VayuSena Rafale: News and Discussions - 17 Oct 2016

kit · Post by **kit** » 11 Oct 2019 16:37

I dont think any fighter/bomber without a full aspect stealth can go into a contested airspace that has not been sanitised by SEAD or accompanied by specialised aircraft like the Growlers . The only examples that can do so currently seem to be F35/22 and the B2 stealth bomber.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2019 17:08

sajaym wrote:Query - If the Rafale will always function as part of a strike package where there will be aircrafts equipped with jamming pods to protect the strike package, then how relevant is Rafale's frontal stealth or lack thereof?

The more stealthy you are, the less you need to jam.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Oct 2019 17:09

kit wrote:I dont think any fighter/bomber without a full aspect stealth can go into a contested airspace that has not been sanitised by SEAD or accompanied by specialised aircraft like the Growlers . The only examples that can do so currently seem to be F35/22 and the B2 stealth bomber.

All I can say is that IAF has spent a lot of time and effort in cracking this.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Oct 2019 17:44

kit wrote:I dont think any fighter/bomber without a full aspect stealth can go into a contested airspace that has not been sanitised by SEAD or accompanied by specialised aircraft like the Growlers . The only examples that can do so currently seem to be F35/22 and the B2 stealth bomber.

Having stealth aircraft like the ones you mentioned does not guarantee that on its own. It opens up other options and allows you to execute missions which otherwise would have been 1) impossible without risking significant losses or 2) require massive amounts of support aircraft and resources to be mobilized which may be cost prohibitive or impractical. How you utlize your stealth and support fleet depends upon what mix you have and what constraints have been put on you. But overall, all platforms require an element or support, mission planning that leverage capabilities from elsewhere and coordination between different types of offensive and defensive aids. It is the degree that varies and the way that coordination occurs (Is the role of the AEA that of an "enabler" or that of a "coordinator" and "partner" in achieving mission objectives more efficiently and with less risk).

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 11 Oct 2019 19:03

I can assure you within 18-24 months the PAF will have a complete Rafale radar signature profile from an anechoic chamber that will be very precise. On top of that, they’ll have the Raafale’s radar emission spectrum and will get countermeasure data too. The Chinese will assist them on it. The only saving grace is that the Pakis are too broke and incompetent to do anything with the data. The Chinese on the other hand are a different story.

This will be true for just about every foreign fighter aircraft India buys. The 36 Rafales are fine and maybe a few more for attrition. But the time has come to invest heavily in the LCA Tejas Mk. IA and II.

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 11 Oct 2019 20:37

Mort Walker wrote:I can assure you within 18-24 months the PAF will have a complete Rafale radar signature profile from an anechoic chamber that will be very precise. On top of that, they’ll have the Raafale’s radar emission spectrum and will get countermeasure data too. The Chinese will assist them on it. The only saving grace is that the Pakis are too broke and incompetent to do anything with the data. The Chinese on the other hand are a different story.

This will be true for just about every foreign fighter aircraft India buys. The 36 Rafales are fine and maybe a few more for attrition. But the time has come to invest heavily in the LCA Tejas Mk. IA and II.

so what..this is what all AF's are supposed to do ?? just because somone will have radar emiission spectrum, means we should not induct??

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 2019 21:18

Mort At the surface level it looks informative but after the first surprise its the plane's capability that matters.
The IAF evaluation is Rafale is quite superior to even the Su-30 MKI in terms of capability, readiness and availability.
So it still adds quite a bit to the IAF fighting capability.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 11 Oct 2019 21:20

^^^Induction is fine for the 36 Rafales that have been purchased for nearly $9 billion, spending more for a compromised offensive weapon system platform when a suitable domestic replacement is available makes no sense.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Oct 2019 21:37

Both Rafale and domestic planes are needed.
The first tranche 0f 36 was the must have component as the M2Ks for special delivery are getting old. Please take a wholistic picture.
Having said that domestic mfg is the only affordable way to expand the force.
Besides cant be a nuke power on imported planes!!!

So not a wonder ACM R Bhaduria said the future will be with domestic planes and we are seeing the last import planes.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 11 Oct 2019 23:14

So which ones are our future nuke delivery platforms.

The 40 specially modified Su-30s, or these 36 Rafales?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Oct 2019 23:20

Which one has an internally developed SATCOM (or has one in the works)..I think that may point to the intended preferred platform .

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 12 Oct 2019 00:29

SU-30 MKI, Mig-29 SMT-Upgd, Mirage-2000I, now Rafale...I believe are to have SATCOM link now. Kind of skeptic about the upgraded Mig but would not be surprised if it had it.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 12 Oct 2019 00:50

agupta wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:I can assure you within 18-24 months the PAF will have a complete Rafale radar signature profile from an anechoic chamber that will be very precise. On top of that, they’ll have the Raafale’s radar emission spectrum and will get countermeasure data too. The Chinese will assist them on it. The only saving grace is that the Pakis are too broke and incompetent to do anything with the data. The Chinese on the other hand are a different story.

This will be true for just about every foreign fighter aircraft India buys. The 36 Rafales are fine and maybe a few more for attrition. But the time has come to invest heavily in the LCA Tejas Mk. IA and II.

Could you please elaborate on how ?

It seems to me your hypothesis is that every OEM will handout the anechoic chamber radar sig profile, emissions spectrum characterization at a fidelity and completeness necessary to devise countermeasures to Pak/China within 18-24 months. Is that what you are truly claiming ?

If on the other hand, this bit is non-cooperative reverse engineering, then ANY plane regardless of origin would be subject to the same issue right ?

'cause this is what intelligence agencies do. Atleast the capable ones. Whites especially west european variety have one glaring weakness which is money. For the right price they will sell you anything. Hell they have even sold their countries to islamics. Now I doubt if ISI will have the capability or resources to do it today. However I can assure you Chinese will move very fast on Rafale details i.e if they have not made their move already. And in all likelihood they will succeed. Atleast IAF should factor this in their operational planning.

Now the saving grace for us is that Rafale is anyway not dependent on stealth for delivering effective performance. So by and large we should be okay. Infact this is also one of the reasons why IAF is rightly eschewing the imported options for the fifth gen stealthy aircraft.

P.S. Just because the enemy scores an intelligence success wrt a platform or a weapons system, doesn't actually mean that their tactical units will be able to use that data in battlefield against us. That is altogether a different task. However as I said earlier IAF will have to factor it in their operational planning.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 12 Oct 2019 01:58

Mort & Darshan,

If China or TSP can get complete radar profile of Rafale why they cannot get the same for MWF/Tejas Mk 2 or AMCA ? If Chinese can break into US MIC and get details of F-35, why can't same happen in India ?

Why can we not get radar profile of FC-31 or J-20 ?

What will happen if we export AMCA or Tejas MK2 -- how will we guarantee that our secrets our always protected ?

Should we apply F-22 like no export policy on our indigenous products ? Do you think Chinese & Russians have not attempted to get details of F-22 ? Were they successful, if yes to what extent ?

We have had Mirage 2K since 1980s still we went into TSP and blasted Balakote training site didn't we ? Does TSP have complete radar profile of M2K or not ? Did it make a difference ?

Why haven't we found details of Erieye radar yet ? Why can't we find details so that we can make our aircrafts completely disappear from it throughout battlefield ?

srai · Post by **srai** » 12 Oct 2019 03:24

Sumeet wrote:What will happen if we export AMCA or Tejas MK2 -- how will we guarantee that our secrets our always protected ?

Export versions are typically “downgraded” in one form or the other.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Oct 2019 03:27

Indranil wrote:So which ones are our future nuke delivery platforms.

The 40 specially modified Su-30s, or these 36 Rafales?

Greetings. With Lower RCS and smaller size than the Su-30, the Rafale would appear to be the replacement for the Mirage 2000 special flower delivery service. Especially given the nature of the acquisition process.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 Oct 2019 10:50

There is a project to develop a missile called the ALA. It obviates the need for a Su30 to go over the target to stop a gravity bomb.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Oct 2019 11:02

Gerard wrote:
Indranil wrote:So which ones are our future nuke delivery platforms.

The 40 specially modified Su-30s, or these 36 Rafales?
Greetings. With Lower RCS and smaller size than the Su-30, the Rafale would appear to be the replacement for the Mirage 2000 special flower delivery service. Especially given the nature of the acquisition process.

How much smaller is the RCS of a Rafale carrying external full jharis and undoubtedly fuel tanks? And how much smaller does the detection range become by virtue of that smaller RCS?

I don't know the exact figures, but I will be surprised if it is more than 10 kms. Most probably less than 5 kms.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 12 Oct 2019 16:49

Really?

It seems by size also Rafale is much much smaller:

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 12 Oct 2019 17:48

Manish_Sharma wrote:Really?

It seems by size also Rafale is much much smaller:

Size is only one aspect of stealth. An F22 has a smaller signature than some armaments.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 12 Oct 2019 20:08

agupta wrote:
darshhan wrote:
'cause this is what intelligence agencies do. Atleast the capable ones. Whites especially west european variety have one glaring weakness which is money. For the right price they will sell you anything. Hell they have even sold their countries to islamics.

Now the saving grace for us is that Rafale is anyway not dependent on stealth for delivering effective performance. So by and large we should be okay. Infact this is also one of the reasons why IAF is rightly eschewing the imported options for the fifth gen stealthy aircraft.

P.S. Just because the enemy scores an intelligence success wrt a platform or a weapons system, doesn't actually mean that their tactical units will be able to use that data in battlefield against us. That is altogether a different task. However as I said earlier IAF will have to factor it in their operational planning.

So you're saying

1. A French intelligence agency will sell the Rafale's secrets off to Pak/China (and kill Dassaults ability to sell in the market) because they desperately need the money ?

(but our own secrets will be super safe...our Indian DNA is corruption-proof)

2. This discussion is irrelevant for the Rafale - which would make Walker-ji's post null and void ?

3. There is a no link between "need to factor in operational planning" and "ability to use... data.. against us" ?
I don't have any background in military jargon, so perhaps you can help explain this further ??? In my simplistic English understanding, I would worry if someone could use this against me... so ???

You got me all wrong here. Actually I was alluding to totally opposite scenario i.e it is China and its intelligence services which will try to get more details on Rafale. And I never said that India's secrets are 100% safe.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 12 Oct 2019 20:25

darshhan wrote:You got me all wrong here. Actually I was alluding to totally opposite scenario i.e it is China and its intelligence services which will try to get more details on Rafale. And I never said that India's secrets are 100% safe.

Darshan saar, which country's secrets are 100% safe?

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 13 Oct 2019 09:14

Indranil wrote:
Gerard wrote:
Greetings. With Lower RCS and smaller size than the Su-30, the Rafale would appear to be the replacement for the Mirage 2000 special flower delivery service. Especially given the nature of the acquisition process.
How much smaller is the RCS of a Rafale carrying external full jharis and undoubtedly fuel tanks? And how much smaller does the detection range become by virtue of that smaller RCS?

I don't know the exact figures, but I will be surprised if it is more than 10 kms. Most probably less than 5 kms.

Rafale / LCA etc. will have significantly shorter ranges of detection by radars in clean or even A2A config due to hiding engine blades, use of composites etc. over the Su30 MKI Yes drop tanks and the type of armaments radar signature will matter, don't know if scalp itself has ram coatings composites to reduce its radar signature. I admit pylons, drop tanks, targeting pods will have their own radar signature. These ofcourse cannot be compared with with 5th gen internally compared weapons. Plus it also matters what other jamming assets are thrown in. Plus weather terrainall matter. But in A2A fight the internal fuel reserves Big radar thrust to weight ratio will bring certain advantages to the Su30MKI. I think in reality it will be a host of IAF aircraft with each one carrying its piece of the larger picture and each of their capability is important. Hypothetically if the IAF had 250 plus Rafale type aircraft with early 2000 software and electronics IAF would have been clamoring for 36 powerful Su 30MKI.

Just curious will the Rafale RBE2 AESA come with LPI capability?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 13 Oct 2019 20:45

Exposed compressor face contributes to frontal RCS. Is an Su30s compressor exposed to ground based radar?

From the bottom if you carry external ordinances you create many corner reflectors whose RCS is significantly high, often much higher than the aircraft itself. If you have to carry multiple ordinances, you can multiply this effect. SU-30 won't be carrying external fuel tanks, while Rafale/LCA will.

Also the distance at which objects can be detected varies as the fourth root of RCS. So, even if I take that Su-30 has 2 times the RCS of Rafale, it will only be detected at 19% higher range.

Rafale is a great aircraft, but let's not add mythical capabilities to it.

Vips · Post by **Vips** » 13 Oct 2019 21:27

History headline: Mirage-2000 to Rafale, the story in between: S Krishnaswamy

IN NOVEMBER 1980, a few of us were assembled under the leadership of then Air Commodore Prithi Singh, an experienced test pilot, and given some papers to study. These were about the Mirage-2000. We were to evaluate the aircraft in France as a possible counter to Pakistan’s F-16. At the time, we did not have any aircraft that could directly take on an F-16 in air. Soviets were far more secretive and offered the MIG-23MF which was no match against the highly manoeuvrable F-16. The MIG-29 was still unknown at the time.

We were pulled out from various places. I was then commanding a squadron and was chosen to be the team’s second test pilot. There were five engineers led by Group Captain I G Krishna. It was the first fly-by-wire combat aircraft, still in prototype stage, that the Indian Air Force would be exposed to. On December 8, 1980, Air Commodore Singh took the first flight and I flew the fifth Mirage-2000 prototype the next day. We flew a few more sorties, thereafter, covering supersonic speeds to very low-level flight over the sea. It was a remarkable aircraft as was the experience. The aircraft employed technology and concepts outclassing any other that we had experienced and brought a totally new dimension to prosecuting air war.

Last week, as Defence Minister Rajnath Singh took a sortie in a Rafale fighter aircraft after an official handover ceremony of the first jet acquired by the Indian Air Force, my mind went back to another aircraft from the Dassault stable, the Mirage-2000.

The first Mirage-2000 squadron was flown to Gwalior from France in June 1985 — of the 40 Mirage-2000s acquired by the IAF, 26 with the M53-5 engine were flown down. These engines were subsequently replaced by the more powerful P2. The RDM Radar that the aircraft had needed to undergo many improvements and software changes. The two squadrons flew a lot and became operational in record time. The aircraft proved highly reliable and the support from the French manufacturer was excellent.

Since induction, the capability of the fleet was continually improved. We managed to integrate excellent sensors, weapons and upgrade the avionics.

Two years later, in 1987, I was at the Air Headquarters as the head of Air Staff Requirement where one of my missions was to follow up on the Mirage-2000 fleet, and to focus on the development of LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) which was evolving with support from the designers of the Mirage-2000. Very soon, all hell broke loose. Many criticisms started appearing in news media. The Sunday Mail came out with an article on October 18, 1987, with the headline, ‘How the French Duped India’. It was nasty and incorrect.

The two Mirage squadrons were working continually towards improving their mission capability. They got operational on mid-air refuelling during day and night. They proved their worth in dramatic ways during the Kargil conflict and recently at the Balakot strike. With a very limited fleet of some 50 aircraft, they kept their lead, evolving tactics and strategy to combat enemy in the air as well to strike strategic targets.

Mirage-2000 systems and avionics became the examples to evolve those of LCA and for upgrading other fleets. TACDE (Tactics and Air Combat Development Establishment), the premier institution for evolving aerial warfare tactics, started working closely with the Mirage-2000 squadrons. The contribution of the Mirage-2000 to the IAF is enormous and it proved those who branded the aircraft as mere air show pieces as liars and venomous.

When we acquired the Mirage-2000 in 1982, there was an option to build 150 of these under license. The option was never exercised. It is a pity that in 2019, we target the LCA Mk-2 to have at least the same capability as that of the Mirage-2000. We could well have produced these at HAL under license.

In the ’90s, we acquired second hand MIG-21 Trainers to overcome shortage and we now plan to buy second hand MIG-29s. The MIG-29 is superb in its air superiority role but it does not have the same quality and versatility as that of the Mirage-2000. At the end of the day, the Air Force bears the responsibility and the bureaucracy exercises the power to say yes or no, while the government takes a distant stand.

It is time we get over our hang-ups and get more professional in what we do. The noise of politicising over every military acquisition is now deafening.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Oct 2019 21:30

Aditya_V wrote:Rafale / LCA etc. will have significantly shorter ranges of detection by radars in clean or even A2A config due to hiding engine blades, use of composites etc. ?

The Rafale will carry EFT's on most strike and even CAP, OCA or DCA missions unless it is used for point defenses. That is how it is meant to perform as it does not carry huge volume of internal fuel unlike 5th gen. aircraft or the Flanker etc, nor does it have optimized CFT's that are a better compromise as far as RCS and drag is concerned. While you may have a choice to ditch the EFT's when entering a defended air-space, you do loose out on the flexibility and expose yourself to potentially longer ranged EW sensors. I don't think the claim that the Rafale is any way a semi-LO platform holds any water. Yes they've looked at RCS reduction where possible but most of it erodes the moment you put any mission constraints on it (i.e. real world usage). That doesn't make it a bad aircraft, in fact it s one of the best in class in its peer group. This is the same problem (mission constraints unable to sustain what designers are trying to sell) that plagued aircraft like the Silent Eagle, or Advanced (stealthy) Super Hornet but at least there at least rudimentary consideration was given to some sort of optimized weapons carriage even though it was inadequate for most missions.

As the current LO fighters have demonstrated, and as the future crop of LO fighters in development will illustrate, LO really needs to be built into the design from the start and this is not just shaping or RAM/RAS but across mission systems, interoperability, training, doctrine, organizational construct and sustainment. Things like doctrine and org. construct are important elements here as LO aircraft need to operate within certain parameters and their mission systems need to enable this. No point in being sig-optimized but having data-links that can be detected by a capable EW system. Hence most 5th gen. platforms come with their own dedicated high frequency directional LPI data-links and a training and interoperability element that trains for EMCON and dicipline via training so as to not give away your tactical advantage via emissions. These aircraft make a best attempt to address all the various ways they can be detected, tracked or targeted and that is the essence of a balanced and optimized VLO aircraft.

There is a very good reason that Dassault, Boeing or others have had pretty much ZERO success trying to push their aircraft as semi-LO platforms when competing against LO fighters and have quickly realized that their best bet is to push them as tactical bomb trucks with larger magazines..No operator objectively looking to field LO platforms has taken their PR seriously..

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 13 Oct 2019 23:23

Indranil wrote:Exposed compressor face contributes to frontal RCS. Is an Su30s compressor exposed to ground based radar?

From the bottom if you carry external ordinances you create many corner reflectors whose RCS is significantly high, often much higher than the aircraft itself. If you have to carry multiple ordinances, you can multiply this effect. SU-30 won't be carrying external fuel tanks, while Rafale/LCA will.

Also the distance at which objects can be detected varies as the fourth root of RCS. So, even if I take that Su-30 has 2 times the RCS of Rafale, it will only be detected at 19% higher range.

Rafale is a great aircraft, but let's not add mythical capabilities to it.

Saar, 19% additional range is pretty significant in itself but in my limited understanding, what matters is the trio of stealth of aircraft, range of radar/sensors and range of missile. With substantial superiority in all 3 aspects, Rafale becomes a game changer in our theatre.

ACM clearly said nothing in our neighborhood compares with Rafale and it is a game changer. He puts it half a generation ahead of what we or anyone else has got in our area of interest.

Mythical it certainly is not but game changer it’s been proclaimed by of air warriors!!!!!

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 13 Oct 2019 23:39

Indranil wrote:Exposed compressor face contributes to frontal RCS. Is an Su30s compressor exposed to ground based radar?

From the bottom if you carry external ordinances you create many corner reflectors whose RCS is significantly high, often much higher than the aircraft itself. If you have to carry multiple ordinances, you can multiply this effect. SU-30 won't be carrying external fuel tanks, while Rafale/LCA will.

Also the distance at which objects can be detected varies as the fourth root of RCS. So, even if I take that Su-30 has 2 times the RCS of Rafale, it will only be detected at 19% higher range.

Rafale is a great aircraft, but let's not add mythical capabilities to it.

But then the French claim that Spectra will give rafale capabilities of a stealth aircraft. Wonder if it is truly that effective or just another french marketing gimmick.

On the other hand is Spectra is really as good as the claims wrt active radar cancellation, then what is the need for an extremely long range air to air missile like meteor. A standard mica missile(range>=80 Kms) should be more than good enough

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Oct 2019 23:45

darshhan wrote:
But then the French claim that Spectra will give rafale capabilities of a stealth aircraft. Wonder if it is truly that effective or just another french marketing gimmick.

If so, why are they bothering with the nEUron? Why not just stick Spectra on a MALE UAV they are developing? Same with FCAS where they are taking more than 2 decades to field a stealthy next generation replacement to the Rafale. Spectra is a self-protection EW/EA suite and a survivablity enhancer. It isn't a mythical stealth cloak capable of hiding a bomb, and fuel tank laden fighter from enemy radars.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 13 Oct 2019 23:51

brar_w wrote:
darshhan wrote:
But then the French claim that Spectra will give rafale capabilities of a stealth aircraft. Wonder if it is truly that effective or just another french marketing gimmick.
If so, why are they bothering with the nEUron? Why not just stick Spectra on a MALE UAV they are developing? Same with FCAS where they are taking more than 2 decades to field a stealthy next generation replacement to the Rafale. Spectra is a self-protection EW/EA suite and a survivablity enhancer. It isn't a mythical stealth cloak capable of hiding a bomb, and fuel tank laden fighter from enemy radars.

Agree with you completely. I mean are Americans, Chinese and Russians fools to develop and induct dedicated stealth aircraft in their fleets. They could also have taken the shortcut like french.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 13 Oct 2019 23:56

It is logical to invest heavily in a highly capable digital AESA based EW/EA suite for 4th gen aircraft. Rafale has done it, and UAE funded the Falcon Edge for their Block 60 F-16's, and the USAF, the EPAWSS for their F-15E and EX aircraft. All leverage high power, wideband GaAs or GaN devices to support the self-protection needs, leverage digital techniques, DRFM and even have added aids like towed or dispensed decoys etc. etc.. But much like EW systems on board stealth aircraft, their main function is to enhance survivability not transform these aircraft into magical stealthy unicorns..Passive EW via application of VLO materials, shapes and IWB's has no substitute for now. Hence you see the same approach being chosen by everyone that is working on 5th or even 6th generation fighter programs. If there were an easy substitute most would have exercised it and the Rafale would have enjoyed significantly greater success in the export market.

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Oct 2019 23:58

brar_w wrote:
darshhan wrote:
But then the French claim that Spectra will give rafale capabilities of a stealth aircraft. Wonder if it is truly that effective or just another french marketing gimmick.
If so, why are they bothering with the nEUron? Why not just stick Spectra on a MALE UAV they are developing? Same with FCAS where they are taking more than 2 decades to field a stealthy next generation replacement to the Rafale. Spectra is a self-protection EW/EA suite and a survivablity enhancer. It isn't a mythical stealth cloak capable of hiding a bomb, and fuel tank laden fighter from enemy radars.

Passive radar evasion is better than active radar cancellation, use that power to use your radar at extreme ranges or ECMs for that matter

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Oct 2019 00:06

It is best to avoid picturing a scenario where there is an Active Cancellation switch that one can flick on and the and turn the aircraft immune to every radar looking at it. As I said earlier, these EA suites are there for self-protection and don't do much beyond that. They will impact the PK of the SAM and make the aircraft more difficult to target. They don't magically reduce the RCS of the aircraft they have by an order of magnititude thereby denying the opponent of multiple ways to target (from the air, front the ground etc etc). When you value survivability by putting it right up there as a KPP you derive to very different conclusions as is evident on 5th generation platforms the world over where there is both passive EW via VLO concept and Electronic Warfare used to enhance survivability. Most of those aircraft, or proposed aircraft attack the problem of the Air Defense systems (and GCI, AEW etc etc) by going after each element of the kill-chain right from avoiding detection (by-passing, smart routing, and stand off weaponry employment) to then avoiding targeting (Fire Control radar and using EW/EA and toyed decoys to go after the very last element of the kill chain). Dassault may underplay that in their PR but I'm sure that'll change when they need to onboard additional customers/partners on the FCAS. A decade ago the narrative around many corners was "stealth is obsolete". A decade from now, no few than a dozen+ nations would be operating stealth aircraft..The decisions of those who are expected to be the most well informed (operator community) and those who have the biggest audience (aviation journalists, bloggers and PR shops) don't seemed aligned.

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 14 Oct 2019 00:13

darshhan wrote:I mean are Americans, Chinese and Russians fools to develop and induct dedicated stealth aircraft in their fleets.

There is no evidence (and no reason to assume) that the Chinese or the Russians do actually have stealth capability. J-20 "stealth" is a joke. But this is the Rafale thread and I'm not going to pursue this topic any further here.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Oct 2019 00:33

Indranil wrote:
Manish_Sharma wrote:Really?

It seems by size also Rafale is much much smaller:

Size is only one aspect of stealth. An F22 has a smaller signature than some armaments.

The bigger problem with the Su-30 is the exposed engine face. No blocker or serpentine intake. It is right in the line of any radar waves coming it’s way. Masking the compressor face with serpentine intakes alone will reduce the RCS a great deal, everything else being the same.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Oct 2019 00:40

Sumeet wrote:Mort & Darshan,

If China or TSP can get complete radar profile of Rafale why they cannot get the same for MWF/Tejas Mk 2 or AMCA ? If Chinese can break into US MIC and get details of F-35, why can't same happen in India ?

Why can we not get radar profile of FC-31 or J-20 ?

What will happen if we export AMCA or Tejas MK2 -- how will we guarantee that our secrets our always protected ?

Should we apply F-22 like no export policy on our indigenous products ? Do you think Chinese & Russians have not attempted to get details of F-22 ? Were they successful, if yes to what extent ?

We have had Mirage 2K since 1980s still we went into TSP and blasted Balakote training site didn't we ? Does TSP have complete radar profile of M2K or not ? Did it make a difference ?

Why haven't we found details of Erieye radar yet ? Why can't we find details so that we can make our aircrafts completely disappear from it throughout battlefield ?

Sumeetji,

1. Yes, the Chinese can get the details from India on the Tejas 2 Mk.II and AMCA, but it will be much harder than Rafale and S-400 because these platforms are being sold for cold hard cash by the French and Russians. No two ways about it.

May I kindly remind you of the fiasco with DCNS and the French Scorpenes the IN has
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation ... a4d42db39e

...the data on the Scorpene was written in France for India in 2011 and is suspected of being removed from France in that same year by a former French Navy officer who was at that time a DCNS subcontractor.

The data is then believed to have been taken to a company in Southeast Asia, possibly to assist in a commercial venture for a regional navy.

It was subsequently passed by a third party to a second company in the region before being sent on a data disk by regular mail to a company in Australia. It is unclear how widely the data has been shared in Asia or whether it has been obtained by foreign intelligence agencies.

2. The Indian military may already have technical details on the J-20. Don't underestimate them.

3. No export on the AMCA or Tejas Mk.II. Only for the Mk.1A.

4. Economies of scale, the Pakis simply don't have the resources at present, but they may in a few years.

5. More than likely the limitations of the Erieue are already known. Keep in mind its radar is at a longer wavelength, so detection is going to happen. The question is, what can they do about it?

Any and all foreign acquisition are subject to problems and there is no other choice but build up domestic capability and a larger MIC.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Oct 2019 08:59

https://youtu.be/[youtube]Lg_HbTK4Ss0[/youtube]

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 14 Oct 2019 10:55

Kartik wrote:
Indranil wrote:
Size is only one aspect of stealth. An F22 has a smaller signature than some armaments.
The bigger problem with the Su-30 is the exposed engine face. No blocker or serpentine intake. It is right in the line of any radar waves coming it’s way. Masking the compressor face with serpentine intakes alone will reduce the RCS a great deal, everything else being the same.

How much will hidden engine faces help though if you have large EFT's and bombs dangling under the wings?

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Oct 2019 12:14

^^^
Some profiles will benefit like an A2A configuration with a load-out of few AAMs. Reduced head-on RCS. How much advantage this gives requires a detailed study per airframe type and whether it’s actually worth it for the costs.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 14 Oct 2019 16:08

Exposed Engines blades are big source of radar images and probably increase the cross section more than Pylons, Drop tanks and ordinance, Also the All Metal Larger body Su-30 will start of with a much bigger radar cross section than smaller Composite built LCA and Rafale, these are not 5th gen stealth birds by any stretch of the imagination but probably have a much lower detection range.