VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

[Kartik]

He quotes IDRW who quotes Prasun Sengupta. I wouldnt take any of those ISE seriously, unless they are confirmed by some other source. This is peak internet, the statement about SAAWs being EMP devices gives it away, that's a favorite Prasun fancy.

Well..what can one say? Given its Jon Lake, this may appear in one of the more prestigious airplane magazines like Air International or Combat Aircraft or AirForces Monthly some day.

[nachiket]

The amount of misinformation and absolute fantasy that Chorgupta puts out there while masquerading as a legitimate reporter is beyond belief.

As for IDRW, they will copy anything and everything and put it out as news. We should copy and paste a chapter from one of Vivek's scenarios on one of the other threads here and discuss it as news. I am sure it will appear in IDRW as a report very quickly.

[kit]

looks like every other news channel carrying same article !!

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/artic ... rs-report/

The aircraft for the Indian Air Force (Bharatiya Vayu Sena, BVS) incorporate a range of India-specific enhancements, including a new weather mapping mode for the RBE-2 AESA radar, an uprated onboard oxygen generating system, modifications to the Sigma 95N IN/GPS to allow it to use India’s NAVIC IRNSS GPS satellites, and starter modifications for improved operation at high-altitude airfields.

The Rafale DH and EH also have provision for the Elbit Targo-II helmet-mounted display system, the Rafael Litening G4 targeting pod, Rafael X-Guard towed radar decoys, a Rafael standby radar altimeter, an upgraded Spectra electronic warfare system, a new Thales TCAS, and quadruple launchers for the SPICE 250-based DEW EMP weapons being jointly developed by India and Israel.

There is provision for a range of weapons in India’s inventory, including the BrahMos-NG supersonic cruise missile, the report said.

[kit]

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/201 ... trees.html

But first, let’s dissect the joint India-Israel project to co-develop an air-launched, standoff EMP-emitting missile, which, for all intents and purposes, will be India’s first operational precision-guided directed-energy weapon (DEW). ...................

............................

Interestingly, Ukraine last February during the Aero India 2015 Expo was also showcasing an air-launched DEW, whose poster is uploaded below.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dwGOfBg4sTM/V ... kraine.jpg

...
Admin note: Please don't copy the whole post, it will mislead other folks into thinking its a legit article and then lead to further dissemination of said piece.

[Cain Marko]

How will they know if the enemy has not turned on its radar and is completely passive. IIRC - the Rafale could do this either with the help of datalinked inputs from MKI or AEW. There is reason to believe that the Spectra in itself allows locating and possibly targeting - totally passive. Not tot mention the long ranged OSF

The AWACS on your side will let you know, there is a jet out there, who if it's radar is switched on should see you on search. If your RWR is not beeping, it means that bogey is being quite, probably receiving data about your position from it's AWACS.

Our Su-30s probably were warned first and foremost because they were painted by the apg 68, not to mention Netra AEW, which would alert them to launches. It is unlikely that fighters can easily detect missile launches passively i.e. without turning on their own radar or without AEW cover. They would know that they are being targeted via RWR but missile launches? Unlikely. Although I would like some gurujan to confirm - Karan, where are you?

There would have been multiple locks b/w IAF & PAF on Feb 27. As long as both were on their side of LoC, nobody fired a BVR, until PAF broke the rule. Fighter radar can look for low rcs and Mach 3 flight and voila you know it is a BVR. Nothing else flies at Mach 3!

To overcome this, fighters are placed outside your adversary's radar envelope. AWACS tracks the target, datalink it to fighters deployed outside the radar envelope and they fire off a BVR. In this scenario doesn't matter if it is Radar or IR BVR, the adversary will in the NEZ zone by the time be realizes. You are hitting him from the blind side. Ofcourse enemy AWACS will monitoring your fighters placed in the blind side.

This doesn't make sense at all - you can't launch a BVR outside your radar envelope unless some X band FCR is providing MCU. How the heck will the missile be guided towards a maneuvering target unless the shooter can constantly track the target (in case of radar guided AAM)? Someone HAS to paint the target. And AFAIK no AWACs can do this. It has to be another fighter radar, in which case, the target's RWR will be alerted. Of course, the missile could be coming in from a silent shooter and a different direction altogether. IIRC the Gripen was excellent at creating a networked picture and firing off such shots.

S band AWACS will not have precision like X band, but will have enough to allow a BVR reach a position, where it's seeker can get a adversary in it's envelope.

AWACS let's location info to fighter, fighter fires a BVR with datalink updating the adversary's position and then BVR seeker takes over. If adversary's radar has not detected the launch, then only when the BVR seeker is turned on, will he know about the threat.

You would need X band tracking if you are targeting one specific fighter. If it is a group of fighters and bvr is suppose to get anyone of them, then S band from AWACS should be enough for the BVR to reach a location and turn on it's seeker.

Spyder SAM uses S band radar with Derby. So similar concept.

Where are you getting this AWACs providing MCU for BVRAAMs fired from fighters? AFAIK this is not possible. Can any guru confirm?

It is quite possible that the Bars can detect Amraams at certain ranges although I doubt these ranges are long enough to allow them too much time to maneuver. But TSP doesn't have a single fighter with that kind of sensor - the Apg 68v5 or 9 that it operates is not going to be detecting and tracking missiles at any great distances.

The overall point is simple - a lightly loaded Rafale is discrete enough to cause problems to enemy radar although AEW will mitigate this. No wonder the TSP has such a large number of AEW for a rather skinny AF otherwise.

[nam]

Where are you getting this AWACs providing MCU for BVRAAMs fired from fighters? AFAIK this is not possible. Can any guru confirm?

Not sure which sentence indicates, I said AWACS providing MCU to BVR?

AWACS provides adversary location information to fighters, which in turn can launch BVR and provide mid course updates through their datalink, without FCR being switched on.


Having said that I will not be surprised, AWACS already provides MCU to BVRAAM through Link 16 or is been planned.

[Cain Marko]

Where are you getting this AWACs providing MCU for BVRAAMs fired from fighters? AFAIK this is not possible. Can any guru confirm?

Not sure which sentence indicates, I said AWACS providing MCU to BVR?

AWACS provides adversary location information to fighters, which in turn can launch BVR and provide mid course updates through their datalink, without FCR being switched on.


Having said that I will not be surprised, AWACS already provides MCU to BVRAAM through Link 16 or is been planned.

How can MCU be provided without the target being illuminated by an FCR? can AWACs provide a track that has good enough resolution for MCU? I could be wrong but the target has to be illuminated via X band FCR - either the fighter's own or from another fighter - precise resolution vital for guidance towards a maneuvering target requires high frequency bandwidth (X band via FCR?).

[manjgu]

The NEZ of meteor is IMHO 40+ km...if the missile can be guided till that point, then missiles own seeker can take over. ..that is the idea. so the resolution of the 3rd party guidance need not be as good as that of launching a/c.

[nachiket]

Where are you getting this AWACs providing MCU for BVRAAMs fired from fighters? AFAIK this is not possible. Can any guru confirm?

Not sure which sentence indicates, I said AWACS providing MCU to BVR?

AWACS provides adversary location information to fighters, which in turn can launch BVR and provide mid course updates through their datalink, without FCR being switched on.

Which IAF aircraft are you saying has this capability?

[Rakesh]

The NEZ of meteor is IMHO 40+ km...if the missile can be guided till that point, then missiles own seeker can take over. ..that is the idea. so the resolution of the 3rd party guidance need not be as good as that of launching a/c.

The advertised NEZ is 60+ km.

[nachiket]

I am skeptical of the 60km+ number that MBDA claims. Does that apply in case of a tail-chase as well? And would the missile's own seeker be able to detect and lock on to a fighter sized target at 60km? That seems way too high for such a small seeker (compared to a fighter radar for example). I doubt the launching platform can go cold immediately if it launches a Meteor at 60km. That would be a quantum leap over the AMRAAM seeker for example which goes active at around 20km.

These publicized numbers are usually calculated for best case scenarios to look good in marketing brochures. Having said that, the same applies to other missiles as well and the variable thrust Ramjet engine of the Meteor will definitely provide it with much better KE in terminal stage compared to the AMRAAM or R-77 and consequently a larger NEZ.

[manjgu]

just thinking aloud !! even ancient GCI radars ( of 1950's vintage) could direct a/c within visual range of hostile a/c... dont see why moderns AWACS ( which can emit multiple frequencies) etc etc cant direct missiles close enough to hostile a/c?? am i missing something gurus ? i chked meteor wiki which also claims that 3rd party can guide Meteor close enough to hostile a/c .

[nam]

How can MCU be provided without the target being illuminated by an FCR? can AWACs provide a track that has good enough resolution for MCU? I could be wrong but the target has to be illuminated via X band FCR - either the fighter's own or from another fighter - precise resolution vital for guidance towards a maneuvering target requires high frequency bandwidth (X band via FCR?).

S band AWACS(like MF Star cueing Barak8) can provide enough resolution to a fighter to allow it's BVR(with fighter providing MCU) near enough a target and then the active seekers takes over. AWACS can easily track lot of targets and pass on this information to a fighter. What is the point of datalink and net centric, if bogey positional information is not constantly passed on to a fighter?

The seekers on a BVR have ranges from 10-15KM (or 20KM?).

S band is a high frequency band, close to X band. Of course not as precise. Compromise between range and resolution.

[nam]

Not sure which sentence indicates, I said AWACS providing MCU to BVR?

AWACS provides adversary location information to fighters, which in turn can launch BVR and provide mid course updates through their datalink, without FCR being switched on.

Which IAF aircraft are you saying has this capability?

Frankly, I don't know. I don't have complete information on what is datalinked with Phalcons. Sometimes we get the news that Su30 are datalinked, then we get the news that ODL is still been developed!

[nam]

The NEZ of meteor is IMHO 40+ km...if the missile can be guided till that point, then missiles own seeker can take over. ..that is the idea. so the resolution of the 3rd party guidance need not be as good as that of launching a/c.

The advertised NEZ is 60+ km.

The publicly known range of Aster SRSAM seeker range, where the missile tracked a target from the ground was around 20KM(or may be 15).

MCU & Ramjet would technically allow the Meteor to chase the target, where it goes (within the fuel range). However difficult to believe the 60KM claim.

[manjgu]

if GCI radars could bring fighters much closer then 15 km of the enemy a/c... why cant AWACS bring missiles that close? is it an issue of data link onlee??

[nam]

I am skeptical of the 60km+ number that MBDA claims. Does that apply in case of a tail-chase as well? And would the missile's own seeker be able to detect and lock on to a fighter sized target at 60km? That seems way too high for such a small seeker (compared to a fighter radar for example). I doubt the launching platform can go cold immediately if it launches a Meteor at 60km. That would be a quantum leap over the AMRAAM seeker for example which goes active at around 20km.

These publicized numbers are usually calculated for best case scenarios to look good in marketing brochures. Having said that, the same applies to other missiles as well and the variable thrust Ramjet engine of the Meteor will definitely provide it with much better KE in terminal stage compared to the AMRAAM or R-77 and consequently a larger NEZ.

Meteor being Ramjet will be better on tail chase. Given the powered flight, if the range of Meteor is 150KM, then it should be able to chase the target till 150KM. Ofcourse provided the relative speed allows Meteor to catch up. Rocket powered BVR drops after the powered flight, Ramjet will not.

Ofcourse there are specific scenarios. If the target is flying away and high, then the Meteor may not be able to fly up at very high speed, providing an opportunity for the target to escape.

[Bart S]

All the more reason to have Desi AWACS and Desi AAM + platforms. Expensive gold plated imports won't give us the flexibility to experiment with such stuff and integrate them the way that we want.

[nam]

This tactics of placing fighters outside of adversary's radar envelope was used by IAF in the Cope India excerises against USAF. IAF would place Mig21 outside F15/F16's radar envelope, with Su30 tracking the USAF jets.

Su30 would then provide positional data to Mig21 and they would surprise the USAF fighters. I think the data was provided using the radio, rather than datalinks.

One reason why LCA is so important for us. Those little birds can be flying in a little corner unseen, firing off Derby/Astra (or may be Meteor!) completely surprising the adversary jet!

Ofcourse better with AMCA, unseen by the F16 radar, even when it is flying upside down over the PAF F16

[Cain Marko]

How can MCU be provided without the target being illuminated by an FCR? can AWACs provide a track that has good enough resolution for MCU? I could be wrong but the target has to be illuminated via X band FCR - either the fighter's own or from another fighter - precise resolution vital for guidance towards a maneuvering target requires high frequency bandwidth (X band via FCR?).

S band AWACS(like MF Star cueing Barak8) can provide enough resolution to a fighter to allow it's BVR(with fighter providing MCU) near enough a target and then the active seekers takes over. AWACS can easily track lot of targets and pass on this information to a fighter. What is the point of datalink and net centric, if bogey positional information is not constantly passed on to a fighter?

The seekers on a BVR have ranges from 10-15KM (or 20KM?).

S band is a high frequency band, close to X band. Of course not as precise. Compromise between range and resolution.

So what you are essentially saying is that Awacs guides the fighter, which guides the bvraam until it's onboard seeker acquires the target. Does the fighter guide the missile without turning on it's own radar? I don't think so. Fighter FCR has to be on, which would warn the target.

The supposed difference when it comes to the rafale is that it can guide the mica iir bvraam without using the fcr, purely based on passive tracking using the ost and possibly even Spectra.

[Cain Marko]

Su30 would then provide positional data to Mig21 and they would surprise the USAF fighters.

Mki can provide positional data because it has an fcr. Awacs can't do this afaik. Can someone please clarify? If Awacs could directly guide missiles, why do you need fighters? An Awacs platform could carry some seriously heavy long ranged missiles and just guide these to enemy targets or just let the fighters fire off the missiles and zoom away - let the AWAC do the guidance.

I'm being a little facetious here but I can't see AWACs guiding missiles directly for a number of reasons including the need to fly close enough to get a good lock.

[nam]

So what you are essentially saying is that Awacs guides the fighter, which guides the bvraam until it's onboard seeker acquires the target. Does the fighter guide the missile without turning on it's own radar? I don't think so. Fighter FCR has to be on, which would warn the target.

Active BVR requires positional information. Does it matter if it is coming from a AWACS or fighter FCR? The only difference will be level of precision.

Just like a S band MF Star can guide Barak 8 to hit a supersonic ASHM.

SARH requires FCR reflection, not ARH.

From wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond-vi ... ge_missile

Newer fire-and-forget type missiles like the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM and the R-77 (NATO designation AA-12 'Adder') instead use an inertial navigation system (INS) combined with initial target information from the launching aircraft and updates from a one or two-way data link in order to launch beyond visual range, and then switch to a terminal homing mode, typically active radar guidance. These types of missiles have the advantage of not requiring the launching aircraft to illuminate the target with radar energy for the entire flight of the missile, and in fact do not require a radar lock to launch at all, only target tracking information

[nam]

Su30 would then provide positional data to Mig21 and they would surprise the USAF fighters.

Mki can provide positional data because it has an fcr. Awacs can't do this afaik. Can someone please clarify? If Awacs could directly guide missiles, why do you need fighters? An Awacs platform could carry some seriously heavy long ranged missiles and just guide these to enemy targets or just let the fighters fire off the missiles and zoom away - let the AWAC do the guidance.

I'm being a little facetious here but I can't see AWACs guiding missiles directly for a number of reasons including the need to fly close enough to get a good lock.

Because the distance at which AWACS flies. There is no point firing BVR, 300KM from the target.

[kit]

The AWACS on your side will let you know, there is a jet out there, who if it's radar is switched on should see you on search. If your RWR is not beeping, it means that bogey is being quite, probably receiving data about your position from it's AWACS.



There would have been multiple locks b/w IAF & PAF on Feb 27. As long as both were on their side of LoC, nobody fired a BVR, until PAF broke the rule. Fighter radar can look for low rcs and Mach 3 flight and voila you know it is a BVR. Nothing else flies at Mach 3!





S band AWACS will not have precision like X band, but will have enough to allow a BVR reach a position, where it's seeker can get a adversary in it's envelope.

AWACS let's location info to fighter, fighter fires a BVR with datalink updating the adversary's position and then BVR seeker takes over. If adversary's radar has not detected the launch, then only when the BVR seeker is turned on, will he know about the threat.

You would need X band tracking if you are targeting one specific fighter. If it is a group of fighters and bvr is suppose to get anyone of them, then S band from AWACS should be enough for the BVR to reach a location and turn on it's seeker.

Spyder SAM uses S band radar with Derby. So similar concept.

Where are you getting this AWACs providing MCU for BVRAAMs fired from fighters? AFAIK this is not possible. Can any guru confirm?

It is quite possible that the Bars can detect Amraams at certain ranges although I doubt these ranges are long enough to allow them too much time to maneuver. But TSP doesn't have a single fighter with that kind of sensor - the Apg 68v5 or 9 that it operates is not going to be detecting and tracking missiles at any great distances.

The overall point is simple - a lightly loaded Rafale is discrete enough to cause problems to enemy radar although AEW will mitigate this. No wonder the TSP has such a large number of AEW for a rather skinny AF otherwise.

unless you have a "UFO" flying around .. OT but couldnt resist

https://news.sky.com/story/leaked-class ... s-11813737

[Cain Marko]

So what you are essentially saying is that Awacs guides the fighter, which guides the bvraam until it's onboard seeker acquires the target. Does the fighter guide the missile without turning on it's own radar? I don't think so. Fighter FCR has to be on, which would warn the target.

Active BVR requires positional information. Does it matter if it is coming from a AWACS or fighter FCR? The only difference will be level of precision.

Yes it matters because the resolution has to be good enough to guide the missile close to moving targets, which Aew can't provide. Otherwise aew would do it from a distance and fighters would simply launch and shoot away. But they hang around at varying angles from the target using radar on gimbals that can provide accurate guidance after fighter turns away. Why do you think fighters have cheek/side arrays nowadays.

Just like a S band MF Star can guide Barak 8 to hit a supersonic ASHM.

I'm not entirely certain how mfstar provides guidance but I think it's modes are not public. My guess is that guidance for active Sams like Barak 8, no more than 70-100km range.. IOWs if you want to provide guidance via lower frequency bands, you need to compromise on range. Awacs would have to be very near Target to provide quality track.

Again I'm not entirely sure on all this but I've not heard of aew providing fire control and guidance for AAMs.

[NRao]

......................

Again I'm not entirely sure on all this but I've not heard of aew providing fire control and guidance for AAMs.

My response:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7088&p=2385740#p2385740

[Prasad]

Again I'm not entirely sure on all this but I've not heard of aew providing fire control and guidance for AAMs.

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 2386053120
Perhaps in the near future?

[Cain Marko]

Again I'm not entirely sure on all this but I've not heard of aew providing fire control and guidance for AAMs.

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 2386053120
Perhaps in the near future?

Very interesting find Prasadji, I wonder at what ranges they might achieve this.

[nam]

Rafale seems to have really good "rivet management"! Quite clean surface

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGWhOMCWoAI ... name=large
http://rafale.co.in/img/gallery/_F5W7347.jpg

If we could reach this level of build, we would have done well.

[Karan M]

A lot of that is composite. They actually sand it down post flight.

[Zynda]

The fasteners are not composite...mostly will be steel or Titanium.

The surface finish of Rafale is outstanding. But most of the recent indigenous products from HAL have excellent surface finish as well. A sharp contrast when comparing with Russian ones.

[Karan M]

I am talking of the surface, not the fasteners. There is a documentary on the Rafale, where they have the maintenance crew sand down the surface post flight.

[Karan M]

[Karan M]

Composite materials are extensively used in the Rafale and they account for 70% of the wetted area. They also account for the 40% increase in the max take-off weight to empty weight ratio compared with traditional airframes built of aluminium and titanium.
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... -airframe/

[Peregrine]

IAF receives its first Rafale fighterjet from France - PTI

HIGHLIGHTS

- Singh attended the handover ceremony of the first Rafale fighter jet acquired by the IAF

- Rafale will boost India's air dominance exponentially," Singh said after receiving the
aircraft

- The Rafale is a twin-jet fighter aircraft able to operate from both an aircraft carrier and a
shore base

MERIGNAC (FRANCE): The Indian Air Force on Tuesday received its first Rafale fighter jet from a series of 36 aircraft purchased from France in presence of defence minister Rajnath Singh in France.

Cheers

[neerajb]

An imaginary box can be calculated around the target based on range and angular resolution of Phalcon at the max desired/practical range of BVR engagement. If the missile has the capability to fly that far, receive updates via data link at that distance and then resolve the error in position using own seeker then theoretically it is possible. Do we know the pulse width and beam width of Phalcon for best resolution tracking of fast moving supersonic targets? Also what's the refresh rate at AWACS end and how frequently the missile can get updates/act on it will have impact on this type of BVR engagement.

Cheers..

[Anujan]

From Vishnu som's account. First Rafale handed over to India.

[manjgu]

neerajb...i am arguing that AWACS and even 1950's radars can place self a/c withing visual range of enemy a/c. the imaginary box u mention is much bigger than visual ranges. seems Meteors and amraams D have this datalinking capability. i need to meet Hansel v soon !!!

[vimal]

Breaking News: Rajnath Singh flies in Rafale fighter jet in France

[Ganesh_S]

Su30 would then provide positional data to Mig21 and they would surprise the USAF fighters.

Mki can provide positional data because it has an fcr. Awacs can't do this afaik. Can someone please clarify? If Awacs could directly guide missiles, why do you need fighters? An Awacs platform could carry some seriously heavy long ranged missiles and just guide these to enemy targets or just let the fighters fire off the missiles and zoom away - let the AWAC do the guidance.

I'm being a little facetious here but I can't see AWACs guiding missiles directly for a number of reasons including the need to fly close enough to get a good lock.

This was a proposed scenario in the tele series dog fights of the future @3:09:19
https://youtu.be/DWyyCkLgj_E
The idea was to use a b1 lancer as a bvr platform where in the f22 having expended its missiles would relay the information by a secure broadband database. Not sure how the f22s would go undetected having expended its missiles or how the b1 Lancers would guide the missiles. Too much sci-fi stuff for a layman like me.