Probably, instead of this -Rahul M wrote:NRao wrote:BTW, Germans are reducing the size of their army by 45,000 to 172,000. Data point.how is a cut of 45,000 not reducing ?krishnan wrote:Thats not reducing , thats increasing
Quite a bit off topic, but the reduction in numbers is mostly staff. Germany will have more combat troops after the reform. The army will probably get an additional infantry brigade.Boreas wrote: Probably, instead of this -
Present size - 45,000 = 172,000
He got this -
Present size = 45,000
Now going to = 172,000
Hence increase!
Definitely agree with you that we should look out for ourselves first. The concern that several have is that we are unsure how the EF countries (UK, Germany, Italy) will react in times of conflict. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. But this is just 1 opinion.SaiK wrote:^do you know France is notorious in supplies to pakistan after a successful sale to India? take submarines, mirages, for a few. The point is we can't base purchases based on such relationships, rather based on requirements.
All strategic aspects must be covered by ToT, home grown technology infusion, and establishing certain advantages over the enemy by such capabilities. bottom line /end of the day, is all about what you have that enemy does not have, and there is no way in the world to be envious of your neighbor purchasing the same device you bought. Better work on, what is that makes it better for your doctrine.
I believe that was in past. Since 2000, Indo-French business and strategic exposure has grown to an extent that France will give a hard thought on selling (high end) weapons to pukes. They may offer low end tech to them which Russia also gives to pukes (helo's and transport a/c). On the other hand EU countries will bask on glory of making equal equal by sharing the profit made from Typhoon weapons sales to India with pukes giving them billion $ aide in name of development and fight against terror. We clearly ought to see where our money will end up. At the moment with Typhoon, I am seeing 4X times money landing in to pak while with French bird it will be 1X portion only. Agree that ToT and offset should be the way to go atleast to claw back some money from vendor and developing local industries.^do you know France is notorious in supplies to pakistan after a successful sale to India? take submarines, mirages, for a few. The point is we can't base purchases based on such relationships, rather based on requirements.
All strategic aspects must be covered by ToT, home grown technology infusion, and establishing certain advantages over the enemy by such capabilities. bottom line /end of the day, is all about what you have that enemy does not have, and there is no way in the world to be envious of your neighbor purchasing the same device you bought. Better work on, what is that makes it better for your doctrine.
.+1 to that. Another thing that EF supporters repeatedly bring up is that we already have an excellent A2G platform in the MKI. But how "multirole" is it really? Apart from from some soviet era munitions of which we probably have only a hand full of, what current generation smart and cost effective weapons have been integrated with it? Does it come anywhere close to what we see with any of khan's fighters in conflicts or the Refale/EF atleast in their posters?indranilroy wrote:^^^ I think it wouldn't make sense to bring this discussion up again ... at around the time I brought up this question, there was a slew of posts which tended to pitch the EF as the better A2A platform (than rafale) owing to it's bigger radar everything else on the planes being almost similar. Well, this can not be validated. If anything, the Rafale has higher kills over the EF in DACT exercises (rules not withstanding). At the moment I atleast have no way to say which amongst the 2 is a better A2A option. It will on come down to the pilot and day IMHO.
However, the Rafale will have higher range and is definitely at the time the more potent multirole fighter. This is a huge advantage. The world over the development costs always balloons by atleast a 100%. And this costs will have to be partly/fully borne by us. Also, Rafale having the smaller RCS amongst the 2 can better suit the hunter-killer scenario. This is why I spoke about Su-30s. My point is we do not need to buy a platform who biggest asset is a bigger radar. We can easily obtain that with a mix of heavy fighters which will always have a much bigger nose and power supply.
...
Not at all. Let me state the same thing in a more easily understandable waykrishnan wrote:Thats not reducing , thats increasingNRao wrote:BTW, Germans are reducing the size of their army by 45,000 to 172,000. Data point.
German armed forces cut by one-fifth in new shake-upkrishnan wrote:Thats not reducing , thats increasingNRao wrote:BTW, Germans are reducing the size of their army by 45,000 to 172,000. Data point.
The LDP can also be used recon, My guess is that in the current scheme of things most of our limited stock of LGBs/smart weapons are to be used by our dedicated strike aircraft the M-2000 and the Jaguar. Only very high end stuff(Brahmos, heavy duty bunker busting bombs) are left for the MKI.Singha wrote:the MKI has been integrated with the Litening LDP few years ago. so it can fire israeli LGB kit equipped bombs.
again soviet era and how many of those do we have?we also have lots of KAB/FAB series bombs.
I think thats the popeye (bunker busting) bomb.we also have a 1500kg israeli made anti personnel bomb
the KAB series has 500lb bombs. I dont think they are soviet era but newer.abhik wrote:What I am asking is where are the 500lb LGBs, the anti-armor missiles, the glide bombs, smart cluster bombs?
You are welcome Roy! I see Mica, AASM, Paveway, SCALP, GIAT 30/719B cannon...but can someone identify that missile (in all grey) right next to Katrina's nose wheel? What is that?RoyG wrote:^^Good find rakesh bhai...potent!
So - you haven't found out details on your own & are jumping to conclusions as well. For instance, statements like this: again soviet era and how many of those do we have? Why don't you read this thread discussion earlier before making such sweeping statements? The KAB-500 & Kh-59ME are both modern Russian weapons operationalized and exported much after the breakup of the "Soviet" era. They are both available for the MKI. Please do some looking up about the range of each, especially about the former when released at speed and at altitude. They are every bit the equal of "non Soviet" weapons for their uses.abhik wrote:The LDP can also be used recon, My guess is that in the current scheme of things most of our limited stock of LGBs/smart weapons are to be used by our dedicated strike aircraft the M-2000 and the Jaguar. Only very high end stuff(Brahmos, heavy duty bunker busting bombs) are left for the MKI.
Read the last line. Has it been publicized the way (say) an EF requirement would be, because it would directly affect the export prospects if another weapon was added? Who knows whether the IAF acquired the IFB or not? Why even speculate. All I can say is, the IAF usually reveals its acquisitions over time, and they are usually a surprise. And so it should be.The Improved Fragmentation Bomb (IFB) family has been developed by Israel Military Industries (IMI) for customers with Russian-built combat aircraft who are seeking a new generation of reliable and effective freefall ordnance. The design of the IFB series closely follows the Russian FAB-100M-62, FAB-250M-62 and FAB-500M-62 bombs in size, shape and weight. This is to ensure maximum compatibility with Russian-sourced platforms, primarily MiG and Sukhoi tactical jets. As such, the IFB series is something of a departure from IMI's typical product line. The IFB design was shown in public for the first time at the 2007 Aero India show, held in February. The bomb's development is understood to have been driven largely by an Indian Air Force requirement.
abhik wrote:The LDP can also be used recon, My guess is that in the current scheme of things most of our limited stock of LGBs/smart weapons are to be used by our dedicated strike aircraft the M-2000 and the Jaguar. Only very high end stuff(Brahmos, heavy duty bunker busting bombs) are left for the MKI.Singha wrote:the MKI has been integrated with the Litening LDP few years ago. so it can fire israeli LGB kit equipped bombs.again soviet era and how many of those do we have?we also have lots of KAB/FAB series bombs.I think thats the popeye (bunker busting) bomb.we also have a 1500kg israeli made anti personnel bomb
What I am asking is where are the 500lb LGBs, the anti-armor missiles, the glide bombs, smart cluster bombs ? Not only do they not exist in the MKIs weapon lineup but they is seemingly no indication of any future plans to integrate these either. So what is the comparison in current effectiveness across the spectrum of A2G wrt khans aircraft and that at least claimed by the rafale and the EF.
Code: Select all
A list of current/planned AAMs/PGMs in IAF's inventory (1980-2010). These numbers are as reported in public domain.
IAF's Air-to-Air Missile (AAM)
Munition (weight) Induction Est. Price/Unit^ Quantity Status Aircraft Types
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-550 Magic-1 (89kg) 1980 $71,280 1,000 retired Mirage-2000, Jaguar
R-60/AA-8 Aphid (43.5kg) 1983 ? 3,000 retiring MiG-21bis,MiG-27M,MiG-29
Super-530D^^^ (275kg) 1984 $256,850 200 retiring Mirage-2000
R-73/AA-11 Archer (105kg) 1987/1995/1996 ? 4,400 active Jaguar, Mirage-2000(?)
R-550 Magic-2^^^ (89kg) 1988 $93,600 550 retiring Mirage-2000, Jaguar
R-27/ER/AA-10 Alamo (253kg) 1995/1996 ? 636 active MiG-29, Su-30MKI
RVV-AE/AA-12 Adder (175/226kg) 1999 ? 1,000 active MiG-21Bison,MiG-29,Su-30MKI
Mistral (18.7kg) 2006 $15,000 150 on order Dhruv WSH, LCH
MICA (112kg) 2010 $1.5 million 600 on order Mirage-2000UPG
Astra (154kg) 2015 ? ? R&D LCA, Su-30MKI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total AAM (in-service/ordered) 11,661 ^^
IAF's Precision Guided Munition (PGM)
Munition (weight) Induction Est. Price/Unit^ Quantity Status Aircraft Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matra BGL 1000 (1,000kg bomb) ? $21,136 **(?) unknown Mirage-2000
Paveway II LGB (1,000lb GP bomb) 1993 $20,000 315 active Mirage-2000, Jaguar
KAB-500Kr (500kg) 1998 ? 500 active MiG-21 Bison, Su-30MKI
Griffin 3 LGB (1,000lb GP bomb) 2005 ? 250+(~1,000*) active Jaguar, Mirage-2000(?)
CBU-105 WCMD (1,000lb bomb) 2010 $380,000 510 on order Jaguar, Mirage-2000(?)
Sudarshan LGB (450kg/1,000lb GP/HSLD) 2014 ? ? R&D All IAF a/c w/ Litening pod
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PGM (in-service/ordered) 2,575 ^^
IAF's Air-Surface Missile (ASM)
Munition (weight) Induction Est. Price/Unit^ Quantity Status Aircraft Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Eagle (580kg) 1983 $270,000 24*** retiring Jaguar IM
Kh-23/AS-7 Kerry (287kg) 1985 ? 250 retired(?) MiG-27ML
Kh-25MP/MLT (315kg) 1989/1995 ? 600 active MiG-27ML
Kh-29 T/TE (690kg) ? ? ? active Su-30MKI
Kh-31A1/P/AS-17 (600kg) 1997 ? 200 active Su-30MKI
Kh-59ME/AS-18 Kazoo (930kg) 2010 ? 100 active Su-30MKI
Popeye-2 Crystal Maze (3,000lb) 2001 $700,000 30 active Mirage-2000
AGM-84 Block II Harpoon (691kg) 2010 $420,000 24 on order Jaguar IM
Brahmos AL (2,500kg) 2014 $2.7 million 200****(?) R&D Su-30MKI
"K" series Air-Launched Article (2,000kg) ? ? ? R&D Su-30MKI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ASM (in-service/ordered) 1,428 ^^
Notes: Most quantities from SIPRI database.
* Second order in 2009 for Griffin-3 LGB kits worth tens of millions dollars.
** Quantities not known. Estimates provided in the low side because IAF did not use it in Kargil because of it being expensive (and probably small quantity in service).
*** Although 160 Sea Eagles were ordered, IAF share is probably around 24 missiles as the new order of Harpoon indicates and also as the IAF only has 6 Jaguar IM that are capable of using these missiles.
**** Brahmos missile's total planned units is 1,000 SSM/ASM variants for all services. IAF's share is estimated to be 200 units.
^ Price quoted as in The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapons systems, 1997-1998, Paul Mulcahy’s Pages & About.com Air Force Munitions Acquisition Costs
^^^ Being replaced by MICA IR/RF.
^^ Does not account for numbers used in exercises and combat.
The aim is to ensure that deliveries of the 126 fighters begin from December 2014 onwards to stem IAF's fast-eroding combat edge. Top defence sources, in fact, said plans were afoot to base the first MMRCA squadron in the western sector, most probably at Ambala, by end-2015.
The first 18 jets will come in "fly-away condition" from the aviation major -- only Eurofighter Typhoon (EADS) and French Rafale (Dassault) are now left in contention -- finally selected for the project.
Subsequent batches of the 108 fighters, to be manufactured in India by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL) after transfer of technology, will progressively be based in other operationally relevant locations, with special focus on the eastern front with China.
"The first fighter built in HAL should roll out in December 2016. Thereafter, HAL will deliver six jets per year, which will go up to 20 per year later. HAL will achieve 85% technology absorption by the end,'' said a source.
But what about the crucial AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, which is operational only on American fighters at present? MoD said the ASQRs did "not require a flying AESA radar''. Instead, vendors had to demonstrate "a baseline radar model in flight or on a test-bed, the complete working model in a lab and how it would be integrated'' on the Indian MMRCA. "Five fighters, including Rafale and Typhoon, met this requirement,'' said the source.
Apologies for the late response, but sometimes real life does intervene..Sigh. Here goes.MarcH wrote: K prasad,
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 subtle than a smaller one. Simply because you need less power output to get a useful 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*
It would, if the "I can hit you" could happen soon after the "I can see you", then 2. would be great. But it isnt so. Statement 2 is a misnomer, considering that radar emissions go out much farther than they are received back. Which means ideally, someone can sense your emissions much before you even detect them.SaiK wrote: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.
Like the godfather said, "nothing personal, it's purely business"ashish raval wrote:I believe that was in past. Since 2000, Indo-French business and strategic exposure has grown to an extent that France will give a hard thought on selling (high end) weapons to pukes. They may offer low end tech to them which Russia also gives to pukes (helo's and transport a/c). On the other hand EU countries will bask on glory of making equal equal by sharing the profit made from Typhoon weapons sales to India with pukes giving them billion $ aide in name of development and fight against terror. We clearly ought to see where our money will end up. At the moment with Typhoon, I am seeing 4X times money landing in to pak while with French bird it will be 1X portion only. Agree that ToT and offset should be the way to go atleast to claw back some money from vendor and developing local industries.^do you know France is notorious in supplies to pakistan after a successful sale to India? take submarines, mirages, for a few. The point is we can't base purchases based on such relationships, rather based on requirements.
All strategic aspects must be covered by ToT, home grown technology infusion, and establishing certain advantages over the enemy by such capabilities. bottom line /end of the day, is all about what you have that enemy does not have, and there is no way in the world to be envious of your neighbor purchasing the same device you bought. Better work on, what is that makes it better for your doctrine.
Guess will be tough decision, I hope there is no corruption involved
Damn, the ASMP-A looks sleek and sexy! Beautiful pictures Arthuro. I also liked the cockpit picture of the Rafale which you posted earlier. Well explained.arthuro wrote:indeed I thought he was referring to the first picture with weapons.
/otHaha SaiK. Not a bad idea at all, something which I believe is something being worked on right now. IRSI had a few talks about such future developments of sensor arrays, and conformal passive sensors and detectors got a lot of talktime.SaiK wrote:k prasad, so more radiation collectors (receivers spread all over 360*) on the a/c, that much lesser would be the exposure? so increasing passive sensor area could increase stealth. permeable skins should be aerodynamic composites while inner larger array collectors could focus on swallowing emissions?
. IIRC, at AeroSem, Subramanyam (LCA PD) had mentioned inboard signature reduction as an area of work, since composites are permeable to RF. Putting a passive receiver array behind that might just be a good idea 
..answers in bluek prasad wrote:
Sigh. Here goes.
a) Rafale DOES have an IRST - google for OSF please. This should start you off - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... afale.html . Note that they wouldn't remove an IR channel without having an equally effective alternative.
You may want to read up on this. Current OSF has NO IRST. Production of the IR channel has stopped after 48 examples because of obsolescenses. Replacement system yet to be developed.
b) F-22 has stealth for so many reasons. Apart from the VLO aspect itself, the APG-77 is a revolutionary radar. So yes, that is probably the ideal of LPI we want to have, and the ideal of LPI that people have been talking about. But no other radars are there yet. Or even close. And even the APG-77 mgiht be vulnerable for all we know. By the time other radars reach that level, the ESM and avionics would also have caught up
c) A powerful radar isnt just because it puts out more watts. If you can have a more sensitive receiver, you won't need to. Radar power is a function of so many things. Which is why they don't give you the output power, and let you calculate the range from it. They tell you the range for typical targets, because its not a simple 1-to-1 relation between the power and range. Other factors do play a role. Second, even stray emissions are a danger. Third, a less powerful radar doesn't mean a less lethal system, which is what i've been trying to state.
It just means less flexiblity. The British are dead serious about the electronic attack mode of the Captor E, a capability so far not projected for Rafale. And since both AESA antennas are based on the same modules from UMS I see no reason why the 40% larger Captor shouldn't keep it's performance advantage.
d) You are right about the bigger collector aperture of course. The question is, by how much.
Well, both aircraft follow different philosophies. So far I can't decide which one I would pick. Sometimes I just get the impression people dismiss the Tiffy way too quick, and not based on technical merits.
But isn't the IRST and OSF on Rafale two seperate "things"? I mean the OSF (square thingy) does tracking long range with a laser range finder but only in visible light spectrum, while the IRST (bubble) does the tracking shorter range but in IR? Or have I completely misunderstood everything?MarcH wrote:answers in bluek prasad wrote:
Sigh. Here goes.
a) Rafale DOES have an IRST - google for OSF please. This should start you off - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... afale.html . Note that they wouldn't remove an IR channel without having an equally effective alternative.
You may want to read up on this. Current OSF has NO IRST. Production of the IR channel has stopped after 48 examples because of obsolescenses. Replacement system yet to be developed.
b) F-22 has stealth for so many reasons. Apart from the VLO aspect itself, the APG-77 is a revolutionary radar. So yes, that is probably the ideal of LPI we want to have, and the ideal of LPI that people have been talking about. But no other radars are there yet. Or even close. And even the APG-77 mgiht be vulnerable for all we know. By the time other radars reach that level, the ESM and avionics would also have caught up
c) A powerful radar isnt just because it puts out more watts. If you can have a more sensitive receiver, you won't need to. Radar power is a function of so many things. Which is why they don't give you the output power, and let you calculate the range from it. They tell you the range for typical targets, because its not a simple 1-to-1 relation between the power and range. Other factors do play a role. Second, even stray emissions are a danger. Third, a less powerful radar doesn't mean a less lethal system, which is what i've been trying to state.
It just means less flexiblity. The British are dead serious about the electronic attack mode of the Captor E, a capability so far not projected for Rafale. And since both AESA antennas are based on the same modules from UMS I see no reason why the 40% larger Captor shouldn't keep it's performance advantage.
d) You are right about the bigger collector aperture of course. The question is, by how much.
Well, both aircraft follow different philosophies. So far I can't decide which one I would pick. Sometimes I just get the impression people dismiss the Tiffy way too quick, and not based on technical merits.
