line will be long shut down by then.

mahadevbhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 28 Oct 2019 19:47

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby mahadevbhu » 19 Nov 2019 19:50

Brar_w what's your recommendations from an Indian perspective for choice of
1.57 naval aircraft
2. Mmrca
3. American weapons are both expensive and have innumerable restrictions on their usage. What's the way forward for Indo US arms deals given the same facts.
4. Jsf is expensive but it is the newest F16 / Mig 21 style mass produced fighter. It being the mmrca will dent our budget and throttle the amca. How can one codevelop the amca as a Indo US JV?

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1460
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby Sumeet » 20 Nov 2019 03:48

mahadevbhu wrote:Brar_w what's your recommendations from an Indian perspective for choice of
1.57 naval aircraft


Not Brar but giving my two cents.

We should pick up Rafale F4 naval version. We have already invested in Rafale infrastructure and it's simply common sense that we build on top of that. Rafale is interoperable with USN if the need arise. No need to go for Super Hornet and keep our strike force at mercy of fluctuating temperament of GOTUS and Congress.

2. Mmrca


Again Rafale F4. It's a no-brainer. Keep SH around to extract best price and tech from French.

3. American weapons are both expensive and have innumerable restrictions on their usage. What's the way forward for Indo US arms deals given the same facts.


Let it be all about non-combat/strike aircraft. In future when we have our own Strike platform (MWF, AMCA with indigenous Radar/Sensor tech) we may cooperate on joint development of some missile systems, CNI equipment, Avionics etc.

In all core tech (Radar, IRST, Engine, Airframe design & Aero structures, Flight control system, Data fusion & AI, EW & DataLink) that goes into modern aircraft it will be our own hard earned money and sweat. There are no two ways about it.

4. Jsf is expensive but it is the newest F16 / Mig 21 style mass produced fighter. It being the mmrca will dent our budget and throttle the amca. How can one codevelop the amca as a Indo US JV?


We need to build MWF and AMCA with engines from GE till Kaveri variant does not come off age. No one (US or be even Russia) will part with key technologies. You already saw experience we went through with Russians on PAK-FA. No will respect you unless you bring significant technical help in core areas to the table. You will not be entertained for JVs. Simply providing dollars and a consumer market will not make you a partner eligible for equal treatment. It's futile to engage in these sort of partnerships and JVs. Instead take help at component level (engine like from GE) or subsystem level (Cooling system is of Israeli origin in our HB Jammer under development) and when our indigenous tech is mature we can swap out these from existing aircraft (if financially viable).

mahadevbhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 28 Oct 2019 19:47

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby mahadevbhu » 20 Nov 2019 15:33

I think that we should have the jsf as well. This will reduce the risk carried by amca. Jsf can be used by the Navy as well as the air Force

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3032
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 20 Nov 2019 15:57

mahadevbhu wrote:I think that we should have the jsf as well. This will reduce the risk carried by amca. Jsf can be used by the Navy as well as the air Force

+72 to that..we can also order some F18 + my fav growler, and super entendard (did i complete that) to complete the zoo... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, bijeet, srin and 46 guests