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.
Post Reply
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3769
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

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

Post by sanman »

Did Indian Rafale shoot down Chinese spy balloon? Which thread is it being discussed in?
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3769
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

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

Post by sanman »

True or Clickbait ?

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 656
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

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

Post by Ankit Desai »

sanman wrote: 07 Oct 2024 00:20 Did Indian Rafale shoot down Chinese spy balloon? Which thread is it being discussed in?
It was practice run.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 993660.cms

The IAF formulated TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures) ..
The IAF formulated TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedures) to handle such contingencies. It has been practicing the capability to interject in such situations at different flight envelopes,
-Ankit
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19647
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

^^^ As per ANI's Ajit Kumar Dubey, an IAF Rafale did indeed shoot down a Chinese spy balloon. And yet the title of the article below says the opposite. Click on the link to read the article. So take it for what it is worth.

IAF proved capability to strike down Chinese spy balloon-type targets at very high altitude
https://aninews.in/news/national/genera ... 006175803/
06 Oct 2024
S_Madhukar
BRFite
Posts: 677
Joined: 27 Mar 2019 18:15

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

Post by S_Madhukar »

I would have thought Sukhois should be able to fly higher than Rafale for this task unless the Rafale radar is better at spotting the balloon
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19647
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

sanman wrote: 07 Oct 2024 01:05 True or Clickbait?
I would not call this clickbait, but let's address some of the points he has raised in the video above.

1) He says Rafale and Eurofighter are of 4.5 generation, but in the future they will be obsolete. I am assuming he is referring to aircraft like the J-20 and J-31 (that the Rafale will go up against) which are VLO aircraft, while the Rafale is not. If that is the argument, not a single fighter of the 4.5 generation - including the Tejas - will be relevant against a VLO aircraft. Equally, the MRFA contest is also flawed. Only Tejas Mk2 and AMCA will have any decent chance of surviving and/or prevailing, because they will have a GaN based sensor suite.

2) He says that the production line at France (which is at Merignac) has a capacity to produce 12 aircraft per year. That is only partially true. The line - at full capacity - can produce up to 33+ aircraft per year. However Dassault purposefully keeps it at a low number, because increasing the production rate will incur additional expenses that Dassault does not want to invest in (which will result in less profit) and the Govt of France does not want to bear an expense either that can be avoided. If a foreign customer wants to invest in increasing that production capacity, they will have to pay Dassault for that. To date, not a single foreign customer of the Rafale has come forward with such a request. So around 11 to 13 aircraft per year is what the production line is currently doing. But this production will have to change with the order bonanza that Dassault has received from air forces the world over. Any delays in deliveries, will result in penalties for Dassault which they would prefer not to pay. Even more, it will be a stain on their reputation.

3) What has complicated the issue in Point 2 is the global shortage of systems, sub-systems and components in the aviation industry. This is the same issue that Boeing is facing with delivery on the AH-64 Apache to the Indian Army's Aviation Corps. Click on the two links below.

Dassault says Rafale jet production ramp-up hit by supply chain snags
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ain-snags/
24 July 2024

Apache Delay ---> viewtopic.php?p=2629380#p2629380

4) From production delays, Alpha Defense then transitions to GaA versus GaN based radars. The video does give a brief summary of the differences between the two technologies, so no point in mentioning that. I follow his twitter feed regularly and he has been mentioning this quite often of late. And he is correct on GaN having a technological advantage over GaA. He mentions that by 2030, the GaA-based sensor suite on the Rafale will be obsolete, as many competitors will have GaN based sensor suite.

Of the future Rafale customers, there are two countries (UAE and Indonesian) that have signed contracts with Dassault and one military service (Indian Naval Air Arm) that is fairly close to signing a deal. All three countries will get the Rafale F4 variant, which comes with a GaA-based sensor suite. And deliveries for UAE and Indonesia is expected to start in the late 2020s and if the GOI signs a contract, then the Indian Naval Air Arm should start receiving aircraft by 2028 (in an ideal world). As per the video, all three nations' aircraft will all have a sensor suite that is not up to par of a GaN based system. So brand new, yet-to-be-built or delivered aircraft, but technologically backward from DAY ONE.

And in India's case, will we have any fighter aircraft with an AESA radar that has GaN technology? AFAIK (someone please correct me if I am wrong), the Elta 2052 radar on the Jaguar Darin III upgrade is GaA-based, the Elta 2052 radar on the first batch of the Tejas Mk1A is GaA based, the RBE2 AESA radar on the Rafale is also GaA based. However, I believe, LRDE is developing a GaN-based version of the Uttam radar. See article below.

India's Uttam AESA Radar Is Close To Clearing A Major Milestone — Here's The Lowdown
https://swarajyamag.com/defence/indias- ... he-lowdown
07 April 2024
The current Uttam radar is supposed to use TRM modules made of Gallium Arsenide (GaAs). Another, more advanced version using TRMs made of new Gallium Nitride (GaN) is under development and is intended for use on the LCA Mk-2 jet, 5th generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), and potentially even on the Su-30 MKI upgrade.
In the absence of parity (a minimum requirement), prevailing against the PLAAF will be challenging...till we get our own GaN-based sensor suite. We do not know what AESA radar technology the J-20 and J-31 has, but lets assume these aircraft will have a GaN-based sensor suite. In light of this, we are looking at a complete rout and breakdown of the Indian Air Force in a future conflict against the PLAAF, because the Chinese have GaN and we do not (as of yet). And because this is India, heaven only knows when GaN tech will come. We are going to lose onlee Saar.

At the 8:00 minute mark in the video, Alpha Defense makes this bold statement ---> "Your $8 billion dollar investment will be completely useless, the day it goes up against a GaN-based sensor suite." So along with the Rafale F3R(I), the Jaguar Darin III with GaA-based Elta 2052 radar will be useless, the Tejas Mk1A with GaA-based Elta 2052 radar will be useless and the Tejas Mk1A with GaA-based Uttam AESA radar will also be useless. So a lot more than $8 billion will be wasted. If one GaA based sensor suite is obsolete, then all such systems with that technology should be useless no?

Either GaA is "completely usless" against GaN or it is not. Which one do you want to go with? After all, we cannot operate on double standards. When it is local maal, GaA is ok (wink, wink)...but with phoren maal GaA is bad (anti-Atmanirbhar Bharat).

P.S. The Virupaksha radar - variant of the Uttam - coming on the Super Sukhoi upgrade for the Su-30MKI fighter is reportedly of the GaN variety. But what chance will a 4th generation, non-VLO fighter stand against a J-20 or J-31 with a sensor suite that is GaN-based? Why are we wasting money on this upgrade? Asking for a friend onlee...
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6040
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Post by Manish_P »

Rakesh wrote: 07 Oct 2024 02:45 ^^^ As per ANI's Ajit Kumar Dubey, an IAF Rafale did indeed shoot down a Chinese spy balloon. And yet the title of the article below says the opposite. Click on the link to read the article. So take it for what it is worth. ...
It didn't take out a chinese balloon. It took out a balloon target like the ones the chinese use, smaller than the ones the chinese use (understandable as it was a test target).

Tells us that a) we have the capability to use such balloons b) we have the capability to take such targets out

Edit - OK. The article makes that clear. The title.. like the title in today's ToI, is pure click bait.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5557
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

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

Post by srai »

Regarding GaA vs GaN debate, it is one of those that leads to paralysis by “over” analysis :twisted:

I think this has been the problem with the Indian Military in general. They don’t want what is available now but rather wait for something that may come “few” years down the road.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5825
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

srai wrote: 07 Oct 2024 10:35 Regarding GaA vs GaN debate, it is one of those that leads to paralysis by “over” analysis :twisted:

I think this has been the problem with the Indian Military in general. They don’t want what is available now but rather wait for something that may come “few” years down the road.
This isn't the Indian military that is doing such an "analysis". It is a Twitter and YT handle that generally is pretty good with defence topics. But on this they're totally off.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5825
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

Rakesh wrote: 07 Oct 2024 04:21 1) He says Rafale and Eurofighter are of 4.5 generation, but in the future they will be obsolete. I am assuming he is referring to aircraft like the J-20 and J-31 (that the Rafale will go up against) which are VLO aircraft, while the Rafale is not. If that is the argument, not a single fighter of the 4.5 generation - including the Tejas - will be relevant against a VLO aircraft. Equally, the MRFA contest is also flawed. Only Tejas Mk2 and AMCA will have any decent chance of surviving and/or prevailing, because they will have a GaN based sensor suite.
The simple assumption he makes is that somehow a radar upgrade to a GaN array is not possible and that somehow that alone will mean that 4.5 gen fighters with GaAs radars will become "outdated". It's simply not true and a very simplistic analysis.

The Eurofighter's ECRS Mk2 is the only AESA radar that the Eurofighter flies with that will have a mix of GaAs and GaN T/R modules as apparently they both have their advantages and the ECRS Mk2 has been tailored accordingly. It will eventually enter service in 2030.

Rafale's RBE2 has a GaAs T/R array which can, at a future date, be upgraded to a GaN array. Dassault hasn't yet done it because it costs money to develop and as of today, the RBE2 is more than enough for all the missions it is required to perform, including guiding very long range Meteors. On what basis Alpha Defence assume that it is not possible, or that there isn't enough real estate on the Rafale to do it, only they themselves know. Alpha Defence also conveniently seems to completely ignore/miss that a fighter is not just it's radar. It has so much more, the aerodynamics, the MMI, the FBW, etc. In all these respects, there is no better 4.5 gen fighter out there than the Rafale.
2) He says that the production line at France (which is at Merignac) has a capacity to produce 12 aircraft per year. That is only partially true. The line - at full capacity - can produce up to 33+ aircraft per year. However Dassault purposefully keeps it at a low number, because increasing the production rate will incur additional expenses that Dassault does not want to invest in (which will result in less profit) and the Govt of France does not want to bear an expense either that can be avoided. If a foreign customer wants to invest in increasing that production capacity, they will have to pay Dassault for that. To date, not a single foreign customer of the Rafale has come forward with such a request. So around 11 to 13 aircraft per year is what the production line is currently doing. But this production will have to change with the order bonanza that Dassault has received from air forces the world over. Any delays in deliveries, will result in penalties for Dassault which they would prefer not to pay. Even more, it will be a stain on their reputation.
Dassault is actually not the constraint- their suppliers are. Remember, Dassault has hundreds of small and medium enterprises that act as suppliers to it's Rafale line. From what I've read in French articles and their posters, it is the suppliers that are the bigger issue, not Dassault. Dassault wants to scale up, because they risk losing customers who want fighters but don't want to wait 7-10 years for their fighters to begin to arrive. The suppliers however, they're the ones finding it hard to scale up fast, with the levels of investment that they'll have to concurrently make. Both in people as well as in machinery.

As the article from DefenseNews that you posted states
The main difficulties are in structural parts as well as a “whole host of supplies and small equipment items,” and Dassault Aviation is providing support to its small and medium-sized subcontractors and suppliers, including by providing staffing and financing, and discussing price increases. The aid doesn’t prevent delays, and the main problem at the moment is delivering aircraft, according to the executive.

Dassault Aviation is in talks with a number of countries for Rafale exports, and is working with French armaments agency DGA for a first contract to develop the Rafale F5 standard, which will team up with a combat drone.
Rafale F5 standard is being planned with a new RBE2 XG radar. That radar is a GaN radar, but Alpha Defense being ignorant of this fact, thinks that there is no plan to move to GaN radar for the Rafale.

France is planning to invest nearly EU 11.7 billion into the Rafale program over the next 10 years and we have internet folks who are simply ignorant of that, talking about it becoming obsolete.

France Budgets €11.7 Billion For Dassault Rafale Investments
PARIS—France is to invest €6.41 billion ($6.75 billion) into the Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft program between 2023 and 2026 and has earmarked an additional €5.36 billion after 2026.

In total, the spending commitment budgeted for the fighter jet program amounts to €11.7 billion.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5825
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

To read more on the plan for the Thales RBE2 XG radar, to be built with GaN T/R modules, this article must be read.

The TARAMMAA project will allow the Rafale F4 to see even further
Indeed, according to Thales' description, the RBE2 AESA, which entered service in 2012, can simultaneously detect and track "a large number of aerial targets, downwards or upwards, for close combat and long-range interception of numerous land or sea targets, in clear or scrambled environments and in all weather conditions." In addition, it allows the production, in real time, of 3D maps for terrain monitoring and "high-resolution 2D radar maps of the terrain flown over for navigation and target designation." And with the long-range METEOR air-to-air missile, thanks to its extended detection capability, it allows the Rafale to engage targets beyond visual range [BVR].

However, the RBE2 AESA will obviously have a successor. And, as the specialist magazine Air Fan pointed out in its latest issue dedicated to the Rafale F4, the French Armament Agency [DGA] is working on this, via the scientific and technical project [PST] "TARAMMAA", for "Active Antenna Multichannel MLU Radar Technologies and Architecture", launched in the continuity of the upstream study programs [PEA] CARAA [Increased capacities for the RBE2 radar with active antenna] and MELBAA [Wideband modes and exploitation for the active antenna].


This TARAMMAA project focuses in particular on improving the performance of transmitter-receiver modules as well as a new software and hardware architecture. Director of the Rafale program within the DGA, the general engineer of armaments [IGA] Guilhem Reboul explains that the idea is to ensure that "part of the processing is done directly in the antenna itself and no longer in dedicated computers."

"It's very innovative," he emphasizes. And to specify: "Gallium nitride [GaN] technology will be favored for the antenna modules in order to allow new functions such as the interleaving of air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. Combined with enhanced processing capacities thanks to increasingly efficient algorithms and calculation methods, these modules will guarantee remarkable detection ranges and high resistance to jamming," in connection with the PST "Warfare Electronics Aero 2025, which prepares the Rafale F4 and... Rafale F5 evolutions.


Hence, moreover, the priority given by the DGA to the establishment of a French gallium nitride sector, within the framework of the NIGAMIL program [for "Gallium Nitride for MILlimetric Applications"]. Indeed, this material is used in particular for the manufacture of high-performance integrated circuits operating up to 100 GHz, which would make it possible to significantly improve the power level, efficiency and therefore the compactness of radar systems, active antennas or electronic warfare systems.

In the meantime, explains Air Fan, the Rafale F4.1, currently under development, will have an RBE2 AESA radar with a GMTI [Ground Moving Target Indicator] mode for detecting and tracking ground targets [testing of this has already been completed] as well as an improved SAR [synthetic aperture radar] mode for producing very high-resolution radar ground maps. "For the crews, these developments will constitute a spectacular operational advance."
Also confirms that GMTI and improved SAR modes are part of the Rafale F4.1 standard, which is most likely what the Indian Navy Rafale M and Rafale D fighters will be at.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 734
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Post by maitya »

Rakesh wrote: 07 Oct 2024 04:21
sanman wrote: 07 Oct 2024 01:05 True or Clickbait?
I would not call this clickbait, but let's address some of the points he has raised in the video above.
...
...
Either GaA is "completely usless" against GaN or it is not. Which one do you want to go with? After all, we cannot operate on double standards. When it is local maal, GaA is ok (wink, wink)...but with phoren maal GaA is bad (anti-Atmanirbhar Bharat).

P.S. The Virupaksha radar - variant of the Uttam - coming on the Super Sukhoi upgrade for the Su-30MKI fighter is reportedly of the GaN variety. But what chance will a 4th generation, non-VLO fighter stand against a J-20 or J-31 with a sensor suite that is GaN-based? Why are we wasting money on this upgrade? Asking for a friend onlee...
No GaAs (or for that matter PD slotted wave-guide sets) are not useless, by any stretch of imagination, compared to GaN based phased array sets.

There are certain technical advantages of GaN based sets (e.g. simpler thermal mgmt) due to its large bandgap (3.4eV vs 1.4eV), which results in fantastic power-densities (5-12W/mm vs 1.5W/mm of GaAs) etc - but that doesn't make the GaAs based sets inferior enough to make them obsolete etc.
In fact the key issue is fabrication capability (read MMIC foundry tech/equipment) available at mass-production level - just because one can lab demonstrate GaN HEMT etc, to be able to create a GaN foundry etc, equipped for mass-manufacturing etc, is no joke.

A well designed GaAs can (and does) routinely outperforms not-so-technically-advanced fabricated GaN sets.

Plus of course the cost factor (GaN-on-SiC wafer, with 2-4in wafer dia etc, tech is not cheap) - even mighty Unkil is quite cagey towards whole-sole transitioning to GaN solutions for Airborne systems (except for, obviously, the EW applications).

Betw one data-point, when GaAs PA sets were introduced, IIRC back in 2008-10 timeframe, there were all these talk of "obsolesce" of slotted wave-guide sets in a decade (so around 2020) - but even today, 5-6 years hence, majority of airborne radars in use remains slotted wave-guide PD sets (2032, RDY-3, Zhuk-M etc from IAF stable). Don't hear too shrill a cry wrt them being already-obsolete etc.

Same will be the case for GaAs PA sets, a decade or so from now.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5825
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

maitya wrote: 07 Oct 2024 13:57
No GaAs (or for that matter PD slotted wave-guide sets) are not useless, by any stretch of imagination, compared to GaN based phased array sets.

There are certain technical advantages of GaN based sets (e.g. simpler thermal mgmt) due to its large bandgap (3.4eV vs 1.4eV), which results in fantastic power-densities (5-12W/mm vs 1.5W/mm of GaAs) etc - but that doesn't make the GaAs based sets inferior enough to make them obsolete etc.
In fact the key issue is fabrication capability (read MMIC foundry tech/equipment) available at mass-production level - just because one can lab demonstrate GaN HEMT etc, to be able to create a GaN foundry etc, equipped for mass-manufacturing etc, is no joke.

A well designed GaAs can (and does) routinely outperforms not-so-technically-advanced fabricated GaN sets.

Plus of course the cost factor (GaN-on-SiC wafer, with 2-4in wafer dia etc, tech is not cheap) - even mighty Unkil is quite cagey towards whole-sole transitioning to GaN solutions for Airborne systems (except for, obviously, the EW applications).

Betw one data-point, when GaAs PA sets were introduced, IIRC back in 2008-10 timeframe, there were all these talk of "obsolesce" of slotted wave-guide sets in a decade (so around 2020) - but even today, 5-6 years hence, majority of airborne radars in use remains slotted wave-guide PD sets (2032, RDY-3, Zhuk-M etc from IAF stable). Don't hear too shrill a cry wrt them being already-obsolete etc.

Same will be the case for GaAs PA sets, a decade or so from now.
Besides, we have an enemy who won't en-masse migrate to GaN technology in another 5-7 years. They are still flying over a hundred Mirage-3/5s! Their JF-17 Blk3 are just entering service and they have a hundred Block 1 and 2s that will eventually need an upgrade too. Their current J-10CEs don't have GaN radars and as for their F-16s, they'll probably never get another upgrade unless the US allows the Turks to upgrade them.

As for the PLAAF, there is no indication that they're mass switching to GaN radars or if they even have GaN radars in service right now or any time soon.
Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1720
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

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

Post by Sumeet »

Great inputs Maitya, Kartik and Rakesh.

Biggest question will be maturity of Chinese radar technology itself forget whether its using GaN or GaAs based MMIC TR modules. Radar is more than just antenna array, there is cooling unit, amplifiers, DSP, radar processor, anti jamming & ECCM units, reliability & maintenance etc ...

Besides that on the aircraft itself you have multi sensor data fusion with threat picture being built from combined inputs from Radar, IRST, RWR, SATCom etc.

Moreover, what kinds of weapons are its disposal and lastly how much of sophisticated network its embedded within. Alpha defense is better than usual DDM but in this case is making a mistake.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5825
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

Sumeet wrote: 08 Oct 2024 02:00 Great inputs Maitya, Kartik and Rakesh.

Biggest question will be maturity of Chinese radar technology itself forget whether its using GaN or GaAs based MMIC TR modules. Radar is more than just antenna array, there is cooling unit, amplifiers, DSP, radar processor, anti jamming & ECCM units, reliability & maintenance etc ...

Besides that on the aircraft itself you have multi sensor data fusion with threat picture being built from combined inputs from Radar, IRST, RWR, SATCom etc.

Moreover, what kinds of weapons are its disposal and lastly how much of sophisticated network its embedded within. Alpha defense is better than usual DDM but in this case is making a mistake.
Huge mistake in my opinion. The fact is this- if public opinion turns away from the Rafale, the Opposition will likely try to seize on it and scuttle the Rafale for all time. People don't scrutinize things in detail. they just go with the headline and that's about it. As it is, PM Modi seems content to just let this thing drag on and on with his appetite for action on this issue having been destroyed by the fake Rafale scam hoopla.

As things stand, the Rafale offers the IAF the best platform to deal with current threats till the AMCA arrives in numbers. F-15EX brings with it the worry about US shenanigans. Eurofighter is costlier than Rafale or as costly and requires new infra and adds another type to an already large number of fighter types, while being not as mature or capable as the Rafale. F-35 isn't in the picture and likely won't be. Meanwhile, the PAF is on the cusp of formally announcing selection of a new 5th gen type.

the Rafale was and is still, one of the most mature 4.5 gen fighters out there. IAF was able to get them into operational scenarios up in the North within 2 weeks of landing in India. Never before in IAF's history was a fighter inducted into service and into an operational theater that quickly. It has the highest uptime and availability of fleet of any type in the IAF. It brings the biggest stick in the sub-continent when it comes to BVR, something the PAF and PLAAF are both going to be very wary of- the Meteor. Apart from so many other capabilities that are proven and already being practiced by the IAF's 2 Rafale squadrons.

To put this all in jeopardy by saying "Oh the Rafale will be obsolete in another 4-5 years" is the stupidest stuff I've heard. That platform itself is so damn good, it will be relevant for years to come.

Just to do a simple comparison- check out the 3 videos that the MoD has put out from the Marina Beach fly by. Tejas Mk1, Rafale and Su-30MKI IR shots from the front aspect. See which one of these has the lowest IR signature. What is the Super 30 upgrade going to be able to do about the massive RCS and IR signature of the Su-30MKI?

Rafale

Su-30MKI

Tejas Mk1
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19647
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Thank you Sumeet, Maitya and Kartik for a great set of posts. They need to be pinned. Good job all of you.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20834
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

The Su30 and F15 manage their large signature via their advantages in sensor reach and EW.

Simply put, the massive SPJs on the Su30 will blank out even AESAs forcing the opponent to use IRST. The IRST doesn't have a ranging function. Closing in for a WVR fight is not optimal (for either side), but especially for a non TVC fighter. The Su30 is also receive a CASDIC suite with wideband TRMs that allow it to approach SAP 518 performance but without the weight penalty.

So maneuver and EW both. As to sensor reach, the Virupaksha will dwarf the Rafale's RBE2 simply because not only will it have more power, but also because the Rafales nose is tiny compares to that on the Flanker. The advantage of a large array cannot be understated as a larger array outperforms a smaller one, any given day unless the latter ramps up its power output many times over. The Rafales most significant flaw is it's limited nose aperture. It was a design flaw baked into the design by French belief that their AWACS would compensate and it has not been rectified. In the future, the Rafale will struggle against VLO targets without a GaN boost or a signal processing breakthrough, the Su30 will not. A Rafale can detect a 0.05 sq Mtr target at a mere third of the calibrated design range of the system per open source information. However, the AESA upgrade for the Flanker will bring range to a significant amount. Not at parity versus the original target set but still good enough for true long range BVR. The Rafale on the other hand will be more dependent on AWACS & datalinking to get a proper fix.

The other problem is the integrated design of the Rafale. It's highly integrated. India cannot do what it did with the Flankers to the Rafale. If one day, we can add a podded sensor package to it, that would be a huge miracle by itself. The French have no interest in opening up the Rafale to us either. The whole package is an industrial bonanza for them.

In short, once the IAF gets upgraded Flankers and long range, multi capability seeker AAMs (which are on DRDOs roadmap), the Rafale will not be the top dog. Right now both it & the Flanker have equivalent sensor reach but the Rafale has a smaller RCS and compact integrated EW suite. Unless the Flanker carries it's bulky SPJ,the Rafale has an advantage.

Both of these will be fixed by the desi upgrades. The next set of advantages the Rafale has are its MMI and superb weapons. Again these will be mitigated by upgrades. Astra Mk2, Mk3 will outstrip the Mica, Meteor combination.

As on the Rafale, MKI is due to receive a dual wavelength, dual channel (IR plus TV) IRST as well.

In short the Flanker is a phenomenal platform once properly upgraded.

This is the reason multiple AF around the world continue to pursue Flanker equivalent F15s. The Israelis for instance regard their 60 odd F15s as worth their weight in gold. We have 260 Flankers.

If the IAF had better planners and wasn't so profligate about thinking it could just import replacements as versus proceeding on upgrades earlier itself, we would be much better placed.

Thankfully, a much more serious cadre seems to be in service now and either that or artifical scarcity (the funds crunch imposed by GOI) is forcing them to act rationally and upgrade the Flanker.

Alpha isn't wrong about GaN versus GaAs but the irony is that scaling power doesn't confer as much advantage as aperture size increase. US radar designers postulate that GaN can double the range of existing GaAs based systems as the PAE is much better. Ironically, to achieve the performance of a Flanker with GaAs, Rafale will need GaN.

In our case, our GaN technology is already established but it has to advance further to cover a wider frequency range and unlock all the potential advantages we can get. Commercial GaN modules run the risk of sanctions as well.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19647
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Rafale F5 announced on the 92nd anniversary of IAF Day :mrgreen: :lol: Just to wet the appetites for the folks who read brouchures.

Unmanned combat aerial vehicle program kicks off as part of the Rafale F5 standard
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/gr ... -standard/
08 Oct 2024
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19647
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Karan M wrote: 08 Oct 2024 17:11 The Su30 and F15 manage their large signature via their advantages in sensor reach and EW....
Excellent post as always Saar.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4426
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

Another advantage is that we have not very established GaAs ecosystem (as in not much money invested). We can easily shift to GaN tech without trying to continue with GaAs to recoup invested money. Very similar to how we jumped from not having lined telephone to wireless. I would hope that for mk1a 41st plane, the radar is GaN based. The desi shops that may loose money can be compensated by giving them equivalent order on many aesa gaas land based radar that we are making
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20834
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

fanne wrote: 09 Oct 2024 02:05 Another advantage is that we have not very established GaAs ecosystem (as in not much money invested). We can easily shift to GaN tech without trying to continue with GaAs to recoup invested money. Very similar to how we jumped from not having lined telephone to wireless. I would hope that for mk1a 41st plane, the radar is GaN based. The desi shops that may loose money can be compensated by giving them equivalent order on many aesa gaas land based radar that we are making
This isn't the case we indeed have a very mature GaAs setup thanks to DRDO. Now DRDO is moving to GaN & maturing the same. GaN tech once established will make many of today's Chinese "stealth" fighters struggle. Only the top of the line US ones will still persevere for a while till the next bunch of breakthroughs broad-bases (photonics, multi-static etc).
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4426
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

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

Post by fanne »

Tech wise yes, but not investment wise, invested in foundaries etc. we have perhaps two small factories/foundries that make GaAs for defense. Moving to new GaN setup, invested money in these foundaries may not be a big factor.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20834
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Thanks Rakesh.

Fanne, the same issue exists for GaN. Unless GOI commits cash, the same GaAs capacity will be repurposed for GaN.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5416
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Post by Cain Marko »

Karan M wrote: 08 Oct 2024 17:11
The other problem is the integrated design of the Rafale. It's highly integrated. India cannot do what it did with the Flankers to the Rafale. If one day, we can add a podded sensor package to it, that would be a huge miracle by itself. The French have no interest in opening up the Rafale to us either. The whole package is an industrial bonanza for them.

In short, once the IAF gets upgraded Flankers and long range, multi capability seeker AAMs (which are on DRDOs roadmap), the Rafale will not be the top dog. Right now both it & the Flanker have equivalent sensor reach but the Rafale has a smaller RCS and compact integrated EW suite. Unless the Flanker carries it's bulky SPJ,the Rafale has an advantage.

Both of these will be fixed by the desi upgrades. The next set of advantages the Rafale has are its MMI and superb weapons. Again these will be mitigated by upgrades. Astra Mk2, Mk3 will outstrip the Mica, Meteor combination.

As on the Rafale, MKI is due to receive a dual wavelength, dual channel (IR plus TV) IRST as well.

In short the Flanker is a phenomenal platform once properly upgraded.

This is the reason multiple AF around the world continue to pursue Flanker equivalent F15s. The Israelis for instance regard their 60 odd F15s as worth their weight in gold. We have 260 Flankers.

If the IAF had better planners and wasn't so profligate about thinking it could just import replacements as versus proceeding on upgrades earlier itself, we would be much better placed.

Thankfully, a much more serious cadre seems to be in service now and either that or artifical scarcity (the funds crunch imposed by GOI) is forcing them to act rationally and upgrade the Flanker.

It blows the mind that an airframe design from the 70s and early 90s along with basic 90s tech electronics can still be so competitive today, esp. vs non vlo platforms.

I think in many ways the mki and su35 are the final stage of development when it comes to non stealth fighters.

Going into the next decade and further, I'm not sure what a rafale could offer that a far cheaper tedbf or even tejas mk2 couldn't offer. The stealthy design of the pakfa could be further tuned seems like a more future proof investment. I think of it as an advanced mki with decent stealth ( better than pricey euro designs in any case).

All of which makes me wonder, would an mkized pakfa have made more sense over the rafale. Even for the mrca. Such a bird seems more survivable in the future. Even if it is a small silver bullet force.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6040
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Post by Manish_P »

Rakesh wrote: 08 Oct 2024 16:46 Thank you Sumeet, Maitya and Kartik for a great set of posts. They need to be pinned. Good job all of you.
+1.

(Also pls. consider adding them to the thread of good posts although this forum-thread format is not very conducive as compared to say article type format)
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6040
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Post by Manish_P »

Karan M wrote: 08 Oct 2024 17:11 ... The Rafales most significant flaw is it's limited nose aperture. It was a design flaw baked into the design by French belief that their AWACS would compensate and it has not been rectified....

The Rafale on the other hand will be more dependent on AWACS & datalinking to get a proper fix.
...
Karan sir, what is true for the Rafale will also be true for the Tejas right?

So with more Rafales and 200 plus Tejas (hopefully) to join the air force we will be needing a lot more AEWACs
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20834
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Manish bhai, no sir for me please.

It's kind of funny. The Tejas has a larger aperture area then the Rafale.

However, the Tejas's compact size & single engine limits the power available versus a twin engine Rafale. Even so a GaAs, GaN radar equipped Tejas will be, pardon my language, a pocket rocket as it has a MiG29 sized aperture.

Tejas Mk1A itself is a Gripen NG avionics fit packed into a platform which is smaller then a Gripen C.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20834
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Thing is the French are ahead in TRM packaging & radar design so they can optimize more performance out of a smaller aperture. We are however rapidly catching up and even surpassing them. Just check how many SAM systems, AWACS, fighter radar variants we are developing. So our knowledge, experience, bench strength are rapidly scaling up. Provided DRDO isn't sabotaged with half baked proposals to divorce it from prototyping and product development and have bureaucracy at PMO decide what it makes and doesn't make.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19647
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Karan M wrote: 09 Oct 2024 19:35 However, the Tejas's compact size & single engine limits the power available versus a twin engine Rafale.
TEDBF / ORCA.

The former has yet to receive sanction of funds and the latter is a pipe dream.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6040
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

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

Post by Manish_P »

Karan M wrote: 09 Oct 2024 19:35 ...
It's kind of funny. The Tejas has a larger aperture area then the Rafale.

However, the Tejas's compact size & single engine limits the power available versus a twin engine Rafale. Even so a GaAs, GaN radar equipped Tejas will be, pardon my language, a pocket rocket as it has a MiG29 sized aperture.

Tejas Mk1A itself is a Gripen NG avionics fit packed into a platform which is smaller then a Gripen C.
Karan ji, thanks for the explanation using instructive examples. I have more clarity on the matter now.

My belief that the AMCA will be a very, very potent and capable platform is getting strengthened more and more.
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5825
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

Cain Marko wrote: 09 Oct 2024 08:52 It blows the mind that an airframe design from the 70s and early 90s along with basic 90s tech electronics can still be so competitive today, esp. vs non vlo platforms.

I think in many ways the mki and su35 are the final stage of development when it comes to non stealth fighters.

Going into the next decade and further, I'm not sure what a rafale could offer that a far cheaper tedbf or even tejas mk2 couldn't offer. The stealthy design of the pakfa could be further tuned seems like a more future proof investment. I think of it as an advanced mki with decent stealth ( better than pricey euro designs in any case).

All of which makes me wonder, would an mkized pakfa have made more sense over the rafale. Even for the mrca. Such a bird seems more survivable in the future. Even if it is a small silver bullet force.
The Su-30MKI is by no means the pinnacle of non-stealth fighter development. It is the Rafale that is the pinnacle of what a non-stealth fighter can be.

The Su-30MKI is a massive improvement on the original Su-30 concept and has certain big advantages, the internal fuel, the massive payload, it's FCS, it's engines that confer super maneuvering capabilities (which in combat situations are of little use, especially so in BVR combat).

But those advantages are offset by the sheer size of the platform, it's RCS which no matter how much RAM you stick on, will remain large, it's IR signature which can't be hidden by any means and importantly, the availability which despite the best efforts of the IAF isn't going above 60-65%. The effort required for maintaining it per flight hour exceeds that of every other IAF fighter by a big margin. It's engines don't have the MTBO figures of modern Western turbofans. Have we forgotten about the 37 in-flight engine cut-outs that were reported many years ago?

Can the Su-30MKI fly 100 ft above ground level on auto-pilot with the pilots hands off? How about doing it in pitch darkness? Till now, it's EW systems and sensors are not "data fused" the way they are on the Rafale or even Gripen E.

The Su-30MKI with an empty weight of ~18,400 kgs has a max payload of ~8000 kgs. The Rafale with an empty weight of ~10,500 kgs has a max payload of 9000 kgs. Now that is some superb engineering on the airframe, with the inherent advantage of the delta wing being brilliantly used.

All this Super-30 excitement leaves aside the minor issue of the timeframe for it's implementation. If this article is true, it'll take 5 years or so to develop the upgrade (around 2030) and a total of 15 years (2040 that is!) to complete the upgrade for 84 to 100 Su-30s. What about the remaining 170 odd remaining Su-30MKIs then?

IAF advances Su-30MKI upgrade with indigenous technologies
The design and development phase is expected to span four to five years, followed by the initiation of fleet modernization.
Which means that even while the Tejas Mk2 will be almost inducted, AMCA will be (hopefully) be entering service, the Super Sukhoi upgrade will not be over.

So the question remains, how is this going to be able to address the bigger challenge of this decade and the start of next decade?

IMO, the Super Sukhoi upgrade will keep the Su-30MKI relevant into the 2050s and perhaps even 2060s. But it will not be in service in meaningful enough numbers to make that big of a difference till 2035. That's 10 years during which the only fighters entering service will the light class Tejas Mk1A and hopefully some Tejas Mk2s.

By then the PLAAF would've gone past 600 J-20s, given that they have around 200 J-20s now in service. Plus another 200 odd J-31 stealth fighters and 1000 or more 4th gen fighters like the J-10, J-11s, Su-35, J-16, etc.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20834
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Kartik wrote: 10 Oct 2024 12:27 The Su-30MKI is by no means the pinnacle of non-stealth fighter development. It is the Rafale that is the pinnacle of what a non-stealth fighter can be.

The Su-30MKI is a massive improvement on the original Su-30 concept and has certain big advantages, the internal fuel, the massive payload, it's FCS, it's engines that confer super maneuvering capabilities (which in combat situations are of little use, especially so in BVR combat).

But those advantages are offset by the sheer size of the platform, it's RCS which no matter how much RAM you stick on, will remain large, it's IR signature which can't be hidden by any means and importantly, the availability which despite the best efforts of the IAF isn't going above 60-65%. The effort required for maintaining it per flight hour exceeds that of every other IAF fighter by a big margin. It's engines don't have the MTBO figures of modern Western turbofans. Have we forgotten about the 37 in-flight engine cut-outs that were reported many years ago?

Can the Su-30MKI fly 100 ft above ground level on auto-pilot with the pilots hands off? How about doing it in pitch darkness? Till now, it's EW systems and sensors are not "data fused" the way they are on the Rafale or even Gripen E.

The Su-30MKI with an empty weight of ~18,400 kgs has a max payload of ~8000 kgs. The Rafale with an empty weight of ~10,500 kgs has a max payload of 9000 kgs. Now that is some superb engineering on the airframe, with the inherent advantage of the delta wing being brilliantly used.

All this Super-30 excitement leaves aside the minor issue of the timeframe for it's implementation. If this article is true, it'll take 5 years or so to develop the upgrade (around 2030) and a total of 15 years (2040 that is!) to complete the upgrade for 84 to 100 Su-30s. What about the remaining 170 odd remaining Su-30MKIs then?

IAF advances Su-30MKI upgrade with indigenous technologies
The design and development phase is expected to span four to five years, followed by the initiation of fleet modernization.
Which means that even while the Tejas Mk2 will be almost inducted, AMCA will be (hopefully) be entering service, the Super Sukhoi upgrade will not be over.

So the question remains, how is this going to be able to address the bigger challenge of this decade and the start of next decade?

IMO, the Super Sukhoi upgrade will keep the Su-30MKI relevant into the 2050s and perhaps even 2060s. But it will not be in service in meaningful enough numbers to make that big of a difference till 2035. That's 10 years during which the only fighters entering service will the light class Tejas Mk1A and hopefully some Tejas Mk2s.

By then the PLAAF would've gone past 600 J-20s, given that they have around 200 J-20s now in service. Plus another 200 odd J-31 stealth fighters and 1000 or more 4th gen fighters like the J-10, J-11s, Su-35, J-16, etc.
The Rafale RCS stuff unfortunately is more hype then substance. Reason being both sides have AWACS, and even if the Rafale RCS is 0.5 sq mtrs, with a decent weapons payload, it will spike by 2-3 sq mtrs. At which point any half decent AWACS will detect it at ~300km and vector interceptors. The only real advantage accrues if the Rafale is fighting against non stealth F15, F14, Su30 class fighters and they have earlier gen avionics and missiles, no IADS support, in which case the Rafale detects first, fires first and evades as it's on-board lownpower Spectra is tailored to it's smaller signature. But of what "special" use is a Rafale when up against (say) F/A-18E/Fs with Growler support, E2C and AIM-260. The advantages all cancel out. The PLAAF has J20s, EW J11s and EW transport aircraft, AWACS, dual pulse AAMs & true LRAAMs. The limited aperture on the Rafale will struggle against 0.05 sq mtr class targets and will be a third of it's calibrated range. This is the reason all the low RCS stuff on 4th gen platforms has some advantages but isn't decisive. That is F22, F35 and (perhaps) J20 territory.

TVC is definitely of use in BVR as on the Flanker the TVC is available & used extensively till high subsonic. In other words go supersonic to launch, throttle down to conserve fuel and maintain max distance between you and the opponent & TVC can be of incredible help to provide rapid changes in direction, and hence escape follow on shots. I wouldn't be surprised if the IAF has developed tactics of this nature and keeps them close to it's chest for wartime use.

As regards RCS and SPJs, the Su30/F15 go for a high power, brute force approach. A SPJ on the Su30 is literally a radar aperture sized unit & is tailored to suppress opponent radar performance and hence reduce the impact of it's RCS.

The good part is we can keep updating these or even adding external pods. We don't have that leeway on the Rafale unless the French hand us the source codes for the avionics. Even on the Mirage they were very reluctant and as of yet no Astras have been fired from a Mirage implying they are at a disadvantage versus AMRAM C7s. The Mica IR is nifty to have but range matters.

Coming to TFR, the Su30 will have that mode on its Uttam variant but simply put we will not go for that approach. Against an Integrated IADS in the open with limited terrain masking it will be very high attrition.

Unlike the Rafale, the Su30 will field Rudram 1, 2, 3 and now the 4 plus BrahmosA and Brahmos NG, and Nirbhay A. Then the SAAW, LRGB, NGLGB. It has more options then the Rafale which only has the Scalp and Hammer, both of which we have limited stocks. As to availability, the Rafale contract stipulates 75%, which is not that far off from that of the Flankers. And unlike the Flanker, we make no spares locally either. As localisation of the Flanker rises, and we are making huge efforts towards the same, its availability will rise & remain at a good level as versus the Rafale for which we've to import and carefully husband non local spares which we don't make locally.

Sensor fused EW is already available on the DR118 which combines RWR and SPJ cueing plus the D29 suite on the MiG29. The Super 30 upgrade will follow the Su35 approach & sensor fuse all the information on the MFDs, including radar and EW/ESM. We've already worked out the algos via Netra which fields this capability. A further upgrade is being fielded for the 3rd AEW&CS which was recently handed over.

As to the public timelines announced for the Super 30 or whatever they're calling it, other public information released contradicts the extended TL. It is likely the IAF will add capabilities as they are available. They've done so for multiple items already.

Only 84 MKIs are being mentioned in the 1st phase, as the 2nd will likely have a completely new radar based on what we plan for the Tejas Mk2 later batches, AMCA & our GaN process tech would have matured far more then it currently has. We will see at least one or even 2 more sets of upgrades as local systems continue to evolve. The CASDIC SPJs are already in trials. The radar is the key holdout as is the depdence on Russia to tweak the FBW for weight re-allocation. But push come to shove, we can manage as we did with Brahmos carriage.
Hriday
BRFite
Posts: 166
Joined: 15 Jun 2022 19:59

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

Post by Hriday »

Karan M wrote: 10 Oct 2024 21:09TVC is definitely of use in BVR as on the Flanker the TVC is available & used extensively till high subsonic. In other words go supersonic to launch, throttle down to conserve fuel and maintain max distance between you and the opponent & TVC can be of incredible help to provide rapid changes in direction, and hence escape follow on shots. I wouldn't be surprised if the IAF has developed tactics of this nature and keeps them close to it's chest for wartime use.
Slight off-topic. Kartik says TVC is of little use. Karan M countered it with the above post. Several years ago Karan M posted a video of an Indian Air Force pilot explaining how they will use the TVC of SU-30 MKI to evade the incoming missiles. If I remember correctly the pilot even makes hand gestures mimicking the manoeuvring of an aircraft while explaining the subject.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19647
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

Hriday wrote: 10 Oct 2024 22:23Slight off-topic. Kartik says TVC is of little use. Karan M countered it with the above post. Several years ago Karan M posted a video of an Indian Air Force pilot explaining how they will use the TVC of SU-30 MKI to evade the incoming missiles. If I remember correctly the pilot even makes hand gestures mimicking the manoeuvring of an aircraft while explaining the subject.
Remember Avenger 1 and 2 @ Balakot? The pair of Rambha pilots that put up a wall against the TFTA pilots of the Pakistan Air Force?

A combination of TVC + Jammers (SAP-514 and SAP-518) from the Su-30MKIs. Click on link below (from Sameer Joshi, a former IAF Mirage 2000 pilot)....

https://x.com/joe_sameer/status/1365541344991617025
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5825
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

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

Post by Kartik »

Karan M wrote: 10 Oct 2024 21:09
Kartik wrote: 10 Oct 2024 12:27 The Su-30MKI is by no means the pinnacle of non-stealth fighter development. It is the Rafale that is the pinnacle of what a non-stealth fighter can be.

The Su-30MKI is a massive improvement on the original Su-30 concept and has certain big advantages, the internal fuel, the massive payload, it's FCS, it's engines that confer super maneuvering capabilities (which in combat situations are of little use, especially so in BVR combat).

But those advantages are offset by the sheer size of the platform, it's RCS which no matter how much RAM you stick on, will remain large, it's IR signature which can't be hidden by any means and importantly, the availability which despite the best efforts of the IAF isn't going above 60-65%. The effort required for maintaining it per flight hour exceeds that of every other IAF fighter by a big margin. It's engines don't have the MTBO figures of modern Western turbofans. Have we forgotten about the 37 in-flight engine cut-outs that were reported many years ago?

Can the Su-30MKI fly 100 ft above ground level on auto-pilot with the pilots hands off? How about doing it in pitch darkness? Till now, it's EW systems and sensors are not "data fused" the way they are on the Rafale or even Gripen E.

The Su-30MKI with an empty weight of ~18,400 kgs has a max payload of ~8000 kgs. The Rafale with an empty weight of ~10,500 kgs has a max payload of 9000 kgs. Now that is some superb engineering on the airframe, with the inherent advantage of the delta wing being brilliantly used.

All this Super-30 excitement leaves aside the minor issue of the timeframe for it's implementation. If this article is true, it'll take 5 years or so to develop the upgrade (around 2030) and a total of 15 years (2040 that is!) to complete the upgrade for 84 to 100 Su-30s. What about the remaining 170 odd remaining Su-30MKIs then?

IAF advances Su-30MKI upgrade with indigenous technologies



Which means that even while the Tejas Mk2 will be almost inducted, AMCA will be (hopefully) be entering service, the Super Sukhoi upgrade will not be over.

So the question remains, how is this going to be able to address the bigger challenge of this decade and the start of next decade?

IMO, the Super Sukhoi upgrade will keep the Su-30MKI relevant into the 2050s and perhaps even 2060s. But it will not be in service in meaningful enough numbers to make that big of a difference till 2035. That's 10 years during which the only fighters entering service will the light class Tejas Mk1A and hopefully some Tejas Mk2s.

By then the PLAAF would've gone past 600 J-20s, given that they have around 200 J-20s now in service. Plus another 200 odd J-31 stealth fighters and 1000 or more 4th gen fighters like the J-10, J-11s, Su-35, J-16, etc.
The Rafale RCS stuff unfortunately is more hype then substance. Reason being both sides have AWACS, and even if the Rafale RCS is 0.5 sq mtrs, with a decent weapons payload, it will spike by 2-3 sq mtrs. At which point any half decent AWACS will detect it at ~300km and vector interceptors. The only real advantage accrues if the Rafale is fighting against non stealth F15, F14, Su30 class fighters and they have earlier gen avionics and missiles, no IADS support, in which case the Rafale detects first, fires first and evades as it's on-board lownpower Spectra is tailored to it's smaller signature. But of what "special" use is a Rafale when up against (say) F/A-18E/Fs with Growler support, E2C and AIM-260. The advantages all cancel out. The PLAAF has J20s, EW J11s and EW transport aircraft, AWACS, dual pulse AAMs & true LRAAMs. The limited aperture on the Rafale will struggle against 0.05 sq mtr class targets and will be a third of it's calibrated range. This is the reason all the low RCS stuff on 4th gen platforms has some advantages but isn't decisive. That is F22, F35 and (perhaps) J20 territory.
I'm not sure it's just that..I've now heard 2 respected ex-IAF officers (Air Marshal Anil Chopra and Sqnd Ldr Sameer Joshi in his superb talk on the China threat- link Drones & Advanced Fighter Jets | The Future of Air Combat in the Himalayas) speak of the Rafale having good stealth, at least in the front quarters. Much better than anything else we presently have.

And Sqdn Ldr Sameer Joshi is very clear that the threat is tremendous from the PLAAF. He mentions 1000 4th gen fighters and 200 J-20s as of today and a target of 500 J-20s by 2030. He clearly states that without a massive build up in fighter numbers, there is no way that the IAF will be able to hold off a sustained PLAAF assault. Super Sukhoi or Tejas Mk1A inductions (IF done on schedule) are simply going to keep our numbers where they are, at 29 to 31 squadrons. Without another type being built in India by another company (not HAL by any means), there will be no increase in numbers.

In fact listening to him made me extremely anxious and I am just a jingo not an IAF officer. I can really imagine being in the place of ACM AP Singh and being asked how to deal with a threat as big as China is, I would be terribly worried.

Even being very pro Indian indigenous equipment, I personally have the gravest doubts about any of the timelines that ADA or HAL float, including for the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA. The threat is truly the highest that we have had since 1965 and the solution is no longer that of putting all our eggs in HAL's basket.
TVC is definitely of use in BVR as on the Flanker the TVC is available & used extensively till high subsonic. In other words go supersonic to launch, throttle down to conserve fuel and maintain max distance between you and the opponent & TVC can be of incredible help to provide rapid changes in direction, and hence escape follow on shots. I wouldn't be surprised if the IAF has developed tactics of this nature and keeps them close to it's chest for wartime use.
Are we sure that TVC is usable at very high sub-sonic or supersonic speeds? Just asking if there aren't speed restrictions at which the TVC can be applied.
As regards RCS and SPJs, the Su30/F15 go for a high power, brute force approach. A SPJ on the Su30 is literally a radar aperture sized unit & is tailored to suppress opponent radar performance and hence reduce the impact of it's RCS.

The good part is we can keep updating these or even adding external pods. We don't have that leeway on the Rafale unless the French hand us the source codes for the avionics. Even on the Mirage they were very reluctant and as of yet no Astras have been fired from a Mirage implying they are at a disadvantage versus AMRAM C7s. The Mica IR is nifty to have but range matters.
And having heard multiple French pilots speak on Aircrew Interview as well as elsewhere in articles, the French approach is the opposite. Discreet radar signature because as they put it, you advertise your presence when your radar is emitting, like a torch in a dimly lit room. Much safer to stay passive as long as possible and absorb emissions and try to detect the intruder based on that.

The Mirage story is one of lost opportunities. On multiple occasions we were offered the entire assembly line for ourselves. Both in the 1980s, early 1990s and then during PM Vajpayee's tenure when the line was going to be closed in France. If that had happened, the Mirage-2000 would've been ours to do whatever we wanted for upgrades. One of my greatest regrets is the induction of the MiG-29 in the 1980s and how it scuttled the Mirage-2000 license assembly option.

The Mirage-2000Is should've had the Astra Mk1, not sure why it hasn't been integrated. The Mission Computer is ours on the Mirage-2000I upgrade and HAL mentioned that they had to qualify the MC, other systems, as well as weapons for the FOC of the Mirage-2000I. Perhaps someone can check at Aero India whether there is any plan to integrate Astra Mk1 on the Mirage-2000I.

For the MRFA, ACM AP Singh made it abundantly clear that the goal is to be able to support the fleet with MRO as well as upgrades through it's life cycle. If Rafale is chosen for the MRFA, they will ask for that level of source code to be provided for systems to be integrated and upgrades done almost independently of Dassault.
Coming to TFR, the Su30 will have that mode on its Uttam variant but simply put we will not go for that approach. Against an Integrated IADS in the open with limited terrain masking it will be very high attrition.
I think the most survivable option will be the option of flying in really low, below the horizon from approaches or axis that aren't well monitored. Especially for nuclear strike with a gravity bomb that isn't a precision guided bomb.

I remember how BRF was rife with discussions about how the Rafale was the most suitable fighter for the Strategic Forces Command due to it's ability to fly just 100 ft above terrain in autopilot mode at night time. Once the 126 MRCA contest evaporated and turned to 36, everyone seems to have forgotten that we still do have a need for an airborne nuclear strike fighter. Ideally we need an ASMP type supersonic cruise missile to take on that role. But the most survivable option then too would be hugging the terrain to approach the target, pop up to height, drop the weapon and egress back at tree top height if possible. At higher altitudes, the risk of being shot down by SAM is higher.
Unlike the Rafale, the Su30 will field Rudram 1, 2, 3 and now the 4 plus BrahmosA and Brahmos NG, and Nirbhay A. Then the SAAW, LRGB, NGLGB. It has more options then the Rafale which only has the Scalp and Hammer, both of which we have limited stocks. As to availability, the Rafale contract stipulates 75%, which is not that far off from that of the Flankers. And unlike the Flanker, we make no spares locally either. As localisation of the Flanker rises, and we are making huge efforts towards the same, its availability will rise & remain at a good level as versus the Rafale for which we've to import and carefully husband non local spares which we don't make locally.
We don't do all this for the Rafale not because it can't do it but rather because we went in for a very limited off the shelf purchase of 36 fighters. If we had just 36 Su-30MKIs none of this would've been possible with the Su-30MKI either.

The goal of the MRFA is to get a more modern fighter than the Su-30MKI and be able to do to it what the IAF and DRDO were able to do to the Su-30MKI..which is to Indianize it to the max extent possible.

I don't think that the Rafale fleet is being husbanded carefully either. From all reports, it is being extensively used. And 75% availability versus 60% is a big difference. If the Su-30MKI got to that level, it's equivalent to having nearly 40 additional Su-30MKIs available to the IAF at any given time out of a fleet of 260.
Sensor fused EW is already available on the DR118 which combines RWR and SPJ cueing plus the D29 suite on the MiG29. The Super 30 upgrade will follow the Su35 approach & sensor fuse all the information on the MFDs, including radar and EW/ESM. We've already worked out the algos via Netra which fields this capability. A further upgrade is being fielded for the 3rd AEW&CS which was recently handed over.

As to the public timelines announced for the Super 30 or whatever they're calling it, other public information released contradicts the extended TL. It is likely the IAF will add capabilities as they are available. They've done so for multiple items already.
I really don't know how good the data fusion on the Super Sukhoi is going to be, I hope it's really good. But on the Rafale there are

Super Sukhoi timelines are clearly stating a 5 year D&D period. Which is till 2030, just for the various systems to all be developed to the required spec and tied up together to ensure that they work together without some or the other issues. Then another 10 years for around 100 fighters to be upgraded, which is 10 per year, most likely at the HAL Nashik facility where Flankers were assembled.

It is clearly a MLU for the Su-30MKI to bring it back to the level that it was when it first joined the IAF. But the timelines are so long that it is not going to make any big impact in the period from 2025 to 2033. That's almost 8 years when the upgrade will be developed and prepared to be applied but the fleet size going through the upgrade will be minimal, around 24 fighters altogether.
Only 84 MKIs are being mentioned in the 1st phase, as the 2nd will likely have a completely new radar based on what we plan for the Tejas Mk2 later batches, AMCA & our GaN process tech would have matured far more then it currently has. We will see at least one or even 2 more sets of upgrades as local systems continue to evolve. The CASDIC SPJs are already in trials. The radar is the key holdout as is the depdence on Russia to tweak the FBW for weight re-allocation. But push come to shove, we can manage as we did with Brahmos carriage.
All of which will happen in the 2030s rolling into the 2040s and help keep the Su-30MKI relevant into the 2050s. But that doesn't address any of the issues that we have till the 2035 period.

I am talking about the period between now and 2035. PLAAF will grow it's 4th and 5th gen numbers to well past 1000 and 600 respectively. And what'll be the state of the IAF? Far from growing, we'll be just trying to just stay at 29 squadrons, replacing Jaguars, Mirage-2000Is and MiG-29UPGs with Tejas Mk2s.

You have been one of the most astute analysts on BRF for decades. How come you aren't seeing this massive gap? I recall very clearly how you stated in the past that the Rafale was needed to hold off the PLAAF, how the Gripen C/E wasn't up to the task for that. What has changed now? Nothing, we're worse off now than we've ever been given our numbers and growth is stalled while PLAAF is growing damn fast and even the bloody PAF is thinking of going in for J-31s alongside J-10CPs.
maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 734
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

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

Post by maitya »

Kartik wrote: 11 Oct 2024 11:33 ...
Super Sukhoi timelines are clearly stating a 5 year D&D period. Which is till 2030, just for the various systems to all be developed to the required spec and tied up together to ensure that they work together without some or the other issues. Then another 10 years for around 100 fighters to be upgraded, which is 10 per year, most likely at the HAL Nashik facility where Flankers were assembled.
...
This is what is utterly confusing ... for an avionics-only upgrade (very deep upgrade no doubt, but still avionics only), why is this 10/year platform limitation.
There's no structural assembly, flight-control change, hydraulic/pneumatic related changes, engine related changes etc involved, then why is there any limitation on the upgrade-rate, keeping it effectively at the same production-rate of brand new platforms.

Something is surely missing or not yet been revealed.

Also, as an aside, there are some reports on internet, as to why we haven't accepted the "upgrade" to AL-41F path offered by the Russia - the one point that is being missed, in all those reports, is we don't gain anything via that upgrade (except for spending a lot of money).
Better would have been Russia agreeing to upgrade the AL-31FP to AL-31-FP-MKI variant in a partnership with GTRE/DMRL/MIDHANI et all - and in turn effectively removing whatever material/process/manufacturing-tech dependency that are currently there wrt Al-31F indigenous manufacturing/assembly.

But that would have meant allowing us to heavily modify the core (replacing the HPT/LPT blades/discs/vanes, the combustor, everything - all very-well within our current capability) and making it a 1500+ deg C TeT, 27+ OPR and ~9+ TWR, class true-blue 4+ Gen TF.
And, thus effectively achieving somewhere around 20-25% dry thrust augmentation etc - implying effectively killing whatever little "market" Russia envisages for their AL-41F class etc ...
(Note: Al-41F (the 1S variant) achieves ~9-10% "thrust growth" over AL-31FP)

So no joy there!!

Betw, from a purely speculative pov, what does this mean for our MRFA program (assuming Rafale gets selected):
X-posted from the P75 thread:
Rakesh wrote: 10 Oct 2024 19:40 ...
UAE cancels $20 billion Rafale deal with France despite Telegram CEO’s release
https://www.financialexpress.com/busine ... e-3595771/
29 August 2024
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19647
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

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

Post by Rakesh »

maitya wrote: 11 Oct 2024 17:02 Betw, from a purely speculative pov, what does this mean for our MRFA program (assuming Rafale gets selected):
X-posted from the P75 thread:
Rakesh wrote: 10 Oct 2024 19:40 ...
UAE cancels $20 billion Rafale deal with France despite Telegram CEO’s release
https://www.financialexpress.com/busine ... e-3595771/
29 August 2024
Saar, not cancelled...but on hold. The title of that news article is click-bait.

I have yet to see any official news release from Dassault or from the UAE Govt that the deal is actually cancelled. If cancelled - and that is a *BIG* if - it will alleviate the production bottleneck. But two issues with this;

1) Is there political appetite - in India - for a large Rafale order?

2) Is there money - in the Indian Exchequer - for a large Rafale order?

The UAE deal cost US $19 billion for 80 Rafale F4s. And none of the other Western MRFA contestants are going to cost any cheaper either.

Forget 114 MRFA, is there a combination of both points above for just 80 airframes? Perhaps another 2 - 3 more squadrons, at some point down the road. The MRFA has gone beyond the purview of Air HQ. It has become a political hot potato which the Govt appears not to be interested in touching with a ten foot barge pole. Let's see what happens.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20834
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

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

Post by Karan M »

Kartik wrote: 11 Oct 2024 11:33
Karan M wrote: 10 Oct 2024 21:09

The Rafale RCS stuff unfortunately is more hype then substance. Reason being both sides have AWACS, and even if the Rafale RCS is 0.5 sq mtrs, with a decent weapons payload, it will spike by 2-3 sq mtrs. At which point any half decent AWACS will detect it at ~300km and vector interceptors. The only real advantage accrues if the Rafale is fighting against non stealth F15, F14, Su30 class fighters and they have earlier gen avionics and missiles, no IADS support, in which case the Rafale detects first, fires first and evades as it's on-board lownpower Spectra is tailored to it's smaller signature. But of what "special" use is a Rafale when up against (say) F/A-18E/Fs with Growler support, E2C and AIM-260. The advantages all cancel out. The PLAAF has J20s, EW J11s and EW transport aircraft, AWACS, dual pulse AAMs & true LRAAMs. The limited aperture on the Rafale will struggle against 0.05 sq mtr class targets and will be a third of it's calibrated range. This is the reason all the low RCS stuff on 4th gen platforms has some advantages but isn't decisive. That is F22, F35 and (perhaps) J20 territory.
I'm not sure it's just that..I've now heard 2 respected ex-IAF officers (Air Marshal Anil Chopra and Sqnd Ldr Sameer Joshi in his superb talk on the China threat- link Drones & Advanced Fighter Jets | The Future of Air Combat in the Himalayas) speak of the Rafale having good stealth, at least in the front quarters. Much better than anything else we presently have.
I respect them both very much but allow me to make this point. Thing is if 4.5G fighters were all there in stealth, then there would be no need for VLO platforms like the F-35, F-22, B-21. The physics simply does not bear out claims that the Rafale is anything truly exceptional in this regard. Much better then what we currently have, yes. Because currently the IAF is an active EW deprived force because of its own mistakes and lack of investment in the domain. Hence they are very fighter platform dependent and did not pay adequate effort or interest in the platforms either, like sitting on the local upgrade for the Flanker and even ordering EW suites late for the Fulcrum. Simply put, the lower RCS for the Rafale translates into a lower power SPJ for the aircraft but this advantage rapidly drops as one moves around with weapons and the fact that today's fighter radars on the PLAAF side are rapidly gaining in terms of aperture size and power output both.

Anyways both the IAF and GOI have really messed up big time and the buck ultimately stops with GOI. Which is completely oblivious to the gravity of the threat and will not raise funding to run a parallel MRFA and domestic R&D line. It's either or, and they've reluctantly committed to the latter, so IMHO no funds for the former are forthcoming.
And Sqdn Ldr Sameer Joshi is very clear that the threat is tremendous from the PLAAF. He mentions 1000 4th gen fighters and 200 J-20s as of today and a target of 500 J-20s by 2030. He clearly states that without a massive build up in fighter numbers, there is no way that the IAF will be able to hold off a sustained PLAAF assault.
He is absolutely right. Its a pity that GOI doesnt listen and our defence budget renains anemic.Which is the point that both Indian decision makers and the IAF have been blase about. If the GOI were serious, they'd rapidly raise IAF Capex. If the IAF were serious they'd have supported the Tejas program earlier and the Flanker upgrades too, with the heavies being more dedicated towards the eastern front. All sides have played their game and now we are in a mess.
Super Sukhoi or Tejas Mk1A inductions (IF done on schedule) are simply going to keep our numbers where they are, at 29 to 31 squadrons. Without another type being built in India by another company (not HAL by any means), there will be no increase in numbers.
Tejas Mk2 is the only hope & I fully suspect that if it meets it's schedule, more then 6 squadrons will be ordered. Those and increasing SAM units. Kusha and Akash NG, but without this GOI increasing Capex we are in a tight spot there too. Even there, the manner in which we delayed funding for the Mk2 and the IAFs disinterest in AMCA have worsened things. There is clearly a huge import lobby in the IAF which seems to think that imports will solve their issues in perpetuity and hence the GOI is simply not interested in funding what they see as a completely out of control addiction to imports. They are not wrong there but they could force indigenous inductions and raise the busget too, which they dont either.
In fact listening to him made me extremely anxious and I am just a jingo not an IAF officer. I can really imagine being in the place of ACM AP Singh and being asked how to deal with a threat as big as China is, I would be terribly worried.
Yes but there are multiple ways to play the game and the IAF itself has been massively negligent. They lack significant domain technology understanding and I am too old and too cussed now to sugarcoat how behind they are versus many peers in understanding and leveraging technology. Their whole mindset has been, opponent has scissors, I need better scissors. They've almost completely ignored platform upgrades, munitions, better sensors while only pushing the all or nothing MRFA file. Now, crisis and a Govt too that simply doesn't care to increase the budget. The stuff that we are talking for the Flanker should have been signed a decade back to achieve maturity by now.
Even being very pro Indian indigenous equipment, I personally have the gravest doubts about any of the timelines that ADA or HAL float, including for the Tejas Mk2 and AMCA. The threat is truly the highest that we have had since 1965 and the solution is no longer that of putting all our eggs in HAL's basket.
HAL isn't the issue here anymore. It's WW SCs post Covid and not a single vendor abroad can spare us airframes double quick. Even if they do, expect political and performance compromises down the road.
TVC is definitely of use in BVR as on the Flanker the TVC is available & used extensively till high subsonic. In other words go supersonic to launch, throttle down to conserve fuel and maintain max distance between you and the opponent & TVC can be of incredible help to provide rapid changes in direction, and hence escape follow on shots. I wouldn't be surprised if the IAF has developed tactics of this nature and keeps them close to it's chest for wartime use.
Are we sure that TVC is usable at very high sub-sonic or supersonic speeds? Just asking if there aren't speed restrictions at which the TVC can be applied.
Hence my choice of words.
As regards RCS and SPJs, the Su30/F15 go for a high power, brute force approach. A SPJ on the Su30 is literally a radar aperture sized unit & is tailored to suppress opponent radar performance and hence reduce the impact of it's RCS.

The good part is we can keep updating these or even adding external pods. We don't have that leeway on the Rafale unless the French hand us the source codes for the avionics. Even on the Mirage they were very reluctant and as of yet no Astras have been fired from a Mirage implying they are at a disadvantage versus AMRAM C7s. The Mica IR is nifty to have but range matters.
And having heard multiple French pilots speak on Aircrew Interview as well as elsewhere in articles, the French approach is the opposite. Discreet radar signature because as they put it, you advertise your presence when your radar is emitting, like a torch in a dimly lit room. Much safer to stay passive as long as possible and absorb emissions and try to detect the intruder based on that.
The French say this because they operate under scripted exercise conditions or under the NATO umbrella or against tier 2 opponents. Against Tier 1 opponents where all the elements of your sensor grid are under attack, on-board sensor performance is crucial. How exactly for instance can the Rafale stay discreet if your own AWACS is turning tail to avoid a long range AWACS killer shot. Or your GBAD are relocating to avoid ARMs or ballistic missiles. This is the reason why the Americans never compromised on aperture size on any of their fighters except the Viper which was never meant to be a BVR brawler. Even there, they are squeezing in GaN radars to get the performance boost of a liquid cooled GaAs system. IMHO, the Rafales limited aperture size & our inability to touch it's avionics system is it's singular flaw. We are very happy with it for now, as the combination of it's (relatively) low RCS, tailored Spectra and Meteor makes it competitive versus most of PLAAFs jets, but over time it will end up like a declining asset which we can't upgrade unless IAF sells it's kidneys to go for F4R-I or F5-I etc.
The Mirage story is one of lost opportunities. On multiple occasions we were offered the entire assembly line for ourselves. Both in the 1980s, early 1990s and then during PM Vajpayee's tenure when the line was going to be closed in France. If that had happened, the Mirage-2000 would've been ours to do whatever we wanted for upgrades. One of my greatest regrets is the induction of the MiG-29 in the 1980s and how it scuttled the Mirage-2000 license assembly option.


Yes, lost opportunity for sure. Even if marginally obsolete today, they'd be a huge strike asset.
The Mirage-2000Is should've had the Astra Mk1, not sure why it hasn't been integrated. The Mission Computer is ours on the Mirage-2000I upgrade and HAL mentioned that they had to qualify the MC, other systems, as well as weapons for the FOC of the Mirage-2000I. Perhaps someone can check at Aero India whether there is any plan to integrate Astra Mk1 on the Mirage-2000I.
The problem as always is that it's not just the MC addition but that there is more. Think of it this way. If we had access to Rafale source code would we go back to the French to ask for Astra, NGARM etc. We are literally paying them for gear which we ourselves will replace in a year or twos time. BDL is already prepping for Mk2.
For the MRFA, ACM AP Singh made it abundantly clear that the goal is to be able to support the fleet with MRO as well as upgrades through it's life cycle. If Rafale is chosen for the MRFA, they will ask for that level of source code to be provided for systems to be integrated and upgrades done almost independently of Dassault.
Yes, we ask for all of this. And we haven't as of yet received it on any platform. And why would we. Would you as a business person give up your crown jewels ie assured revenue stream to a potential competitor.
I think the most survivable option will be the option of flying in really low, below the horizon from approaches or axis that aren't well monitored. Especially for nuclear strike with a gravity bomb that isn't a precision guided bomb.
We will IMHO no longer be going with a gravity bomb approach for nuke strike. The aim will be to field long range air launched missiles. Modern AD do not allow for a high Pk gravity bomb approach. A low flying approach is possible for conventional strike provided we have good ELINT data or terrain information is available. But its still high risk. Easier to use Rudrams, Brahmos to knock out radars, SAMs and then do a SAAW spam. The entire Valhalla approach to do a gravity bomb attack is very flawed especially when we are short of airframes as it is already.
I remember how BRF was rife with discussions about how the Rafale was the most suitable fighter for the Strategic Forces Command due to it's ability to fly just 100 ft above terrain in autopilot mode at night time. Once the 126 MRCA contest evaporated and turned to 36, everyone seems to have forgotten that we still do have a need for an airborne nuclear strike fighter. Ideally we need an ASMP type supersonic cruise missile to take on that role. But the most survivable option then too would be hugging the terrain to approach the target, pop up to height, drop the weapon and egress back at tree top height if possible. At higher altitudes, the risk of being shot down by SAM is higher.
Thing is times have changed. Both PLAAF, PLA field massive amounts of firepower for low fliers and std profiles. There will be dime a dozen radars, EO systems at every corner. Why risk the low approach if you've better options. A single 30mm shell, correctly placed, can wreck a Rafale, Flanker or Tejas. And we can't even replace the 1st two. Will we do low flying, yes. But should we, or rather invest in more SAAWs and LRGBs, IMHO latter is just common sense at this point.
Unlike the Rafale, the Su30 will field Rudram 1, 2, 3 and now the 4 plus BrahmosA and Brahmos NG, and Nirbhay A. Then the SAAW, LRGB, NGLGB. It has more options then the Rafale which only has the Scalp and Hammer, both of which we have limited stocks. As to availability, the Rafale contract stipulates 75%, which is not that far off from that of the Flankers. And unlike the Flanker, we make no spares locally either. As localisation of the Flanker rises, and we are making huge efforts towards the same, its availability will rise & remain at a good level as versus the Rafale for which we've to import and carefully husband non local spares which we don't make locally.
We don't do all this for the Rafale not because it can't do it but rather because we went in for a very limited off the shelf purchase of 36 fighters. If we had just 36 Su-30MKIs none of this would've been possible with the Su-30MKI either.
We can't for the Rafale also because the French will not give us the level of ToT a desperate Russia once did for the Flanker. Just see the Scorpene contract. Or the Thales LLTR. The Rafale is an industrial crown jewel. It's localisation in India isn't in their interest.
The goal of the MRFA is to get a more modern fighter than the Su-30MKI and be able to do to it what the IAF and DRDO were able to do to the Su-30MKI..which is to Indianize it to the max extent possible.


Yes, what I'm saying is that goal has been absurd for a long time because the IAF thinks these systems are available for the taking and the world will bend over backwards to give them. The folks simply dont get how cut throat business really is and that the GOI isn't interested in funding them to that extent either, when 12L crore Rs are being spent on free rice and rations.
I don't think that the Rafale fleet is being husbanded carefully either. From all reports, it is being extensively used. And 75% availability versus 60% is a big difference. If the Su-30MKI got to that level, it's equivalent to having nearly 40 additional Su-30MKIs available to the IAF at any given time out of a fleet of 260.
Carefully husbanded as in the moment spares dip, the usage dips. This is the problem with all our imports. Thing is with the Flanker situation is changing for the better. For the Rafale it cannot. Everything in it will keep coming from France. What happens if some widget goes out of stock and lead time increases to 3 months. Flying reduces. It's happened for all our fleet at one time or the other which was import dependent including the Mirages.
Sensor fused EW is already available on the DR118 which combines RWR and SPJ cueing plus the D29 suite on the MiG29. The Super 30 upgrade will follow the Su35 approach & sensor fuse all the information on the MFDs, including radar and EW/ESM. We've already worked out the algos via Netra which fields this capability. A further upgrade is being fielded for the 3rd AEW&CS which was recently handed over.

As to the public timelines announced for the Super 30 or whatever they're calling it, other public information released contradicts the extended TL. It is likely the IAF will add capabilities as they are available. They've done so for multiple items already.
I really don't know how good the data fusion on the Super Sukhoi is going to be, I hope it's really good. But on the Rafale there are


Just check the Netra OWS. It's the baseline.
Super Sukhoi timelines are clearly stating a 5 year D&D period. Which is till 2030, just for the various systems to all be developed to the required spec and tied up together to ensure that they work together without some or the other issues. Then another 10 years for around 100 fighters to be upgraded, which is 10 per year, most likely at the HAL Nashik facility where Flankers were assembled.
My point is as items get developed, IAF will likely move them on the platform asap. The 1st will be the SPJs imho.
It is clearly a MLU for the Su-30MKI to bring it back to the level that it was when it first joined the IAF. But the timelines are so long that it is not going to make any big impact in the period from 2025 to 2033. That's almost 8 years when the upgrade will be developed and prepared to be applied but the fleet size going through the upgrade will be minimal, around 24 fighters altogether.
Well today's Flankers are not the ones from then anyhow. TBH radar apart, they will still be quite competitive versus most threats if the SPJs and Netras arrive. The MLU if you notice is mostly incremental performance benefit and localisation bar the radar swap.
See image here:https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2021/ ... -2021/amp/

The rest in that is already happening. For instance, new weapons, SDRs, new RWRs. And which is why I don't think the upgrade will happen only five years from now. Some elements will continue in parallel.
Only 84 MKIs are being mentioned in the 1st phase, as the 2nd will likely have a completely new radar based on what we plan for the Tejas Mk2 later batches, AMCA & our GaN process tech would have matured far more then it currently has. We will see at least one or even 2 more sets of upgrades as local systems continue to evolve. The CASDIC SPJs are already in trials. The radar is the key holdout as is the depdence on Russia to tweak the FBW for weight re-allocation. But push come to shove, we can manage as we did with Brahmos carriage.
All of which will happen in the 2030s rolling into the 2040s and help keep the Su-30MKI relevant into the 2050s. But that doesn't address any of the issues that we have till the 2035 period.
As mentioned above, till 2035 expect new SPJs, munitions, RWRs and possibly even radars. We aren't going to take that long for the radar either. I think a lot of the stuff we are seeing in public isn't the whole picture.
I am talking about the period between now and 2035. PLAAF will grow it's 4th and 5th gen numbers to well past 1000 and 600 respectively. And what'll be the state of the IAF? Far from growing, we'll be just trying to just stay at 29 squadrons, replacing Jaguars, Mirage-2000Is and MiG-29UPGs with Tejas Mk2s.
From my bean counting
14 Flanker, 2 Rafale, 11 Tejas Mk1/1A, 6 Tejas Mk2, ie 33 squadrons. So we can expect more Tejas Mk2 even apart from AMCA orders. Also, DRDO expects 3 more Kusha squadrons and IAF will order more Akash NG, MRSAM. Hardly perfect but it's what we are at. The lack of a 5G platform is a capability gap which we will have to make up with better sensors and munitions. Guess we will feel how the PAF did when we started getting Flankers en masse and they didn't have a 1:1 counter. (Wry smile).
You have been one of the most astute analysts on BRF for decades. How come you aren't seeing this massive gap? I recall very clearly how you stated in the past that the Rafale was needed to hold off the PLAAF, how the Gripen C/E wasn't up to the task for that. What has changed now? Nothing, we're worse off now than we've ever been given our numbers and growth is stalled while PLAAF is growing damn fast and even the bloody PAF is thinking of going in for J-31s alongside J-10CPs.
I am seeing this gap & have been vociferous about it as well. Only thing I'm pointing out is that we cannot afford to wait for the MRFA alone and have to bulk up the Su30 fleet in parallel. If we do acquire the Rafale in more numbers it becomes even more imperative that we upgrade the Flanker. In fact then we can hope to do what the Americans are doing with the F35, F15 combo,the latter acting as designation and missile trucks from afar while the discreet, silent F35s only *snipe* at HVTs.

Fact of the matter is this Govt has almost completely ignored defence beyond iterative improvement and the situation is already very grave. Unfortunately the IAF instead of thinking out of the box, is still pursuing "MRFA or nothing" strategies which will land it in even more soup because the cash is simply not forthcoming and they are refusing to believe what has been obvious for ages now.
dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by dinesh_kimar »

Kartik wrote: 11 Oct 2024 11:33 The Mirage story is one of lost opportunities.One of my greatest regrets is the induction of the MiG-29 in the 1980s and how it scuttled the Mirage-2000 license assembly option.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The US Reagan Administration approved sale of 80 advanced F-16 Fighting Falcons to Pakistan, with first ones coming from 1983 onwards. The IAF didn't have anything to counter this.

They bought 80 Mig-23 interceptors on emergency basis as a knee-jerk reaction. The type had failed in Lebanon in 1982, against Israeli F-16 jets, and was an older, unsophisticated aircraft, which fielded AA-3 missiles.

IAF also reached out to European countries for the Tornado, the Mirage 2000, and Saab Viggen.

It quickly became clear that Tornado would be geo political handcuff, with British asking quid pro quo compromises wrt Pakistan, and all sorts of nonsense.

The Saab had an American engine which was not cleared for export by US State Dept.

French Mirage was excellent, almost equivalent to an F-16. No geo political bear hug, but high sticker price. This was selected and first examples were delivered from 1983 onwards, for a total of 40 aircraft.

In 1987, the IAF had to decide on a repeat order, for maybe 40-60 aircraft.

Here, the Soviets, eager to have India under their influence, offered 60 Mig-29, making India first export customer. It could counter the F-16, was fairly sophisticated, and Soviet offered generous credit clauses, full MRO incl. engine assembly and overhaul, pyt agreed in Indian cash ( rupee -rouble trade) and kind ( incl. fruits). The balance of payments crisis was looming, and this route was selected. It was cheaper to purchase than Mirage-2000 and could genuinely counter the F-16 jets.

If I had been an IAF planner in the 1980s, I would probably have taken the same decision.

By 1993, it became clear that Mirage 2000 was more reliable,had more time on station, carefree handling, better pilot training facilities incl.simulators, etc.

Mig -29, though High performance, was limited for air interception duties, could not be used as Ground attack or fighter bomber. The engines had much shorter life,etc.

But the Mirage was always going to be costly, so it remained in small nos. as a high tech fighter. (Tip of the spear).
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5416
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

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

Post by Cain Marko »

Kartik wrote: 10 Oct 2024 12:27
Cain Marko wrote: 09 Oct 2024 08:52 It blows the mind that an airframe design from the 70s and early 90s along with basic 90s tech electronics can still be so competitive today, esp. vs non vlo platforms.

I think in many ways the mki and su35 are the final stage of development when it comes to non stealth fighters.

Going into the next decade and further, I'm not sure what a rafale could offer that a far cheaper tedbf or even tejas mk2 couldn't offer. The stealthy design of the pakfa could be further tuned seems like a more future proof investment. I think of it as an advanced mki with decent stealth ( better than pricey euro designs in any case).

All of which makes me wonder, would an mkized pakfa have made more sense over the rafale. Even for the mrca. Such a bird seems more survivable in the future. Even if it is a small silver bullet force.
The Su-30MKI is by no means the pinnacle of non-stealth fighter development. It is the Rafale that is the pinnacle of what a non-stealth fighter can be.

The Su-30MKI is a massive improvement on the original Su-30 concept and has certain big advantages, the internal fuel, the massive payload, it's FCS, it's engines that confer super maneuvering capabilities (which in combat situations are of little use, especially so in BVR combat).

But those advantages are offset by the sheer size of the platform, it's RCS which no matter how much RAM you stick on, will remain large, it's IR signature which can't be hidden by any means and importantly, the availability which despite the best efforts of the IAF isn't going above 60-65%. The effort required for maintaining it per flight hour exceeds that of every other IAF fighter by a big margin. It's engines don't have the MTBO figures of modern Western turbofans. Have we forgotten about the 37 in-flight engine cut-outs that were reported many years ago?

Can the Su-30MKI fly 100 ft above ground level on auto-pilot with the pilots hands off? How about doing it in pitch darkness? Till now, it's EW systems and sensors are not "data fused" the way they are on the Rafale or even Gripen E.

The Su-30MKI with an empty weight of ~18,400 kgs has a max payload of ~8000 kgs. The Rafale with an empty weight of ~10,500 kgs has a max payload of 9000 kgs. Now that is some superb engineering on the airframe, with the inherent advantage of the delta wing being brilliantly used.

All this Super-30 excitement leaves aside the minor issue of the timeframe for it's implementation. If this article is true, it'll take 5 years or so to develop the upgrade (around 2030) and a total of 15 years (2040 that is!) to complete the upgrade for 84 to 100 Su-30s. What about the remaining 170 odd remaining Su-30MKIs then?

IAF advances Su-30MKI upgrade with indigenous technologies
The design and development phase is expected to span four to five years, followed by the initiation of fleet modernization.
Which means that even while the Tejas Mk2 will be almost inducted, AMCA will be (hopefully) be entering service, the Super Sukhoi upgrade will not be over.

So the question remains, how is this going to be able to address the bigger challenge of this decade and the start of next decade?

IMO, the Super Sukhoi upgrade will keep the Su-30MKI relevant into the 2050s and perhaps even 2060s. But it will not be in service in meaningful enough numbers to make that big of a difference till 2035. That's 10 years during which the only fighters entering service will the light class Tejas Mk1A and hopefully some Tejas Mk2s.

By then the PLAAF would've gone past 600 J-20s, given that they have around 200 J-20s now in service. Plus another 200 odd J-31 stealth fighters and 1000 or more 4th gen fighters like the J-10, J-11s, Su-35, J-16, etc.
All of this is fine and can be argued until kingdom come, but my main point, academic as it might be, was - might it be a better idea to take a look at an mkized pakfa instead of the rafale?

Keeping in mind the need and the costs of stealthy platforms, the pakfa seems to offer an interesting compromise strategy...
1. Use lo frontal rcs, internal Bays, massive radars and long ranged aams in bvr and insane maneuverability, power for wvr combat
2. Use long ranged supersonic or hypersonic missiles and exceptional speed for a2g missions.

The rafale of course, is likely more dependable, and easier to integrate considering the already existing infra, but less future proof and very expensive.

Wish we had access to f35s. A silver bullet of of 2-3 sqds would've been a nice little shot in the arm.. Is take it over the rafale and su57.

Practically speaking however, I think the easiest option is a few more rafale. And boatload of used m2k and fulcrums whenever they are available. Wonder what happened to those Qatari m2ks that were being renegotiated.
Post Reply