Rafale & MMRCA News and Discussions

[Jean_M]

It seems Paris Airshow is opening otherwise tightly closed sources: http://lemamouth.blogspot.fr/2013/06/ra ... .html#more

Once again, a HUD vid of a Rafale going BFM, this time against an F16 during last week's Nato Tiger Meet. Once again, no ROE. It's much smoother and shorter than against the F22 (look at the G counter).

[Karan M]

The French sold Pakistan Mirage III, Mirage V plus Alouette, Atlantique and Falcon 20.

Mirage 3 and 5 are obsolete. During the Kargil conflict, France embargoed upgraded Mirage delivery to Pak, till the conflict was over. During India's nuke tests, they were the one country that refrained from attacking India, while the US was busy sanctioning India to the last item.
For the JF-17, France - with Indian money and pressure- backed off of upgrades.
Thats a plus for France.

The Russians sold them Mi-17, winked away their Thandaa fighter engines and will do the same for the Su-30s that they will be getting from the Chinese.

Mi-17s are peanuts in comparison to the F-16s with AMRAAMs and the latest strike oriented munitions package. JF-17s are obsolete platforms in most parameters. The Su-30s "they will be getting" - from where and whom? The Chinese just have a handful of Su-30s all of which are a generation behind the Su-30 MKI, not to mention are not being built in China either. The J-11s which China is making, continue to suffer from severe QA issues.

All of this just for being pakis. At least they had to perform good rand!bazi against the soviets to get their F-16s from the Americans.

Who cares what pakistan performed for the US. The munitions supplied by US to Pakistan are state of the art, and directly targeted against India.

TOW2As to Pakistan. Does Taliban have ERA equipped armour? May be ineffective against T90S, but will be effective against T72.
P3Cs to Pakistan. Does Taliban have a Navy? Affects IN plans.
F16s with AMRAAMs. Does Taliban pose an A2A threat? Gives Pak a BVR capability.

The above examples speak for themselves.

[member_23694]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
what do u make of the reported ongoing discussion for Su 35 to China.
Is there a possibility of Russia after loosing MMRCA (irrespective of PAK FA) providing Su 35 to China.
That can be some real concern for IAF .
I am aware of plans for Super Su 30 and PAK FA , but with the reverse engineering capability as seen in the past , this
development needs to be taken seriously and preempted if feasible.

[abhik]

Abhik, you are right. But the situation is what it is, and our AF will require a few decades to change to the Navy;s attitude, in which case, we make do with what we have to..

The IAF's preference(if any) of imported maal over indigenous aircraft is not a legitimate reason, not something that has to be pandered to.

[Karan M]

Dhiraj, the Su-35 deal is not through yet. Anyways, China reverse engineering engines is not a feasible proposition and in terms of radars/sensors, they will continue to advance, and so shall we. The Super-30 deal and FGFA are both lucrative and also in part, driven by the desire to continue to do business with Russia (ensuring the same technologies dont flow to PRC).

Abhik, agree. But the armed forces have a lock over the procurement process and any attempt to launch local programs despite their disinterest/passive opposition, has backfired - case in point Arjun (IA adversarial relationship) and LCA (IAF complete disinterest for many years in the project). Things are changing, but not across the board, so lets hope for better times, but we have to be realistic that things wont change overnight either.

[Victor]

This 'reverse engineering' referred to is actually under-the-table cooperation. Every single aircraft the Chinese have is a gift from the Russians. Ditto for guns, arty, ships, tanks, rockets even spacecraft. Nothing is 'reverse engineering'.

[GeorgeWelch]

The US sold Pakistan F-16s, everything else pales in comparison.

But that's ok because they all come equipped will kill switches and if Pakistan tried to use them against India, the US would just cause them to fall out of the sky.

[Karan M]

This 'reverse engineering' referred to is actually under-the-table cooperation. Every single aircraft the Chinese have is a gift from the Russians. Ditto for guns, arty, ships, tanks, rockets even spacecraft. Nothing is 'reverse engineering'.

And nothing stops India from going the same route, only that it would kill the huge import tabs for equipment that we actually dont need or have better local alternatives available - a percentage of that tab ends up sponsoring a certain parties continuation in power & allowing them to loot the country dry across the board.

[Karan M]

The US sold Pakistan F-16s, everything else pales in comparison.

But that's ok because they all come equipped will kill switches and if Pakistan tried to use them against India, the US would just cause them to fall out of the sky.

Sure, the US would love to do that, and in the process blow up its chances of future exports by letting everyone know they have kill switches (first point) and also ruin the PR of the F-16 having an undefeated record (second point) and third, the claim that everything the US sold Pakistan comes with kill switches appears to be more of an urban legend than real fact (third point). At best, they might withhold spares & follow on supplies, which barely counts since Pakistan would have stockpiled enough for a brief conflict.

What is galling is of course, that a lot of this equipment literally went to Pakistan free, under FMS and what not, and with liberal dollops of aid otherwise, with that latter money now becoming Pakistans, which it then "spends" on US equipment.
Meanwhile, to counter all that, India must buy American at market rates. And while this is occurring, US analysts go on to speak of how the US should use military sales for political influence, US reps during MMRCA talks admit they cant guarantee TOT without high level admin waivers, the US goes slow on LCA flight consultancy permits (EADS lands the deal)... how stupid did they think the IAF/India was? Despite all this, India continues to buy American (more a sign of the current GOI's political stance) but to believe the above incidents did not signal a warning to Indian defence leaders would be impractical.

[Cosmo_R]

time to halal this thread

+1 especially since even troll does not want to spend 'more time' here.

[Karan M]

use this thread to document rafale, one disagreement and the thread should be dropped?

[shyamd]

Typhoon lost in the Qatari trials although they say had they shown the tranche 3 it would have been a fair fight. US chaps weren't even contacted after trials.

[Cosmo_R]

use this thread to document rafale, one disagreement and the thread should be dropped?

Perhaps a new thread to replace. "Rafale Induction into IAF by 2016. Reality or Wishful Thinking?"

This Katrina/Kareena/Sunny/ whatever metaphor is demeaning. Why does everything Indian have to be reduced to Bollywood/Cricket/Curry?

JMT

[NRao]

time to halal this thread

Thread or the plane?

I think time to drastically reduce the Rafale order (if not kill it) and get the Russians to design a proper FGFA for India.

At least get one plane abs right. Cannot be the Rafale.

[abhik]

Abhik, agree. But the armed forces have a lock over the procurement process and any attempt to launch local programs despite their disinterest/passive opposition, has backfired - case in point Arjun (IA adversarial relationship) and LCA (IAF complete disinterest for many years in the project). Things are changing, but not across the board, so lets hope for better times, but we have to be realistic that things wont change overnight either.

As I have said earlier there is no need to any such pander to any such preference. They should be given no choice. This is seriously affecting the national defence preparedness. Look at the Army, possibly the worst offender in this regard. Most of its weapons have reached obsolescence. But it's capital expenditure for modernization has been shrinking(relatively). So much so that it has fallen behind the Navy, the smallest of our armed forces. This is simply a result of them opposing indigenous weapons(Arjun, Nag etc) when available or floating tenders for their importation even before considering a locally made option. Most of these tenders never reach their logical conclusion. Some like the howitzer have been fruitless even after several cycles of of this process. Given our circumstances the most probable result of such an acquisition processes is only failure. On the other hand indigenous systems which have been approved (such as the Dhruv and Akash) have quickly gotten orders worth thousands of crores almost no questions asked.

[abhik]

Perhaps a new thread to replace. "Rafale Induction into IAF by 2016. Reality or Wishful Thinking?"

By my estimate(fwiw) realistically we won't have even 2 squadrons Rafales before 2020. By this time the LCA Mk 2 will be in production and the FGFA itself will be only 2 years away. Once you consider these points the Rafale just does not seem worth the huge expense in resources.

[SaiK]

Rather platform and product specific threads, what IAF needs are and capability specific threads makes more sense.. that way, we can squarely see where exactly the pit falls are and how both IAF and MoD are messing with security of the nation.

[abhik]

TOW2As to Pakistan. Does Taliban have ERA equipped armour? May be ineffective against T90S, but will be effective against T72.

Pakistan also has french MILAN atgms naa?
The "x country gave weapons to Pakistan/China so they are better than y" argument is really irrelevant. They all did what they thought was in best interest at that time. If the Americans threatened us in 1971 with an aircraft carrier, they also lent us transport aircrafts in 1962. What is clear is that the French wrt to us are only after money, they may sell us down the river if a higher bidder emerges. They(and the Brits) are a 3rd rate power and their friendship is worth the least.

[eklavya]

This is just subjective opinion & nor does the pilot make it clear which Su-30 he is referring to & whether the IAF used all its bag of tricks, namely TVC.

Garuda IV. 2010. IAF brought the Su-30MKI, Singapore brought the F-16 Blk 52, and the French brought the Mirage 2000-5 and Rafale.

http://www.jetwashaviationphotos.com/Pa ... V2010.aspx

I would rather pay attention to the words of a professional fighter pilot that has flown against the Su-30MKI than desktop conjecture about TVC, HMCS, etc.

Again, no mention of the ROE, or what constraints the IAF operated their Su-30 MKIs with.
Unlike the British, the IAF was in no desire to hard sell the Su-30 MKI or export it, and can hence operate with their hands relatively closed.

The RAF chief's words carry far more weight than desktop conjecture about "hands relatively closed" and "full bag of tricks". The actual results of the exercise undermine your case, excuses included.

Again, out of date information. The data in that report is now several years out of date. The Typhoons in the meantime have gone through several upgrades, hardware and software & are in no way representative of the aircraft that took part in that competition!

Obviously, you did not bother reading the report. The Swiss Air Force evaluated the three aircraft (Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon) also taking into account the modifications/improvements that would be made in the aircraft that would be inducted in Swiss AF squadron service in 2015.

The Su-30 RCS can be treated with RAM to suppress key hotspots - which the Russians and Indians both have the technology to do, and also employs high power jammers with large antenna arrays. In contrast, the Rafale Spectra suite is limited to small focused apertures. Different approaches for different designs.

No amount of RAM paint will remove the position of the Su-30s engines within its airframes or its basic geometry. The Su-30MKI has a HUGE and undeniable disadvantage when it comes to RCS, especially against a Rafale class aircraft.

Not relevant, as currently the Su-30 has a functional IRST and the Rafale does not.

Of course the thermal signature matters a lot, especially when the Su-30's engines are so much bigger than the Rafale's, and the Su-30's design doesn't do anything to supress the engine's thermal signature. The Rafale's OSF is very much operational, and in combination with MICA IR, is a lethal threat to the Su-30MKI.

The Rafale's AESA is not a true LPI set, unlike the APG-77. In the same vein, the Bars being a PESA is also a LPI radar as is the Rafale as both employ rapidly focused "pencil" beams, but both can be detected by modern digital RWRs.

Who says the Rafale AESA is not a true LPI? Any credible source?

and lower vulnerability to jamming,

Speculation.

Lower vulnerability to jamming is one of the key advantages of AESA technology; no point denying the obvious.

the METEOR will be less vulnerable to jamming, etc.

Again, more speculation.

The METEOR is designed to have a no escape zone 3x that of the AMRAAM, which it will replace in RAF service. The IAF has also looked into integrating the METEOR (which will be much more expensive than the R-77) into the Su-30MKI (why bother if the R-77 is equally good). The superior lethality of the METEOR missile (in combination with the Rafale's AESA radar) is not in question.

And these Super-30s will be stationed against the PRC per prior reports. The Super 30 upgrade itself is in two tranches. The second to utilize technologies developed for the PAKFA.

The IAF has not ordered any Super-30 (despite the very desperate marketing campaign in the Indian and Russian media), but you already know where they will be deployed. Hats off ... not

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130206/nation.htm#3

IAF Chief Air Chief Marshall NAK Browne today said “talks are on with Russia on the Super Sukhoi”. The latest lot of 42 for which an agreement was signed on December 24 will not be the upgraded class, the IAF Chief added while answering queries on the sidelines of an Aero-India function. There are 230 Sukhois in the IAF inventory and another 42 were added when Russian President Vladimir Putin visited India.

[eklavya]

that way, we can squarely see where exactly the pit falls are and how both IAF and MoD are messing with security of the nation.

Go on, tell us where the pit falls are.

[eklavya]

I think time to drastically reduce the Rafale order (if not kill it) and get the Russians to design a proper FGFA for India.

At least get one plane abs right. Cannot be the Rafale.

So much faith in the Russians' ability to design a "proper FGFA" and get it "abs right". They will be so touched.

[Victor]

What we need (not want) right now is a dal-roti solution that can give us excellent sustenance quickly and cheaply, not a pate de fois gras solution that includes the recipe. If the dal-roti solution uses the same atta as the local paratha (LCA) and is made by the biggest goonda on the block, so much the better. A squadron of Super Hornets could be sitting in Palam tomorrow with more to follow in quick succession and would give the pakis and chinese something to chew on. Not so the Rafale which *may* arrive in dribs and drabs ten tears from now. I would also wager that our aviation industry, such as it is, would absorb far more tech via the Americans any day than we have from the brits, French or Russians in 60 years.

The arguments against using American fighters are not based on hard headed reality. We have the opportunity to coopt the Americans but in order to do so, we need an aggressive and self-confident approach based on who we are today, not what we were yesterday. We will become a gorilla in a few short years, even if we sit still in our dhotis. The French are finished as a power and so are the brits. The Russians are too tightly in bed with the chinese and see them, not us, as their natural alliy against America. So guess where they will lean in a pinch. OTOH, I doubt there is any other country that has as many of its native people involved in American defense production or business, research & education than India. Not even Israel.

[Karan M]

What we need (not want) right now is a dal-roti solution that can give us excellent sustenance quickly and cheaply, not a pate de fois gras solution that includes the recipe. If the dal-roti solution uses the same atta as the local paratha (LCA) and is made by the biggest goonda on the block, so much the better. A squadron of Super Hornets could be sitting in Palam tomorrow with more to follow in quick succession and would give the pakis and chinese something to chew on.

Useless if the Americans decide that an aggressive India is not in their interest, something your thesis does not take in take into account.

Not so the Rafale which *may* arrive in dribs and drabs ten tears from now. I would also wager that our aviation industry, such as it is, would absorb far more tech via the Americans any day than we have from the brits, French or Russians in 60 years.

A wager based on what, exactly? What facts are there to support such an assertion? Tech from European programs has benefited India, with whatever constraints there are. There is no example of the US providing any game changing tech to India, or even aggressively promoting it.

The arguments against using American fighters are not based on hard headed reality.

On the contrary, they are based on hard headed reality of seeing US policies in action as versus being influenced by belief in what US-Indian relations could, perhaps, be.

We have the opportunity to coopt the Americans but in order to do so, we need an aggressive and self-confident approach based on who we are today, not what we were yesterday.

Takes two hands to clap. If the US thinks it can dominate, it will attempt to do so.

We will become a gorilla in a few short years, even if we sit still in our dhotis.

Not all Indians wear dhotis. Please stop this line of argumentation. Its offensive & quite frankly, puerile.
And as regards being a gorilla. The Russians are one. The Chinese are well on the way to being one. The US reaction is to treat both as threats.

The French are finished as a power and so are the brits.

Power or not, the French have cutting edge tech.

Russians are too tightly in bed with the chinese and see them, not us, as their natural alliy against America. So guess where they will lean in a pinch.

Plain speculation. The Russians share a border with the PRC and are wary of sharing their latest tech with the PRC. The Americans are hardly their primary threat anymore, given how the US has been frittering away its precious resources chasing mirages in Iraq and elsewhere.

OTOH, I doubt there is any other country that has as many of its native people involved in American defense production or business, research & education than India. Not even Israel.

Sort of irrelevant dont you think, because those Indians are lost to India unless they declare their allegiance to India.

[Karan M]

Garuda IV. 2010. IAF brought the Su-30MKI, Singapore brought the F-16 Blk 52, and the French brought the Mirage 2000-5 and Rafale.

http://www.jetwashaviationphotos.com/Pa ... V2010.aspx

And how do you know what the IAF did in Garuda -IV? Seems to me that you are engaging in desktop conjecture about what the IAF did at Garuda-IV (or not).

I would rather pay attention to the words of a professional fighter pilot that has flown against the Su-30MKI than desktop conjecture about TVC, HMCS, etc.

Unlike you, many of us have the liberty of speaking to professional fighter pilots, at public events, who operate the Su-30MKI and not relying on selective conjecture or publicity material about what salesmen desperate to sell their wares, claim.

The RAF chief's words carry far more weight than desktop conjecture about "hands relatively closed" and "full bag of tricks". The actual results of the exercise undermine your case, excuses included.

The RAF chief, all his claims apart, ended up departing India with no sales, bombastic claims apart. If the EF was all you claim it was, it would have swung the MMRCA. It did not. The actual results of the exercise are unknown to you, your claims apart, and the relative demerits and merits of each platform are clearly beyond you - that too is evident. So skip the attempts to sound authoritative.

Obviously, you did not bother reading the report. The Swiss Air Force evaluated the three aircraft (Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon) also taking into account the modifications/improvements that would be made in the aircraft that would be inducted in Swiss AF squadron service in 2015.

The Swiss AF did not have a crystal ball with them to certify that what their assumptions were, would go through. They made assumptions, not all of them held true. Forget about reading the report, you clearly lack awareness about these platforms in question. Furthermore, the issue about the modifications/improvements that would be inducted for Swiss specific aircraft is irrelevant, as the IAF has asked for its own specific requirements which are in several cases clearly different from what the Swiss AF would require

No amount of RAM paint will remove the position of the Su-30s engines within its airframes or its basic geometry. The Su-30MKI has a HUGE and undeniable disadvantage when it comes to RCS, especially against a Rafale class aircraft.

That you think RAM is paint, clearly demonstrates how little you understand about RAM in general. Also, kudos for deliberately ignoring the point about the difference in jamming capabilities between the two different classes of aircraft & how these differing approaches result in similar outcomes. In short, you understand little about the topic, yet are attempting to make categorical statements about it.

Of course the thermal signature matters a lot, especially when the Su-30's engines are so much bigger than the Rafale's, and the Su-30's design doesn't do anything to supress the engine's thermal signature. The Rafale's OSF is very much operational, and in combination with MICA IR, is a lethal threat to the Su-30MKI.

Rubbish. The statement i made was that the Su-30 MKI has an IRST, the Rafale does not. Your statement meanders all over the place, but does not address this. The fact of the matter is that the OSF on the Rafale of today does not have an IRST. That you dont even know this, speaks volumes of your so called understanding of either platform. All the Rafale does have, is a LRF & a day only TV/CCD sensor. The IAF RFP stresses upon an operational IRST, the specifics of which are yet to be detailed, as versus the Russian platforms which have multiple generations of IRSTs from UOMZ and NIIPP, operational.

Who says the Rafale AESA is not a true LPI? Any credible source?

Go look it up. That you don't even know this, yet again, shows how little you understand about the topic. The RBE-2 AESA is nothing a but an AESA Tx/Rx retrofit to the RBE-2 PESA backend.

True LPI radars are only currently fielded on the F-22, aka the AN/APG-77 and come with pros and cons. The F-35 again being a VLO fighter will have a similar set. NIIP has alluded, obliquely to having similar capabilities on the Sh-121 AESA with the N036 front facing AESA.

Neither the RBE-2 AESA, or the Captor-E on the other hand claim to be LPI radars. They do however claim to provide significant improvements over their prior versions in terms of range, reliability etc.

Lower vulnerability to jamming is one of the key advantages of AESA technology; no point denying the obvious.

Rubbish. You are just quoting generics and assuming that people here lack the ability to look through your handwaving. Jamming and ECCM depend on so many factors - algorithms, beam control/modulation, power emission, data & signal processing, that its silly to make the kind of claims that you did. Mature mechanical radars may end up having better anti jamming capabilities in some cases than AESA radars. Merely saying that "x" has the potential to end up being better over the long run matters little. Do you know the specific capabilities of the RBE-2 versus the N011M Bars to say which has better capabilities? You dont. Your assertions are meaningless.

The METEOR is designed to have a no escape zone 3x that of the AMRAAM, which it will replace in RAF service. The IAF has also looked into integrating the METEOR (which will be much more expensive than the R-77) into the Su-30MKI (why bother if the R-77 is equally good). The superior lethality of the METEOR missile (in combination with the Rafale's AESA radar) is not in question.

Nice handwave. Whom are you kidding? The specific point made was about the seeker of the Meteor, which remains a RF seeker, and is hence vulnerable to RF jamming which is increasingly common and sophisticated. Instead, you make a wide ranging statement about the Meteors propulsion advantages which are well known. The point remains that by utilizing a seeker derived from the Mica, the Meteor remains vulnerable to RF jamming.

The IAF has not ordered any Super-30 (despite the very desperate marketing campaign in the Indian and Russian media), but you already know where they will be deployed. Hats off ... not

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130206/nation.htm#3

IAF Chief Air Chief Marshall NAK Browne today said “talks are on with Russia on the Super Sukhoi”. The latest lot of 42 for which an agreement was signed on December 24 will not be the upgraded class, the IAF Chief added while answering queries on the sidelines of an Aero-India function. There are 230 Sukhois in the IAF inventory and another 42 were added when Russian President Vladimir Putin visited India.

Your ignorance speaks for itself. First, you are unaware that the IAF has begun work with Russian for the Super Sukhoi - ergo the statement about talks are on with Russia for the Super Sukhoi. Something that clearly notes that the IAF is serious about the venture, and unlike your claims, is not a desparate marketing campaign.

Second, you are clearly not aware that Indian organizations are already working on the Super-30 upgrade, tasked by the IAF.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Emj6h04BduY/U ... puters.jpg

The DARE in fact has a mission engineering rig, remarkably similar to the Su-35 cockpit, setup for engineering evaluation.
If you actually did some legwork, you could even find it in a DRDO Techfocus article. But you do not know this. Nor can you admit the fact that the Super-30 upgrade by now is well known amongst anyone who follows Indian defence issues seriously, with even revised EW suites being shown on the Su-30 MKI.

What is even more remarkable is that you don't even understand the Indian procurement process. The IAF has noted that it is working on the Super-30 upgrade with Russia to define the specifics. NIIP, the lead Russian developer is on record stating what they have on offer & each of their items dwarfs what is yet to come on the Rafale. It is to the IAF's choice as to what to pick & choose.

Which is exactly what I pointed out in my prior posts, citing a prior IAF procurement plan which envisages Super-30 procurement in two phases. Phase 1 taking Su-35 tech and Indian tech and re-purposing it for the Su-30. Phase2 leveraging FGFA tech.

That the IAF is spending time detailing the specifics is hardly remarkable. The IAF has asked for its new 42 to be a standard fit, as versus the Super-30 fit, the reason for which is given in my prior post. One, the IAF needs its Sukhois fast. Second, NIIP has already upgraded the Bars to a new standard which these new fighters will have. In short, the IAF can afford to wait for its Super-30 to be as good as possible.

Last, but not least, the plan for stationing the Super-30s is not rocket science, its public knowledge. Go ahead and do some research, instead of relying on throw away lines from sources which only selectively buttress your beliefs. Its very clear, that you don't have any detailed idea about any of these platforms, you never sat down & even dispassionately observed their pros and cons or even evaluated their future. Hence your citation of one off statements "x is better than y", which would make anyone shake their heads at what you are making observations about.

[member_20292]

On the contrary, they are based on hard headed reality of seeing US policies in action as versus being influenced by belief in what US-Indian relations could, perhaps, be.

Karan Saar, don't tell me you aren't enthused by the sight of the C130s, the P8Is and the C 17 planes coming in from the US, on time, on (and in some cases, before) schedule, with all the training done well.

I certainly am.

Once you have the plane in your hands...then the talk of ToT et al comes up. I don't believe we have done too badly with what we did with the Jaguar, the Mirage, and the Mig 29s, even though they were all manufactured abroad, did we? We learnt a lot. We probably reverse engineer as much as the Chinese...we just do not produce the reverse engineered copies. But rest assured the lessons are present in the LCA.

So yeah, short point from my side; I like the US cheap , happy, and on SCHEDULE aircraft rolling off the mass market lines in Texas. Great to behold, and I would say, be a part of those supply chains.

[member_20292]

btw, does the novator k 100 work in the indian arsenal? are we making it, like claimed in 2004?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novator_K ... al_history

[SaiK]

ekalavya, it is not me to tell, it is for us to tell... you can start from where our requirements were for, what capabilities we want to have, and how much far have we gone on this MMRCA front, and the time we have taken to do it.

check if it is even necessary to continue on this requirement, and like they did scrap trishul, we can scrap this as well. we have no clear idea, as to what capabilities we want to get at what cost/money and efforts, and technology product debts.

[Victor]

Useless if the Americans decide that an aggressive India is not in their interest, something your thesis does not take in take into account.

We have given them ungli in international trade forums and told them to go to hell on nuke sops, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria but they have just exempted us from sanctions on Iranian oil imports and are going to show us how to get oil from shale deposits. What exactly do we have to do to show that an agressive India is not in their interest?

A wager based on what, exactly? What facts are there to support such an assertion?

Based on the French production rate vs the American. Forget the HAL production rate. The additional fear is that the French may make us pay for further Rafale development just like the Russians.

There is no example of the US providing any game changing tech to India, or even aggressively promoting it.

Come on! HAL was created by Intercontinental Aircraft Corporation of New York in 1940! Our space and nuke programs had American roots too. Nowadays, Boeing is making a high altitude engine test facility for DRDO, BEL is making parts for Super Hornet, Tata is making parts for Boeing, HAL is making parts for Boeing are just a few examples. I don't see anything comparable from the French (or Russians) or even the potential for it. Nope, there is a thousand-fold better potential for us to absorb tech if we align with the Americans and MAKE SURE they don't/can't screw with us. (We can do this, only an insecure victim mentality will prevent it).

If the US thinks it can dominate, it will attempt to do so.

So would anyone else rip us off if they could, including the French and Russians. Mirage upgrade and Gorshkov anyone?

Not all Indians wear dhotis...Its offensive & quite frankly, puerile.

You know very well that this is an euphemism for the Indian bureaucracy's indecisiveness and inefficiency. The offensive and puerile part is your own color, not mine. For the record, I like dhotis and wear them as a matter of style when appropriate.

Plain speculation. The Russians share a border with the PRC and are wary of sharing their latest tech with the PRC.

I see. So that is why even after the Chinese 'reverse engineered' every single piece of Russian maal starting from the 1950s--pistols, rifles, tanks, ships, fighters, bombers, submarines, missiles and spacecraft--the Russians STILL sell them their latest maal and even excuse their export to pakistan, bangladesh and sri lanka. Interesting kind of wariness this. It is an open secret that the latest 'Chinese stealth aircraft' are designed in Chinese buildings filled with Russian engineers. If I were to really speculate, I would say they are doing this with the intention of pulling the wool over gullible Indian eyes while we throw money at MTA, PAKFA etc, etc.

Sort of irrelevant dont you think, because those Indians are lost to India unless they declare their allegiance to India.

What do you mean by 'lost to India'? The only thing NRIs can't do by law is vote for the rascally, thieving scoundrels that RNIs vote into power like clockwork. Living in India is no stamp of patriotism and many Indians who have ostensibly 'declared their allegiance' to India as you put it are better off outside India where they won't be allowed to do as much damage. Besides, isn't it better to have a whole lot of rich Indians rooting for India in the US than zero Indians in France? This is a silly and pointless argument.

[eklavya]

And how do you know what the IAF did in Garuda -IV? Seems to me that you are engaging in desktop conjecture about what the IAF did at Garuda-IV (or not).

The French AF fighter pilot is on the record stating that he has flown against the Su-30MKI and that in a "dogfight" the Rafale has an advantage. You have shown NOTHING to counter his statement.

Unlike you, many of us have the liberty of speaking to professional fighter pilots, at public events, who operate the Su-30MKI and not relying on selective conjecture or publicity material about what salesmen desperate to sell their wares, claim.

Your statement is silly to say the least. No fighter pilot would tell some spotty shifty nosey character at an airshow anything worth knowing.

The RAF chief, all his claims apart, ended up departing India with no sales, bombastic claims apart. If the EF was all you claim it was, it would have swung the MMRCA. It did not. The actual results of the exercise are unknown to you, your claims apart, and the relative demerits and merits of each platform are clearly beyond you - that too is evident. So skip the attempts to sound authoritative.

What the RAF chief said about the Typhoon's performance versus the Su-30MKI is highly authoritative. You have shown NOTHING to counter his statement.

The Swiss AF did not have a crystal ball with them to certify that what their assumptions were, would go through. They made assumptions, not all of them held true.

The Swiss AF are far better placed to make a judgment than your sad "I speak to pilots at public functions" claims. Since the Swiss Air Force report makes your credibility resemble Swiss cheese, you have to resort to making up hilarious claims like "the report is outdated", "their assumptions are wrong", "their Rafale is not our Rafale", etc.

In short, you understand little about the topic, yet are attempting to make categorical statements about it.

You have not (and obviously cannot and will not) be able to provide a single valid reason to demonstrate why the Su-30MKI's huge RCS disadvantage against the Rafale is not a significant problem for the Su-30MKI.

The statement i made was that the Su-30 MKI has an IRST, the Rafale does not. Your statement meanders all over the place, but does not address this. The fact of the matter is that the OSF on the Rafale of today does not have an IRST.

The Rafale does have an IRST, which will be further upgraded. In the IR mode, even with the OSF at it stands, the Rafale OSF + MICA IR outclasses the Su-30MKI with its huge engines.

The RBE-2 AESA is nothing a but an AESA Tx/Rx retrofit to the RBE-2 PESA backend.

True LPI radars are only currently fielded on the F-22, aka the AN/APG-77 and come with pros and cons. The F-35 again being a VLO fighter will have a similar set. NIIP has alluded, obliquely to having similar capabilities on the Sh-121 AESA with the N036 front facing AESA.

Neither the RBE-2 AESA, or the Captor-E on the other hand claim to be LPI radars. They do however claim to provide significant improvements over their prior versions in terms of range, reliability etc.

You have provided no source whatsoever to back up your patently false claims that the RBE2 AA is not an LPI radar.

Do you know the specific capabilities of the RBE-2 versus the N011M Bars to say which has better capabilities?

What specifics do you have? The RBE-2AA is a generation ahead of the Bars as far as vulnerability to jamming is concerned.

The specific point made was about the seeker of the Meteor, which remains a RF seeker, and is hence vulnerable to RF jamming which is increasingly common and sophisticated. The point remains that by utilizing a seeker derived from the Mica, the Meteor remains vulnerable to RF jamming.

The METEOR can be guided by a highly jamming resistant AESA with a huge range on the Rafale, and the METEOR's onboard guidance technology is also far superior to that of the R-77. That is why the IAF wants to evaluate the METEOR for the Su-30MKI.

First, you are unaware that the IAF has begun work with Russian for the Super Sukhoi - ergo the statement about talks are on with Russia for the Super Sukhoi. Something that clearly notes that the IAF is serious about the venture, and unlike your claims, is not a desparate marketing campaign.

For 2 years before the 24-Dec-2012 deal, every story planted by the Russians in the press was about how the IAF is going to order the Super-30, and the IAF did nothing of the sort.

The IAF talks to a lot of people about a lot of potential upgrades, and the Russians are obviously desperate to sell some kit, and have been making up stories (which you have been swallowing) about the mythical Super-30.

The IAF will upgrade the Su-30MKI with systems from all over the world, not just those developed by the Russians for the Su-35 and the FGFA. That is obvious to anyone but the most dense.

[NRao]

Useless if the Americans decide that an aggressive India is not in their interest, something your thesis does not take in take into account.

Do not see any threat in the near future (some 20 years or so). In fact the US should be the closest to India of any countries.

On the recent visit of Kerry to India:

"Nothing dramatic is happening or is going to happen," said Naresh Chandra, a former ambassador to the United States from India. "Things are boringly stable."

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

The conversation is likely to be livelier when Kerry meets Salman Khurshid, India's foreign minister.

Khurshid's recent elevation to foreign minister is a sign of how much the relationship between the United States and India has deepened. He lived for years in the United States and is known to favor better ties between the two giants.

[Avarachan]

Unlike you, many of us have the liberty of speaking to professional fighter pilots, at public events, who operate the Su-30MKI and not relying on selective conjecture or publicity material about what salesmen desperate to sell their wares, claim.

Your statement is silly to say the least. No fighter pilot would tell some spotty shifty nosey character at an airshow anything worth knowing.

Eklavya, I've reported your post to the mods. Karan M is one of the most respected posters on BR: watch your tone.

[Jaybhatt]

"Eklavya : Your statement is silly to say the least. No fighter pilot would tell some spotty shifty nosey character at an airshow anything worth knowing."

Eklavya, I've reported your post to the mods. Karan M is one of the most respected posters on BR: watch your tone.

Well done, BR colleague. This person just cannot avoid harrumphing ; his posts rapidly degenerate into rants.

[Lalmohan]

use this thread to document rafale, one disagreement and the thread should be dropped?

how long have you been on this thread? its the same old tired arguements being rehashed now for the nth time

[member_20453]

Been to Paris AS on saturday unfortunately no Sony A-77 yet had to make due with A37 however nothing can out maneuver the Su-35, that thing will eat Rafales for breakfast in a dogfight, will have Raptor Salad for supper. Except the Raptor none will be able to provide a proper challenge.

No way the MKI can be outclassed by the EF, Rafale or any other bird for that matter in a dogfight. Combine OLS with R-73, R-77 and the MKI can hold its own any day. The French have lied their way through every excercise and lies only got them so far, no sales, every nation they deal with seems to be unhappy. Saw the Rafale too, nothing too impressive, some tight turns, indeed the Rafale Demo has some 9-10G turns nice to see, very powerful too but no way it can keep up in a turning fight, it will not be able to point its nose quite like the MKI and when it comes to sheer acceleration the MKI can keep up. Overall after this I am even more against the Rafale being inducted, I would rather we buy the Su-35 or SH and MKI one them.

Rafale is just an expensive excuse for a jet. We have little value from buying it, except heavy bills.

[Karan M]

use this thread to document rafale, one disagreement and the thread should be dropped?

how long have you been on this thread? its the same old tired arguements being rehashed now for the nth time

Those of us who want to use the thread to document something good can still do so right? Starting a new thread means we lose both the information already in it (there is good data here), plus it gives no guarantee that the same disagreements wont occur yet again in a new thread.

[SaiK]

Wish we have a simple click solution on all threads.. where, selected members/research can create their own private space of threads, and just click and tag posts that interests them to their respective read-only dhaagas, with an option for full rights for admins. That way, BR site, could be a service provider!

[Karan M]

The French AF fighter pilot is on the record stating that he has flown against the Su-30MKI and that in a "dogfight" the Rafale has an advantage. You have shown NOTHING to counter his statement.

That French AF pilot has shown NOTHING to state under what conditions he fought the MKI, whether the MKI used TVC or not, whether it used Sura, R73E or not and what the ROE were. In that vein, his statements are nothing but chest thumping & akin to playing up his favorite platform.
They dont represent anything categorical & may be counted as subjective, something which should be patently obvious.

Your statement is silly to say the least. No fighter pilot would tell some spotty shifty nosey character at an airshow anything worth knowing.

Its amusing to see how obnoxious you are, despite the near complete absence of any sort of domain understanding of the subject. Are you like this in real life? I would hope not, because this sort of attitude would ensure that no normal person, fighter pilot or not, would engage with you in any sort of conversation.

And lets be clear here, unlike the sort of crass behaviour you display, IAF pilots & crew in contrast, are polite & do share data openly, of a non classified nature.

What the RAF chief said about the Typhoon's performance versus the Su-30MKI is highly authoritative. You have shown NOTHING to counter his statement.

Authoritative in what sense? He provides no data of the ROE, no data on the situations, no data on what the Su-30 MKIs chose to bring to the table, no data on what the Typhoons did, and here you are attempting to make it sound authoritative.

Nobody serious would take anything he said to the bank.

Especially, if they were aware of how careful the IAF has been in terms of exercises & selective in terms of displaying capabilities of its frontline platforms.

That you don't know this, and yet tom tom a throw away line from the RAF Chief, is interesting. Kindly spend some time on this forum itself & look through the records of past exercises. Unlike you, there are many of us who do observe these events closely & are fairly well versed with the fact that the IAF is the one being sought after for many of these exercises & in contrast to those who seek to exercise with it, it is not touting some aircraft for hard desired export sales.

The Swiss AF are far better placed to make a judgment than your sad "I speak to pilots at public functions" claims. Since the Swiss Air Force report makes your credibility resemble Swiss cheese, you have to resort to making up hilarious claims like "the report is outdated", "their assumptions are wrong", "their Rafale is not our Rafale", etc.

The Swiss AF like all AF's makes assumptions when doing competitive evaluations, based on data provided by the manufacturers and also making their own baseline estimates on their own experience. Like all AF, their estimates can be on the mark, be near the mark, and even miss the mark, because further developments of platforms can either be delayed or be accelerated.

Yet you don't know this, shows yet again why you are merely being obtuse on a topic you barely understand. That report is indeed outdated. The Swiss AF chief himself noted that when pointing out that the aircraft the Swiss are now positioning to buy, the Gripen NG is evolved further from that evaluated at the time of the report. Do you not even know that the Typhoon has been developed far ahead of what it was at that point of time?

It has an IRST today. The Rafale does not. It has a HMDS, inducted and operational. In contrast, French Rafale's do not. Similarly, the Rafale has certain technologies which the former does not.

Your attempt to tie the Swiss report to IAF trials also fails the logic test. The IAF chose the Rafale on the basis of L1. Clearly, both the Typhoon & the Rafale were preferable to the IAF on the basis of performance. If the disparity between the two platforms was as substantial as in earlier times, the Typhoon would not have made it amongst the top two and another platform may well have taken its place.

Similarly, your constant insistence on an AESA radar providing some magical advantage over other radars, by the way when you allege superiority over the MKI, also fails the test here. The Typhoon which made it to the top shortlist, lacks an AESA radar. While the F/A-18 E/F has one. Clearly, unlike your simplistic comparisons of technology based on 1-2 buzzwords, the actual performance details are different.

You have not (and obviously cannot and will not) be able to provide a single valid reason to demonstrate why the Su-30MKI's huge RCS disadvantage against the Rafale is not a significant problem for the Su-30MKI.

I already have but you don't understand it. That's the point in that you are unable to understand the topic, since you are either new to it, or more simply are unwilling to attempt to learn either.

There is a clear history of the Sukhoi platforms receiving LO treatment. Read here:
http://www.aviationweek.com/blogs.aspx? ... 46754fb493

There is a clear history of Sukhois employing jammers that dwarf the limited power, small sized apertures on the Rafale.
See here:

The heavyweight high power KNIRTI SAP-14 Support Jammer ECM pod is a Russian analogue to the US ALQ-99E pod carried on the EA-6B Prowler and EA-18G Growler. It was developed for Flanker family aircraft and is carried on a large centreline pylon. To date little has been disclosed about this design, but it has been observed on the Su-30MK Flanker G/H and Su-34 Fullback. It operates between 1 GHz and 4 GHz (© 2009 Vitaliy V. Kuzmin).

http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/KNIRTI-S ... VVK-1S.jpg

The KNIRTI SAP-518 ECM pod is a new technology replacement for the established L005 Sorbstiya series wingtip ECM pods. It operates between 5 GHz and 18 GHz (© 2009 Vitaliy V. Kuzmin).

http://www.ausairpower.net/VVS/KNIRTI-S ... VVK-1S.jpg

These are identical to the DARE fit for the upgraded Su-30 MKIs displayed. DARE is a serious organization, mandated by the IAF to develop mission specific EW suites & also work with foreign OEMs to adapt their technology to IAF mission requirements.
You ignore this, and also DARE's own range of EW suites, which are coming onboard IAF fighters. These include AESA jammers codeveloped with an Italian firm for IAF upgrades.

One can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

If you actually spent some time researching the topic, you would realize this. The Su-30 MKI and Rafale represent two different approaches to the BVR problem. The Russians went big to address their specific needs & developed technologies to address the cons of that approach, while leveraging the pros. The Rafale team went with a restricted size platform, and hoped to minimize the challenges there (e.g. limited radar size) with a sensor suite that would allow it to still be competitive at BVR.

The Rafale is a more compact platform which seeks to minimize its signature, and hence does not need to ask as much of its sensors in terms of power and cooling as well, because it is more compact. As such, the Rafale designers hoped that their limited nose aperture (600-700 mm class) would be sufficient, and the small apertures of the Spectra EW suite would do the job. They also hoped to rely on AWACs.

According to Defence Analysis (p.17, Vol 8.No.12 December 2005) Dassault have called the RBE2 radar 'fatally flawed' alleging that its range was "inadequate" and averring that the Rafale therefore relied on AWACS support to overcome this. The DGA also described Rafale's OSF ("Optronique Secteur Frontal") as "obsolescent" and production has been cut back to just 48 units, rather than the planned number, which was to have been sufficient to equip all F1 and F2 versions.

Where the challenge lies is in that once you start hanging stuff off the rails - whether they be missiles or bombs, or even worse, those large un stealthy fuel tanks, the RCS spikes considerably. In which case, the job of the Spectra is to attempt to deceive the opposite fire control radar, and if that fails, to at least prevent the terminal lock on of active RF seeker missiles.

The Su-30 platforms on the other hand are a completely different class of beast. They minimize RCS where applicable, but also boast of a huge radar aperture and can carry large sized jammers. These too will attempt the same functions as Spectra, but being much larger, they can do more as well.

So both platforms have differing strengths but can achieve much the same result. Which is what is actually a plus for the IAF. With reduced RCS Chinese platforms, the Sukhois can use their powerful radars to do the long range spotting. The Rafale's can remain discreet & attempt to close in for BVR shots using information from the Sukhois. The IAF's ODL is a local attempt for exactly this sort of information sharing.

In short, to believe that just because Rafale is smaller & has a lower RCS, it will "win" in BVR, is simplistic. Yes, it has a smaller signature, but it has a much smaller radar as well. Its important to not lose sight of this fact. The Su-30K, with its near obsolete N001 Cassegrain array radar, was able to achieve respectable BVR performance purely because the humongous volume allocated to this set, allowed the avionics to perform. As matter of fact the Russian AF merely chose to upgrade it to a VEP as I recall, standard, allowing them to wait for the Su-35S, jumping the entire mechanically scanned transition, which the rest of the world employed.

There is another problem with the Rafale approach. While a compact platform may have logistics & deployment advantages, it also restricts upgrade potential. For instance, to get more performance out of that 600-700 mm class nose, the Rafale team will have to move to GaN or better & better GaAs transistors. That too needs to be accommodated by a redesign of the cooling & power systems.

In contrast, the Su-35 team, is yet to transition to AESA (that is being simultaneously trialled on the PAK FA prototypes), but the performance achieved using a PESA design, the N035 Irbis, is nothing short of remarkable. They have achieved 300-400 km acquisition ranges for a 3 sq mtr target, something which AESA designers would salivate it. Simply put, the higher diameter of the Sukhoi platform (1 mtr square dia) matters, giving a very good power-aperture product, a ready metric to assess radar performance.

Much the same applies to jammers as well.

Bottomline, this sort of tradeoff between RCS, jamming & radar performance is evident and blurs the line between all these 4-4+ Gen platforms. They all end up competing similarly.

Why exactly do you think that the US is going to such an extent to field true VLO platforms? Because they quickly discovered that thanks to the fourth square law, unless RCS goes substantially below the .1 decimal level (in square meters), the advantages can be negated, with fire control radars becoming more and more capable, and long wave radars proliferating makes even certain VLO fighters vulnerable. Jamming breaks the kill chain of the most vulnerable part - ARH missile seekers. So you end up in furballs and in WVR, as they say, everyone dies at the same rate.

So they are going fully discreet. True LPI radars (which too come with performance disadvantages and are used in specific EMCON modes), VLO in terms of RCS and jamming capabilities to be activated only a need to basis (when absolutely essential). Heck, even datalinks are not used unless they too are LPI.

They hope to rely on VLO platforms heavily reliant on true LPI radars (which too by the way are increasingly vulnerable to advanced ESM suites featuring digital receivers http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kyU4KzEQrLw/T ... C00667.jpg), depend on advanced ESM suites which detect any searches for them and hence passive only determine bearing to target (the LPI radar just spikes a RWS mode to get range), and carry all munitions and fuel within (hence radically lowering RCS, but carrying enough deadweight to affect performance - see the F35).

This approach is radically different to 4-4+ GEN Platforms which carry all their munitions externally and radiate far more electronics emissions. The advantage of the latter is they are more cost effective. The advantage of VLO platforms is that so far, their sum is more than the total of their parts, but technologies are already emerging which make some of those parts vulnerable.

For instance, RF seeker equipped ARHs can be jammed. LPI radars are now increasingly being countered..

The PAKFA represents a possible solution to both approaches. Reduced RCS without compromising on aerodynamics and performance, and a possible active EW suite to work to defeat threats with supermanoeuverability/extreme agility.

The Rafale does have an IRST, which will be further upgraded.

But it does not. You don't even know this. It in fact uses the Mica IRs as a jury rigged attempt to compensate. And what happens when a Mica-IR is fired, it loses its capability.

FYI, the current Rafale builds field an OSF-IT with only the TV channel. As to why:

Defence Analysis (p.17, Vol 8.No.12 December 2005) Dassault have called the RBE2 radar 'fatally flawed' alleging that its range was "inadequate" and averring that the Rafale therefore relied on AWACS support to overcome this. The DGA also described Rafale's OSF ("Optronique Secteur Frontal") as "obsolescent" and production has been cut back to just 48 units, rather than the planned number, which was to have been sufficient to equip all F1 and F2 versions.

In the IR mode, even with the OSF at it stands, the Rafale OSF + MICA IR outclasses the Su-30MKI with its huge engines.

But there is no IR mode. What the Rafale has is a day only TV sensor and a LRF. And two Mica's with limited seeker heads with consequently limited ranges.
Once it fires those two Mica's or even one, its performance falls radically.

Please don't attempt to deny this, its farcical. Even the most rabid Rafale supporter admits & knows this. They also note that hopefully, with the Indian deal, a modern IRST will be added back. Something which is to be license assembled by Samtel Thales. Assembled, as it is unlikely Samtel will invest in an indigenous thermal detector fab.

You have provided no source whatsoever to back up your patently false claims that the RBE2 AA is not an LPI radar.

I need to provide a source? And that too above and beyond what I have been providing? Kindly go and do some reading yourself for once. Nowhere does Thales claim that the RBE-2 is a pure LPI radar.

All claims of it being a pure LPI radar have been conjecture, much on the lines of Spectra being capable of active cancellation & similar radical claims.

It has LPI capabilities, so does the N011M, so do all E-scan radars! Thales has always touted the specific capabilities of the RBE-2 AESA for which it was developed, namely longer range over the PESA and its extraordinary reliability (provided software bugs for any new system are fixed & the back end hardware is similarly reliable, something the Americans too discovered with their AESA designs, namely that performance advantages of the array itself can be counter affected.

What specifics do you have? The RBE-2AA is a generation ahead of the Bars as far as vulnerability to jamming is concerned.

Why should I post specifics on either type? You should have the capability to look up both designs & understand them, as versus having them put up on an open board when each system is going to be fielded by frontline types the IAF will field.

What I have posted, is public information, that clearly points out that the Bars is a very capable system & clearly quite capable of operating in an ECM environment, as evidenced by its performance in Red Flag. With intense ECM, and in a training mode, yet allowing IAF pilots to rack up BVR kills in plenty.
I have also pointed out that with this sort of feedback available, it is further upgraded in its latest tranche, and is being fielded today, with both hardware and software improvements.

In contrast, you seek to compare it to an unproven system, yet to be fully developed, and confidently state that the RBE-2AA is a generation ahead as far as vulnerability to jamming is concerned. That is simply silly. In short, you have no clue of what algorithms the Russians/Indians employ, the specific performance of the Bars in various modes and claim the RBE2 is superior, merely because it is "AESA". FYI, if you actually do some digging, you would discover, that mature MSAs can still outperform AESAs because the OEM is still attempting to mature the latter, whereas the former come with decades of investment and know how.

And all this firmly ignores the further evolution of the Bars itself, which is well in progress.

The METEOR can be guided by a highly jamming resistant AESA with a huge range on the Rafale, and the METEOR's onboard guidance technology is also far superior to that of the R-77. That is why the IAF wants to evaluate the METEOR for the Su-30MKI.

Again, you demonstrate how little you understand of the topic. The entire reason the Meteor has a seeker, is because the Rafale would not want to guide it beyond a point. By developing ARH missiles, the entire point was to move beyond the paradigm of SARH missiles where the shooter was tied to the missile and had to wait till it guided in. By doing so, the shooter becomes vulnerable to counter fire and cannot turn and get away. Nor can the platform be maneuvering as quickly & violently as it should be. The nose has to be firmly pointed towards the target, and in effect, the shooter is a target itself. And the Russians too, have a LRAAM now, the RVV-BD.

And that is also why the development of state of the art EW suites by multiple nations also means that ARH missiles are not as infallible as their makers claim them to be, and which is why close combat remains important, including TVC & super manoeuverability. Rapid nose pointing, without stalling, with HMCS & HOBS missiles is a killer combination, which is why the Su-30MKI workups against other aircraft turn out to be lopsided, as and when the IAF chooses to employ TVC.

The only sure shot missiles today, are close range IIR AAMs, provided they are fired within their proper limits and all the systems work in synch. There is of course always the reliability element. Even there, several nations are working on DIRCM suites for WVR AAMs. The PAKFA for instance has a system reported to be a DIRCM array. The F35 may field one too in the future.

Another thing, when it comes to BVR, here is where the Su-30 MKI and Su-35 again have advantages. In contrast to the e-scan limited fixed antenna array on the Rafale, the Sukhois can swing their radars to larger mechanical scan limits & begin the process of disengagement. Pros and cons of each platform.

For 2 years before the 24-Dec-2012 deal, every story planted by the Russians in the press was about how the IAF is going to order the Super-30, and the IAF did nothing of the sort.

Good to see you acknowledge the Dec-2012 deal.
The Russians hardly planted every story in the press, as would be evident to anyone who follows the Su-30 evolution.
The IAF has been interested in a Su-30 MLU provided it comes with the right kind of technology & at the right time. The evolution of this is what has been reported by the Indian side.

The Russians have matured a lot of the technology via the Su-35, the DRDO has developed a lot of the competence from the Indian side to make their own contributions, and hence the IAF is going ahead. At the same time, given the superb performance of the Su-30 MKI as is, the IAF can afford to wait for the D&D of the Super 30 to proceed and then acquire its upgrades in stages.

The IAF talks to a lot of people about a lot of potential upgrades, and the Russians are obviously desperate to sell some kit, and have been making up stories (which you have been swallowing) about the mythical Super-30.

Sorry, but you are just cooking up stuff here. The IAF does not merely talk to a lot of people about a lot of upgrades, it talks to selective OEMs about upgrades and obviously it prefers working with the original OEM to ensure proper integration & support, which is Sukhoi & associated suppliers.

There is enough about the Super-30 from multiple credible sources to note what its intended objectives are, and which organizations are working on what areas. Please don't attempt to disguise your inability to admit the facts (that an upgrade plan exists and is being worked on), via such attempts.

The IAF will upgrade the Su-30MKI with systems from all over the world, not just those developed by the Russians for the Su-35 and the FGFA. That is obvious to anyone but the most dense.

And here, you demonstrate yet again, how your puerile insults and amusing statements merely showcase that you are totally out of your depth. Fighter platforms are not some buffet where the IAF can magically combine all sorts of disparate elements into one whole. They involve complex certification processes & require detailed design & development, something which the IAF of course, wishes its primary designer, Sukhoi to be part of. That means that systems developed for the Su-35 & FGFA will be given prime importance as long as they meet IAF requirements, because they come with a lot of the basic certification & interoperability requirements taken care of.

Further, if you were not so unaware of the Su-30 itself, you would realize that it is practically the original Su-35 platform, with third party equipment, referred to as CFE (Customer Furnished Equipment) integrated by the Russians as prime vendors, in particular, the Ramenskoye Bureau.

That you don't even know this, and think the Super-30 upgrade, whose existence you alternatively admit and then recant, will not be driven by a lot of the technology developed by Sukhoi - well that speaks volumes about your lack of understanding of the issue.

[NRao]

see how obnoxious you are

Boy, it took you a while to get there!!!!

However, if it were not for such behavior I, for one, would not be learning.

[eklavya]

^^^^
The Rafale and the Typhoon beat the Su-30MKI. Get over it. Over time, the balance is shifting further in the favour of the Rafale and the Typhoon. Do yourself a favour, and try and understand why the Su-30MKI lost those engagements, instead of writing useless posts full of misleading false information.

[Avarachan]

Fighter platforms are not some buffet where the IAF can magically combine all sorts of disparate elements into one whole. They involve complex certification processes & require detailed design & development, something which the IAF of course, wishes its primary designer, Sukhoi to be part of. That means that systems developed for the Su-35 & FGFA will be given prime importance as long as they meet IAF requirements, because they come with a lot of the basic certification & interoperability requirements taken care of.

Great post, Karan M. Let me add that EMCON (emissions control) is an increasingly important reason why fighters cannot be built with a carefree mix-and-match approach to avionics. Avionics can be integrated, yes, but doing so requires much careful planning.

By the way, can you send me your address? Mine is my BRF username ".97" at the Google service. Thanks!