MRCA News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 05 Jul 2010 22:02

Let us not forget the objectives of the MRCA project:

1.Keep up the numbers

2. Breathe life into the still-born aerospace indusrty.

The above two are the primary objectives, But other inevitable factors are..................

1. Diversify Weapons Systems

2. Seek Strategic Partnership

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 05 Jul 2010 22:08

Selecting MiG-35 would breathe life into the sagging Indo-Russian ties but leaves India status-quo on other fronts while India would be practically putting all Eggs in one baskets (PAKFA,Su-30s and MiG-35s)
Also Russian weapons are a lot of value for money and unquestionable support system(No sanctions)

Selecting F-18 would kick start a major change in Indo-US ties and will take it to the next level! It comes with strings attached and they are DAMN EXPENSIVE!

Europe, regardless of recession and eurozone crisis, requires customers! And they will be a safe bet! Neither US or Russia would be THAT pissed off if Europe wins!!!!

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 05 Jul 2010 22:11

And remember, all of the fighters are fourth gen(4.5 as some are called)! So regardless of the performance, they can be air to air platfom only till 2025 or sometime like that! By that time stealth fighters will take over the air dominance platform and world will be preparing Unmanned fighters!

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 05 Jul 2010 22:21

So, what is the best candidate?

India is going to tweak Sukhois with smart skin and PAKFA will be a gamble, which means we can't predict their degree of success! So what India needs is a proven platform! And the BEST PROVEN PLATFORM is F-18 SUPER HORNET! U.S Navy is buying them even NOW!

Has a proven AESA RADAR!

Block III upgrade is already underway!

HAs an Electronic Warfare variant which India could negotiate for!

Has an excellent weapons fit!

will bring diversity into IAF inventory (true for all western fighters)

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 05 Jul 2010 22:22

But again US would have to offer friendship, technology and respect as I said that they are all just 4th Gen fighters!

akshay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 20 Jun 2009 12:54

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby akshay » 05 Jul 2010 22:36

The RFP requires TOT ...F-18 will not involve ToT atleast at the level we want.
Moreover we then need to invest in Growler to use the F18.I also believe Awac systems needs work to communicate with the fighter like F18 plus worry about Sanctions.

PLUS how fast do you think the same fighter would land in Paki hands, The US will have surplus soon.

johnny_m
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 16:12

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby johnny_m » 05 Jul 2010 23:57

Kanan it would be better if you put all your points in one post or max 2 rather than making multiple posts.

FA/18 is indeed a very good and mature fighter. The chances of it being in Pakistani hands are minimum as well. With respect to ToT don't expect source codes and stuff like that but they will comply with RFP provisions wrt to Tot.

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 06 Jul 2010 02:03

I hope to see planes like Rafale in Indian Colors. If Mirage 2000 line would have been active, IAF would have gone in for 126 Mirage 2000TH fighters. A fully equipped rafale will be a very powerful opponent to the Chinese airforce planes.

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 06 Jul 2010 07:15

aditya.agd wrote:If Mirage 2000 line would have been active, IAF would have gone in for 126 Mirage 2000TH fighters
:roll: You obviously aren't conversant with the MRCA history much!

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5323
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kartik » 06 Jul 2010 07:44

aditya.agd wrote:I hope to see planes like Rafale in Indian Colors. If Mirage 2000 line would have been active, IAF would have gone in for 126 Mirage 2000TH fighters. A fully equipped rafale will be a very powerful opponent to the Chinese airforce planes.


A small correction- Mirage-2000TH refers to the twin seat variant of the India specific Mirage-2000 variant. What the IAF was looking for at the beginning of the MRCA program nearly a decade ago, were Mirage-2000-5 variants, not the Mirage-2000H/TH which are closer to the original basic Mirage-2000 model with the RDM radars (attrition batch of 10 Mirages had RDI-7). Besides, even if the IAF had acquired Mirages, the MRCA split is supposed to be about 86 single seat and 40 twin seaters so that would've been the likely split.

Carl_T
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2533
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 02:37
Location: anandasya sagare

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Carl_T » 06 Jul 2010 08:28

Wow decade. So some of you guys have been having the same arguments over and over again for the past 10 years and we still have no plane.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4005
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby kit » 06 Jul 2010 11:28

Carl_T wrote:Wow decade. So some of you guys have been having the same arguments over and over again for the past 10 years and we still have no plane.


Yep., its a merry go round in more than one way !!

Kanan wrote:So, what is the best candidate?

will bring diversity into IAF inventory (true for all western fighters)


Is that a good thing for the IAF ? Ah unity in diversity :mrgreen:

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 06 Jul 2010 20:09

kit wrote:
Carl_T wrote:Wow decade. So some of you guys have been having the same arguments over and over again for the past 10 years and we still have no plane.


Yep., its a merry go round in more than one way !!

Kanan wrote:So, what is the best candidate?

will bring diversity into IAF inventory (true for all western fighters)


Is that a good thing for the IAF ? Ah unity in diversity :mrgreen:


Hi Bro,

Le's say our Su-30s fire R-77 at enemy aircraft and shoot 'em down! After sometime the enemy develops jamming algorithms to thwart R-77 and then...........?? If we have a western aircraft they would fire AMRAAM or Meteor which would not be have the same vulnerability! Same applies again to aircraft radar, if we have two-three good fighters it becomes tough to jam like Zhuk-ASE/Irbis-E(Su-30MKI), EL-2052/MMR (LCA), and the MRCA (preferably western)! see my point.....?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Manish_Sharma » 06 Jul 2010 20:48

Kanan wrote:Let's say our Su-30s fire R-77 at enemy aircraft and shoot 'em down! After sometime the enemy develops jamming algorithms to thwart R-77 and then...........?? If we have a western aircraft they would fire AMRAAM or Meteor which would not be have the same vulnerability! Same applies again to aircraft radar, if we have two-three good fighters it becomes tough to jam like Zhuk-ASE/Irbis-E(Su-30MKI), EL-2052/MMR (LCA), and the MRCA (preferably western)! see my point.....?


But Kanan with this logic, countries like US, Russia, France will be in big trouble, no?

France having only having mirage 2000 for so many years and now they'll have Rafale only. First they had magic, mica and now only Meteor (infact most of western europe), same way USAF had F-15 & f-16 while USN F-18.
Armed with Aim 9 + AMRAAMs.

So wouldn't they be in huge trouble once "enemy develops jamming algorithms to thwart their missile algorithms".

With your logic they should also import and create a Chidiyaghar like us, No?

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 06 Jul 2010 21:04

Kanan,
How exactly will they make "jamming algorithms" without having their hands the missile's source code and other crucial data? Its not magic with which they can just whip up some missile specific jamming software.

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 06 Jul 2010 21:27

Hi Manish & Gaur,

Russia, US and France are manufacturers who DOMINATE International Defence Market! They can Rapidly reprogramme missile stocks if necessary(thanks to VAST experience and ABUNDANT infrastructure) and the can change the software when manufacturing new ones as well! India doesn't have this LUXURY! We are IMPORTERS, guys! We need to play SAFE till we learn better! Comparison with Masters of Defence & Weaponry (i.e the U.S,Russia...) will not help our cause! :D

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 06 Jul 2010 21:33

Gaur wrote:Kanan,
How exactly will they make "jamming algorithms" without having their hands the missile's source code and other crucial data? Its not magic with which they can just whip up some missile specific jamming software.


One reason why BVR warfare has had limited success is because of jamming! If they develop means to jam a particular missile type then What will we do?

To quote a great master of warfare :

"In war, be prepared for what is POSSIBLE and not just for what is PROBABLE"-LORD BADEN POWELL

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 06 Jul 2010 21:40

Kanan wrote:One reason why BVR warfare has had limited success is because of jamming!

Source please? AFAIK, the only ways to defeat BVR missiles is by confusing it with decoys and trying to outmaneuver it. However, if you can provide a source to your claim, I will be happy to be corrected.

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 06 Jul 2010 22:07

Gaur wrote:
Kanan wrote:One reason why BVR warfare has had limited success is because of jamming!

Source please? AFAIK, the only ways to defeat BVR missiles is by confusing it with decoys and trying to outmaneuver it. However, if you can provide a source to your claim, I will be happy to be corrected.

A question often asked is why are Sukhoi Flanker variants equipped to carry between eight and twelve BVR missiles? The answer is a simple one - so they can fire more than one three or four round BVR missile salvo during the opening phases of an engagement. In this fashion the aircraft being targeted has a difficult problem as it must jam, decoy and/or outmanoeuvre three or four tightly spaced inbound missiles. Even if we assume a mediocre per round kill probability of 30 percent, a four round salvo still exceeds a total kill probability of 75 percent.

the source is here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

It means Jamming is one of the reasons why BVR warfare is not undefeatable! There are more sources too! Please use google optimally! Happy,bro?

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 06 Jul 2010 22:14

^^
First of all? Why such hostility to a perfectly civil post? Why so insecure?
And secondly, while I am now corrected that jamming also plays a role in defeating BVR combat, your original premise still remains flimsy. Without proper knowledge of software and electronics of a particular missile, it is impossible to develop a missile specific jamming algorithm. Ask any person you know in the software field and you will understand why.

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 06 Jul 2010 22:30

Gaur wrote:^^
First of all? Why such hostility to a perfectly civil post? Why so insecure?
And secondly, while I am now corrected that jamming also plays a role in defeating BVR combat, your original premise still remains flimsy. Without proper knowledge of software and electronics of a particular missile, it is impossible to develop a missile specific jamming algorithm. Ask any person you know in the software field and you will understand why.


Hostility? If I have offended you, I am sorry! I didnt mean to offend you! Don't be angry,bro! Please!

It is NOT impossible to develop a jamming that works aginst missiles without knowing source code! It is very difficult ,though! But as the link I have posted indicates, Jamming is aleady an effective method to counter incoming missiles! If it were impossible,then it would not be used,right?

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 06 Jul 2010 22:51

^^
It seems I misunderstood. These are the hazards of internet where people cannot see each others' expression. No matter, no hard feelings. :-)
Now to the post. Yes, jamming is used to counter incoming missile. I have no issue with that. What I am saying is that it is impossible to develop jammers against a specific missile. You give this point in favour of having different varieties of a/cs and missiles in our arsenal. You said that if one jamming algorithm was developed against one particular missile, others could be used. It is this point that I am saying you need not worry about. You need to know how a jammer works. Jammers basically work by giving information overload to the enemy. Eg: If a active radar seeking BVR missile is targeting an a/c, the jammer of a/c will give out huge amount of Radio frequencies to saturate the missile radar. The hope is that, if enough enery is send, the radar will not be able to detect useful signal from the clutter. This is the basic principle for IR jammers too. So, as you can see, the jammers are not missile specific and until the much of the classified data of the missile are with the enemy, jammers can never be missile specific.

aditya.agd
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 28 Apr 2010 00:37

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby aditya.agd » 07 Jul 2010 02:41

200 Rafales (or any other aircraft) + 280 MKIs + 50 Mirages + 60 Mig 29 + 150 LCAs + 100 Mig27s
+
C17 Globe master
C130 Hercules
AN32
IL76
IL78 Refuelers
+
This is a powerful lineup for any airforce in the region.

naird
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby naird » 07 Jul 2010 05:55

^^ Gaur,

This is why AMRAAM is deadly. Besides having a active guidance seeker wherein targets the Enemy aircraft, if the enemy aircraft tries to jam the missile it switches guidance and homes in on the jamming source.....

Excellent capability -- I dont believe R77 does that ...not sure about Meteor.

naird
BRFite
Posts: 280
Joined: 04 Jun 2009 19:41

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby naird » 07 Jul 2010 06:04

Kanan wrote:
Gaur wrote: The answer is a simple one - so they can fire more than one three or four round BVR missile salvo during the opening phases of an engagement. In this fashion the aircraft being targeted has a difficult problem as it must jam, decoy and/or outmanoeuvre three or four tightly spaced inbound missiles. Even if we assume a mediocre per round kill probability of 30 percent, a four round salvo still exceeds a total kill probability of 75 percent.



Russian doctrine has always been to fire missiles in salvo (two at a time! ) and not just random missiles !! Missiles are fired in salvo's so that it combines and hopes that firing missiles with two different types of seekers (active and passive) may overcome the best of enemy.

If you fire R77 with active seeker and then a missile with passive seeker then any aircraft with a single operator (such as F16) will have its hands full in defeating the missiles -- This will always ensure that the enemy aircraft becomes defensive. All a aircraft then has to do is -- follow the first pair with another pair after some time to ensure a kill.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 07 Jul 2010 06:50

India Tackles $10B Fighter
(Manu Sood, editor of the Indian defense website covers the impending $10 billion deal for the Indian Air Force’s new multi-role aircraft.)

the competition is transparent. If any vendor is kicked out, India will have to give explicit reasons for which part of the tests it failed. So even if the IAF did not want a particular aircraft, if all the tick boxes were checked, no company can be eliminated at this stage even if they have no chance of eventually winning.


With advances in technology, the fighter itself is losing importance and fast becoming a carrier for equipment such as AESA radars, sophisticated missiles and electronic warfare equipment. With miniaturization similar capabilities can be built in to smaller, lighter planes.

At the top-end, India has already made a choice, the Sukhois for which no tender is required. With delays in the indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas project, buying another top-end fighter would mean that the IAF would be too top-heavy. Facing the prospect of a two-front war, large coverage area and the dwindling fleet (32 squadrons of 12 to 18 fighters versus a minimum of 39.5 sanctioned by the government) it is clear that the IAF needs a high number of planes to cover more areas and to deliver more sorties. Given the above it looks as if a cheaper fighter will best suit India’s limited budget. This bends the odds in favor of single-engine competitors or the Russians, who are expected to offer the MiG-35 at a cheap price.


The continuing strength of the Russian-India relationship has repeatedly surprised everyone. In a pure political face-off it is unlikely that any country would be able to outmaneuver Russia. If the past is Russian and the future (limited joint-development of Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft) is Russian, then from a training, spares, infrastructure and familiarity perspective it makes sense to stay with the Russians.

The U.S. often has the best technologies but arms export restrictions can counterbalance the technology advantages. In a war with either Pakistan or China India cannot risk a situation where the U.S. might withhold support of spares or otherwise try to influence India’s behavior. However, the lure of U.S. backing India for a UN Security Council seat is quite lucrative and in a July 2010 report by senior Pentagon official Michele Flournoy made it clear that the U.S. is putting a lot of strategic value on the fighter aircraft deal and has made it clear that they would like to see a U.S. choice. This was backed by the US Navy putting its support behind the Super Hornet for India.

France has recently, virtually given up on sales to Pakistan and thereby made a strong commitment to India that will not go unnoticed. While they are a more reliable defense partner than the US, they are prone to mind-numbing price increases as witnessed in the Scorpene and more recent Turbomeca/HAL deals. EADS has pointed out that it is actually supported by a consortium of four countries plus France but Indian analysts believe that India would have little influence over a consortium and hence their political value is diminished.

The key drawback with the Gripen is that Sweden is seen as the least politically influential country. But there is a catch! What is and should be most important to India, possibly even more than international politics is to build indigenous capabilities. Saab’s Asia Pacific head Jan Widerstrom has pointed out that for a large US military supplier $10 billion spread out over decades is not a very big contract. But for Saab, with Euro 3 billion in annual sales, this would shift the company’s interests to India. This is supported by Par Rohmann, the head of the technology transfer programs, who says Saab would co-develop critical technologies with India. But the Gripen uses a U.S. engine and many other components, which could allow the U.S. to play spoilsport.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20897
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Jul 2010 11:22

That is a pretty good summing up.As the author of the piece says,which I've been advocating all along,it is the numbers and capability of the IAF at all times that matters,as a crisis might blow up suddenly.Here pricing is the key,if the parameters are met and the least risky course is to buy Russian.But that would deny us western tech best obtained from the Europeans.

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 07 Jul 2010 13:25

Rafale gets AESA upgrade, leaves EF behind..

Thales To Deliver AESA Radars Soon

Thales will begin deliveries in August of the first production batch of active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars for the fourth tranche of Rafale strike fighters, Pierre-Yves Chaltiel, head of electronic combat systems, said July 6.


An AESA radar will significantly boost operational capabilities for the Rafale in terms of range, interception, tracking a multithreat environment and also improve countermeasures. The technology will allow for the first time the same active array to be used for the radar and countermeasures. "It will be the only European aircraft with this capability," he said.

The AESA radars will equip the fourth tranche of 60 Rafales ordered by the Direction Générale pour l'Armement (DGA) procurement office at the end of 2009. No financial details were available. A preproduction batch of three AESA radars have flown on the Falcon, Mirage 2000 and Rafale.

The tranche-four Rafales will operate at the F3 standard and the first AESA-equipped squadron is expected to be operational in 2012. Some five or six countries have shown interest in the Searchmaster concept, which could be delivered in two years for the compact model and five years for the larger version.


Eurofighter program sources say the four partner nations will give the go-ahead to the Selex-led program to equip the fighter with the must-have e-scan radar.The new sensor is vital to the aircraft's chances of winning major export orders in India and Japan.

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 07 Jul 2010 19:31

Gaur wrote:^^
It seems I misunderstood. These are the hazards of internet where people cannot see each others' expression. No matter, no hard feelings. :-)
Now to the post. Yes, jamming is used to counter incoming missile. I have no issue with that. What I am saying is that it is impossible to develop jammers against a specific missile. You give this point in favour of having different varieties of a/cs and missiles in our arsenal. You said that if one jamming algorithm was developed against one particular missile, others could be used. It is this point that I am saying you need not worry about. You need to know how a jammer works. Jammers basically work by giving information overload to the enemy. Eg: If a active radar seeking BVR missile is targeting an a/c, the jammer of a/c will give out huge amount of Radio frequencies to saturate the missile radar. The hope is that, if enough enery is send, the radar will not be able to detect useful signal from the clutter. This is the basic principle for IR jammers too. So, as you can see, the jammers are not missile specific and until the much of the classified data of the missile are with the enemy, jammers can never be missile specific.


you are talking about brute force jamming! there are other ways too! But let me ask something here!

Can short range A2A missiles shootdown incoming missiles? I have heard that AIM-9x can do it (on offer with Super Hornet)! I also hear Python 5 is the best at everythingit does! Please comment on this!

Spectra, Rafale's Active stealth system works on Active Cancellation or in terms of Physics Destructive Superimposition! For this to be effective :
1)Every part of the plane has be a sesnor and should also be able to send out radio waves of same frequency as the incident wave and in the exactly opposite direction of incidence! But that is impossible! Anyone who has better info.Plz throw some light on this!

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shiv » 07 Jul 2010 19:50

On the question of jamming specific missiles - how on earth would someone know what missile has been fired at him BVR. He may not even know what aircraft has fired a missile or even if it was an aircraft that fired the missiles coming at him. Besides the person firing the missile may fire off two missiles with different homing methods.

So I believe jamming and evasion are generic and not missile specific.

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Gaur » 07 Jul 2010 20:15

Kanan wrote:you are talking about brute force jamming! there are other ways too! But let me ask something here!

There may be other ways, however I do not know of them. Anyways, what I do know for certain is that till this date, no missile specific jammer has either been built nor is there any known program which aims to do so. Anyways, I think this discussion is not going anywhere and I have said all that I have to say on this matter. Also, this line of discussion is not for MRCA thread. So, this will be my last post regarding this topic in this thread.

Kanan wrote:Can short range A2A missiles shootdown incoming missiles? I have heard that AIM-9x can do it (on offer with Super Hornet)! I also hear Python 5 is the best at everythingit does! Please comment on this!

AIM-9X shooting down another incoming SAM or AAM? This is news to me and I will remain sceptical until there are tests done to confirm this.

Kanan wrote:Spectra, Rafale's Active stealth system works on Active Cancellation or in terms of Physics Destructive Superimposition! For this to be effective :
1)Every part of the plane has be a sesnor and should also be able to send out radio waves of same frequency as the incident wave and in the exactly opposite direction of incidence! But that is impossible! Anyone who has better info.Plz throw some light on this!

I do not know how SPECTRA exactly works and I doubt anyone does. But it surely cannot work in the way you propose. If the target a/c will send the radio waves back to the targeting a/c, will it not be helping the targeting radar? From my limited understanding on this matter, the basic principle used is that of wave interference or more precisely destructive interference in which the waves of opposite phase are sent out to make the net wave amplitude to be zero.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5152
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby jamwal » 07 Jul 2010 20:42

Kanan wrote:Selecting MiG-35 would breathe life into the sagging Indo-Russian ties but leaves India status-quo on other fronts while India would be practically putting all Eggs in one baskets (PAKFA,Su-30s and MiG-35s)
Also Russian weapons are a lot of value for money and unquestionable support system(No sanctions)

Selecting F-18 would kick start a major change in Indo-US ties and will take it to the next level! It comes with strings attached and they are DAMN EXPENSIVE!

Europe, regardless of recession and eurozone crisis, requires customers! And they will be a safe bet! Neither US or Russia would be THAT pissed off if Europe wins!!!!



Why do we have to care about who gets pissed ? :roll: Discussions on this topic are getting really annoying.

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 07 Jul 2010 20:49

yes Gaur, Destructive interference is what I meant to say! Just one phase difference but has to be in the same direction in which the incident wave and there mean of the both waves has to be same!

And shiv,Jammmers are not specific! Yeps! In my post what I meant to say is if a jammer with enemy proves particularly effective against a missile type say (R-77) then would need to have another misssile say (meteor)

Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 30 Jun 2010 21:21
Location: In the line of Fire!
Contact:

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Kanan » 07 Jul 2010 20:53

DEL
Last edited by Rahul M on 08 Jul 2010 01:05, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: not the thread to discuss foreign relations.

ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 355
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby ManuJ » 07 Jul 2010 21:37


From the above link,
With both states having nuclear weapons a deep-penetration strike is virtually ruled-out as per Brig Kanwal of CLAWS (Centre for Land Warfare Studies) since it would risk over-flying an enemy’s secret nuclear installations. He further says that there is an 80 percent to 90 percent probability that the next war will break out in the mountains and at least a 60 percent probability that the next war will remain limited to the mountains. In this scenario, the requirement of extended range is minimal.


Gives us a critical insight into the current thought-process of the Indian security establishment. The Leh trials would have been of paramount importance. Which of the offered fighters is cheap over its life-cycle and can operate optimally in the mountains? That would decide the winner.

The scramble to create new mountain divisions is tied into this.

Luxtor
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 28 Sep 2003 11:31
Location: Earth ... but in a parallel universe

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Luxtor » 07 Jul 2010 23:29

ManuJ wrote:

From the above link,
With both states having nuclear weapons a deep-penetration strike is virtually ruled-out as per Brig Kanwal of CLAWS (Centre for Land Warfare Studies) since it would risk over-flying an enemy’s secret nuclear installations. He further says that there is an 80 percent to 90 percent probability that the next war will break out in the mountains and at least a 60 percent probability that the next war will remain limited to the mountains. In this scenario, the requirement of extended range is minimal.


Gives us a critical insight into the current thought-process of the Indian security establishment. The Leh trials would have been of paramount importance. Which of the offered fighters is cheap over its life-cycle and can operate optimally in the mountains? That would decide the winner.

The scramble to create new mountain divisions is tied into this.


80 percent to 90 percent probability that the next war will break out in the mountains and at least a 60 percent probability that the next war will remain limited to the mountains


This statement is obvious and in reference to Pakistan and how the Pukis would like to fight wars with India...in the mountains, even though they were not successful in all the attempts at mountain warfare with India, the last time being the Kargil war. The Pukis know very well that in the plains and on the sea they would be thrashed so quickly by India within a few days. So they keep dreaming that one day they will be successful in the mountains if they catch India napping again. They don't seem to learn lessons from their past failures and repeated humiliations. :D :) :rotfl: 8) :lol: :P :twisted:

nits
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby nits » 08 Jul 2010 00:36

Luxtor wrote:
This statement is obvious and in reference to Pakistan and how the Pukis would like to fight wars with India..


Sir we have mountains on other side of border also... :arrow:

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8192
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby Indranil » 08 Jul 2010 01:00

ManuJ wrote:

From the above link,
With both states having nuclear weapons a deep-penetration strike is virtually ruled-out as per Brig Kanwal of CLAWS (Centre for Land Warfare Studies) since it would risk over-flying an enemy’s secret nuclear installations. He further says that there is an 80 percent to 90 percent probability that the next war will break out in the mountains and at least a 60 percent probability that the next war will remain limited to the mountains. In this scenario, the requirement of extended range is minimal.


Gives us a critical insight into the current thought-process of the Indian security establishment. The Leh trials would have been of paramount importance. Which of the offered fighters is cheap over its life-cycle and can operate optimally in the mountains? That would decide the winner.

The scramble to create new mountain divisions is tied into this.


We should find out what is meant by "extended range". The ability of a fighter to stay engaged in a duel is critical. With good pilots (one knows the strength and weakness of his plane and his opposition's) in good planes, it has often been found in asymmetric air exercises, that a kill is often hard to make. If one has to break away because of lack of fuel, he would become easy prey. So I believe we should understand the point when "adequate range" becomes "extended range". Any insights?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7732
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 08 Jul 2010 10:08

ManuJ wrote:
From the above link,
With both states having nuclear weapons a deep-penetration strike is virtually ruled-out as per Brig Kanwal of CLAWS (Centre for Land Warfare Studies) since it would risk over-flying an enemy’s secret nuclear installations. He further says that there is an 80 percent to 90 percent probability that the next war will break out in the mountains and at least a 60 percent probability that the next war will remain limited to the mountains. In this scenario, the requirement of extended range is minimal.
<SNIP>


Even my neighborhood dhobi knows that next war is going to be fought in mountains and remain confined to mountains - the fact that Himalayas run from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh is a small coincidence... :roll:

shukla
BRFite
Posts: 1727
Joined: 17 Aug 2009 20:50
Location: Land of Oz!

Re: MRCA News and Discussion

Postby shukla » 08 Jul 2010 10:55

Europe launches a broadside against US in `mother of all defence deals'

"Through Eurofighter, four nations (UK, Germany, Spain and Italy) have come together to enter into a real security and cutting-edge technology partnership with India for the next 20 to 30 years," said German ambassador Thomas Matussek.

Holding that the "unhappiness" over the cancelled deals had been conveyed to the Indian government, Matussek wondered whether India would like to acquire a fighter which was flying across the border as well, in a clear reference to the US supplying F-16s to Pakistan despite Indian objections.

Added the CEO of EADS military air systems, Bernhard Gerwert, "Our price is the best value for money. Our bid has the full support of the four nations. So, we are not afraid of competition."

The strong European pitch comes soon after the American undersecretary of defence for policy, Michele Flournoy, strongly advocated "US solutions for India's defence needs" to further cement the expansive Indo-US strategic partnership.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests