Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1016171819202122 LastLast
Results 571 to 600 of 636

Thread: MMRCA - has Rafale been illegally subsidised?

  1. #571
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    For the ID war games, the RAF chief famously said that the Typhoons "whacked" the MKI, and the latter is no match for the former. He claimed that the Typhoon belonged to a different generation.
    Don't mix up reports. He did claim the whacked thing for the third IAF-RAF exercise held in India recently (which again depends on what the Indian side wanted to show viz the radar & other systems) but the entire generation thing was viz with earlier reports in the first exercise in India where a RAF visitor said the Su-30 MKI was of a different generation than the Tornado F3.
    As regards the exercises in the UK, which were the second, your sources are incorrect to put it mildly. That entire "Exercise" saw mixed packages & the Su's didnt even use their radar.

    As matter of fact, given normal conditions, loading/operational etc, a RAF Chief once remarked something like both platforms were pretty similar at low-med alts, with an edge to the Typhoon at very high alt at speed. Thats in airframe. In other systems, the MKI has several decent systems of its own.

    There were articles on this posted but very marginal information from that. Jon Lake (propagandist for the Typhoon) also was clamoring on this point but with a bit of hyperbole on his part. The Indians improved their performance a lot when in India and to be fair to Lake, he did also mention this.
    Lake has rubbished his credibility in recent years thanks to his unbelievable fanboy'ism for the EF. Was a time when I'd read what he wrote. Now I actually don't even bother with articles where his tag appears. Its invariably a rehash of stuff collected online (serials/production lots etc), plus some here and there non technical filler, and then some hyperbole about how the EF is the best ever.

    Comes across as an one man propaganda show, and has ruined his good rep (he began with some decent books a long while ago). I was actually speaking to a friend the other day who was a big fan of Brit Av Mags - he noted much the same thing about Lake but noted Flight et al remained credible and were worth subscribing to. In contrast, when and where I can get articles from A&C (translated), they are often an interesting surprise, as are the occasional flight tests in other mags.

    AWST remains relevant despite Mr Sweetman's idee fixe on JSF because the mag does tend to pull together a decent lot of updates. Still only a few authors still have some credibility across topics or expertise in some. PiBu in Russian aviation for example or Fulghum on AESAs in the US
    Last edited by Teer; 14th April 2012 at 23:17.

  2. #572
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    It's a wake up call if the Indians want to consider taking on the Royal Saudi Air Force.
    Why on earth would the IAF consider taking on RSAF ?
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  3. #573
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    So...the fact that the RAF did dominate the IAF in WVR is significant
    Complete rubbish, nothing of the sort happened.

    From the Indradhanush results I'd say this: the MKI needs some more development work with more engine power and better radar and weapons and refined EW suite....which is what the Super 30 package is about. It will also improve the stealthing, which is badly needed.
    See above.

  4. #574
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The Rafale is much stealthier and has better A2G precision weapons integrated with it.
    Moreover, its avionics are better:
    - SPECTRA means passive geolocation and attack capability. In the Red Flag games in circa 2008 it protected the French jet ably while the MKI got "shot down" by Russian-spec SAMs. .
    Rubbish again. The IAF side neither used their external jammers @ full capability AFAIK (which they would in wartime) and nor were they allowed to use flares (environmental restrictions). This meant the Pk for launched weapons (simulations) was higher than would actually be the case & the Indian side accepted these restrictions. Besides which the IAF is now deploying newer EW gear on its Sukhois every other year, thanks to local upgrades.

    Nor is sensor fusion such a big deal - Russia's Su-35 upgrade (which forms the basis for the Indian Super 30) has it. And even if somehow that option were not available, India does have the capability already with the R118 which sensor fuses multiple sensors (SPJ/MAWS/ESM & can take in further cues from radar/IRST) plus its being expanded further for several programs including its AEW&C, and another. The AEW&C ESM suite - developed by the same DARE which is making the Su-30 suite, does geolocation as well.

    The BMD system, Akash etc already apply sensor fusion, with the latter already operational. The AEW&C takes it to the next level mixing it with decision support for commanders for various air operations and is at a high level of development, (http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/..._awards_11.pdf). Sensor fusion is intended for another program as well.. so these things are hardly as klingon as you are making them out to be.
    Last edited by Teer; 14th April 2012 at 23:23.

  5. #575
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Well to be fair they would not be so insistent on ToT if they had already got everything they needed wouldn't they ?! (And Tejas wouldn't be such a mess...)
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  6. #576
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    Well to be fair they would not be so insistent on ToT if they had already got everything they needed wouldn't they ?! (And Tejas wouldn't be such a mess...)
    They asked for TOT to maintain the plane on their own and second, to upgrade it on their own without having to run to France everytime. TOT does not mean they are going to easily used for the Tejas etc. Hardly. By the time India absorbs the Rafale TOT, the Tejas systems would be in their next variant of development with a MK3 variant to beef up numbers, thats typically how the IAF does things.

    As regards Tejas being in a "mess" - most of that has to do with politics and bureaucratic redtape. Decisions which could be made in a weeks time take months when approvals for consultations are sought, and all sorts of clearances end up adding time every which way. For instance, the Kaveri-Safran deal is yet to be finalized.

    However, as the program stands today, its going ahead, is decently manned & funded, & will deliver. An order book of 120 + 60 (options) from the primary customer is decent. The Navy wants around 60.

    To give you guys a hint about what's been going on here (and because of which I personally no longer give a damn about the marginal +/- between the EF & Typhoon)...is a constant advance in EW and systems tech, routinely retrofitted.

    The MKIs came with either Tarang or Pastel RWR (MK1/2), moved to Tarang1B in MKI MK3, after a few years, its now R118 - a single system which combines multiple LRUs and adds frequency coverage as well. And now, its Eagle Eye ESM for the Su-30 MKI.

    For the LCA, the DRDO developed an internal jammer (RWJ), IAF liked it so much they asked for it for their MiG-27s as well. After a while, again the IAF wanted it on the MiG-29 UPgrade. For the MiG-29 given greater volume available, DRDO worked with Elettronica for their Tx hardware, basically their AESA arrays to be integrated into the Indian ECM matrix & that's what on the MiG-29 Upgrade.

    Now, the Sukhois have been shown with a new Integrated Modular computer (Super 30 upgrade) replacing the earlier MC. This IMC integrated several functions. Apart from this a brand new EW suite - including new jammers, and of course the Eagle Eye + MAWS.

    So yes, the Rafale will be fancy and useful - but in the new IAF ORBAT, there will be many planes with similarly very sophisticated SP suites (MiG-29, MiG-27, LCA, Su-30 MKI) and some with overwhelming advantage in select areas (radar improvements to the Bars talk of doubling its range. This of a radar that is already substantial..)

    So, bottomline -by the time Rafale is fully "understood" and incorporated, its more likely India will be putting stuff on the Rafale - fit in new weapons, change/customize some avionics - all gradual stuff.. but this is why it needs detailed design data about weights/CoG etc plus the source codes.

    Most people think India wants the Rafale to accomplish great things as its other aircraft cant and will then try to take the tech and put it into India ...as if. The amount of tech generated in India is already substantial & given the pace of work, theres no time to do this reverse engineering stuff. The main thing about TOT is local spares production for high uptime. Need spares? They come from a shipment from a warehouse a few hundred km away, not across the ocean, and by who knows when. Typically 1st and 2nd line maintenance is done at the AFB, 3 and 4 at HAL. For this HAL needs TOT.
    Basically, Rafale is an out of the box plane with which India can go to war with. That is what India wanted. Because with the Russian and our own plane, we have spent far too much time customizing them to the exact needs. We avoid that mess with Rafale, which comes ready, matured and with good OEM support (Because some widgets we add will require some other widget to work with, which may be a challenge and time time to call the OEM to help us with customization .
    Last edited by Teer; 15th April 2012 at 00:18.

  7. #577
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Teer View Post
    Complete rubbish, nothing of the sort happened.



    See above.
    See an exact press quote:

    "Well, they lost," was Stephen Dalton's response when asked how the Russian-developed India-manufactured Su-30MKI air superiority jets performed against the Royal Air Force's (RAF) Typhoons when they matched their wits during the joint exercises in recent years.


    - This apparently happened at high altitude. At lower levels the Sukhoi was more agile but the RAF chief claimed that the Typhoon was better post 40,000 feet.

    - You are discredited by a statement by the RAF chief. You can argue all you want...and there are different claims (I have read IAF pilots say things differently, but I have also read a RAF pilot say it differently).

    - Jon Lake, though no neutral source, spoke to pilots from both sides and gleaned this out as well.

  8. #578
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Rubbish again. The IAF side neither used their external jammers @ full capability AFAIK (which they would in wartime) and nor were they allowed to use flares (environmental restrictions). This meant the Pk for launched weapons (simulations) was higher than would actually be the case & the Indian side accepted these restrictions. Besides which the IAF is now deploying newer EW gear on its Sukhois every other year, thanks to local upgrades.
    The IAF operated under handicaps such as:

    - Lack of flares as they were not certified environmentally.

    - Lack of datalinks as they refused to provide the RF profile to the Americans.

    There were a host of other issues including misunderstanding caused by accents But at no time were they disallowed jammers.

    Not using jammers at "full capability" is a silly argument as it is often not done....the French don't usually use it much at all - all sides keep things passive when they can. The French revealed active jamming only minimally (I believe with the Greeks) and generally don't use jammers actively.


    That said, the MKIs got "painted" by SAM sites all over. The Rafale survived.

    So you have no point whatsoever and just said "rubbish" because you could.


    As for EW suite upgrades....I think if you read my post I did say that SOME upgrades can be implemented right away including MAWs. But to assume that the whole suite is tuned and developed to an incredibly fine degree is a fallacy. In fact, new European jammers are being planned for the MKI, so all those "local upgrades" are just part of the overall EW suite evolution.

    The SPECTRA has also gone through at least around three versions, with the SPECTRA NG being far more developed than earlier suites. Upgrading suites is nothing special.



    Nor is sensor fusion such a big deal - Russia's Su-35 upgrade (which forms the basis for the Indian Super 30) has it. And even if somehow that option were not available, India does have the capability already with the R118 which sensor fuses multiple sensors (SPJ/MAWS/ESM & can take in further cues from radar/IRST) plus its being expanded further for several programs including its AEW&C, and another. The AEW&C ESM suite - developed by the same DARE which is making the Su-30 suite, does geolocation as well.
    Every new jet claims "sensor fusion" but it is usually at a lower level....more multisensor integration at some degree, and the differences are something that needs to be tested and commented upon.

    You have no point at all. You speak in non-sequiturs. It's like saying all jets have missiles...yes they do, but are they not differences?

    Of course data fusion can be developed and some ability exists within Indian R&D also. But it isn't there yet at any high level at the MKI. Some MSI exists, that's all. The same story was seen for many other jets including F-16s and Typhoons.

    The Rafale has been found to be ahead - by AdA pilots and Hellenic AF pilots and also by the Swiss AF - for instance:

    1) The Swiss found the Rafale to be ahead in "data fusion" but behind in "MMI" compared to the Typhoon.

    2) Greek pilots commented on the effective single display and sensor integration of the Rafale versus their F-16s.

    3) French pilots found the MKI to be behind in sensor integration. They have commented on how much easier the Rafale's sensor integration is to the point that they have to think a lot less about situational awareness.
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 15th April 2012 at 14:14.

  9. #579
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The American jets had the best radars and their weapons are generally more cost effective (AMRAAM and AIM-9X is way cheaper than Meteor/MICA IR for example).

    BUT -

    The F-16IN was slower than Pakistani F-16s. The reason is that the conformal fuel tanks add drag and weight (esp. when filled up). The CFTs made the American jet slower - and in fact it did not pass turn rate requirements.

    Given that the IAF is so heavily focused on dogfighting, they skipped this design. Besides, it was seen as being one of the last of F-16 series with very little to update the design.


    The F/A-18 did not meet thrust:weight ratio and turn rate requirements. It is also considered slow within the American jock fighter community. The EPE engines with 20 percent more thrust were not ready, and that cost this jet heavily.


    The reliability of both American jets was poor in the Rajasthan desert areas, and the Super Hornet also had poor engine reliability at Leh in one of the tests.



    Notably, from a Brazilian journalist who read documents of a conversation between the Brazilian FAB and a visiting IAF officer:

    - The Rafale needed far fewer passes to perform the same amount of mission work as a Super Hornet. It also needed about half the runway space. Both these are applicable for the high-altitude Leh region.

    - The Typhoon took off with the required load as did the Rafale. However it failed in some attack missions, while the Rafale passed. There was a claim (unverified) that the Rafale's AASM was hitting targets at around 50 KM within 2 meters.


    As for the others:

    - The canopy of the MiG-35 fell off.... The radar used fewer T/R modules as it was an early prototype and so failed the range requirements. It is a sophisticated radar and the missile fired from it hit the target but the radar was an early prototype (and as comparison with the Rafale, the RBE2AA was evolved over several versions with significant growth, including a 20 degree gain in azimuth). The engines were poor performers in Leh.

    - The Gripen was considered to be a work in progress. There was just one prototype, and it was nowhere thought to be what the final jet would wind up being. The Swedish AF asked for some significant revisions in the structural design. The Raven radar is also an early prototype.

    - The Typhoon was most effective in engine performance in Leh and passed a single engine flyaround. The Rafale was less impressive but still much better than the Super Hornet.


    In the end, only the Rafale and Typhoon met the minimum requirements for 590 parameters to be met (both exceed 600 parameters). The American jets flunked this test and were both below the 590 parameter mark as far as passing grades.
    You provide a lot of information from an eval that was supposed to be confidential -- do you have sources for all this?

  10. #580
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    811
    He is in touch with Pepe...

  11. #581
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Teer View Post
    Don't mix up reports. He did claim the whacked thing for the third IAF-RAF exercise held in India recently (which again depends on what the Indian side wanted to show viz the radar & other systems) but the entire generation thing was viz with earlier reports in the first exercise in India where a RAF visitor said the Su-30 MKI was of a different generation than the Tornado F3.
    As regards the exercises in the UK, which were the second, your sources are incorrect to put it mildly. That entire "Exercise" saw mixed packages & the Su's didnt even use their radar.

    As matter of fact, given normal conditions, loading/operational etc, a RAF Chief once remarked something like both platforms were pretty similar at low-med alts, with an edge to the Typhoon at very high alt at speed. Thats in airframe. In other systems, the MKI has several decent systems of its own.



    Lake has rubbished his credibility in recent years thanks to his unbelievable fanboy'ism for the EF. Was a time when I'd read what he wrote. Now I actually don't even bother with articles where his tag appears. Its invariably a rehash of stuff collected online (serials/production lots etc), plus some here and there non technical filler, and then some hyperbole about how the EF is the best ever.


    In Waddington it was an RAF pilot that was the source. In India the RAF chief was the source. Where is the "mix up" as you allege? I did not say that the RAF chief was claiming things about Waddington...

    But you do admit that the RAF chief is a source about the Typhoon v. MKI case. It was a war game....not real war, and there are handicaps on both sides, but the Typhoon did blow off the MKI.

    I also said that the Typhoon did well "post 40,000" feet. At lower alts, the Typhoon did well but the MKI was able to hit back.

    That's no surprise - the Typhoon would be able to supercruise effortlessly at high altitudes, and it is really designed for supersonic agility. So it would be in its element and also gets good weapon range due to speed. The MKI is more for subsonic agility, and will also lose out on weapon range unless the fuel guzzling AB is blipped on.

    Both the Typhoon and the MKI would however find air density at very high levels to be less than ideal for engine power...and I would suspect that the large, heavy MKI may struggle more here with specific excess thrust.


    Somewhat agree with you about Lake...the guy does get things right in places but he is totally_biased and comes across as really cutting if he finds you posting for the Rafale. And he just makes wild claims without bothering to firm things up.
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 15th April 2012 at 13:45.

  12. #582
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    You provide a lot of information from an eval that was supposed to be confidential -- do you have sources for all this?
    Almost all of this is actually open source but you won't find it in one place...except here at Key Pub

  13. #583
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    Why on earth would the IAF consider taking on RSAF ?
    About 40 years ago you may have wanted to know why on earth would the US be anti-Iranian, when they were selling their most advanced weapons to the Shah's regime....

    I have said this many times at Key Pub: Pakistan has advanced nuclear warheads and the Saudis may have a hankering for these. After the "Arab spring" unrests where the Arabs finally got it that a genuine democracy is the way to go, the monarchy (which is hardly popular in their state) may really want to consider some ultimate form of protection.

    Ironically, Libya's strongman Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program out of fear that the G.W. Bush admin would attack him. In the end, he got attacked anyhow...and with no nukes to protect him.

    The Saudis have already politically backed up Pakistan on Kashmir politics - and you never know how things can fly from there. There may not be even a 1 percent chance of war, but the IAF would be cautious if they consider an adversary with a fleet of Typhoons.
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 15th April 2012 at 14:20.

  14. #584
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,591
    The source(s) quoting Stephen Dalton were quite widely reported and to my knowledge weren't countered by any IAF officials. From what I gathered the IAF Jocks didn't consider the Tornado F3 to be a major threat, however it certainly should never be underestimated & it was stated that they were 'very, very impressed' with the Typhoon, especially with its performance, power and it's Captor-M radar, (which wasn't even fully exploited by the RAF Typhoon pilots).

    Other points mentioned by Shiv were also reported although not to a significant extent despite seeming to be by reliable sources. They're out there floating about on the net somewhere, some people just need to do that little thing called, 'looking'.

    There was also a hell of a lot of reliable sources reporting the Typhoon was technically leading the race and a handful of others stating it was favoured by many in India, however, costs weren't mentioned during these times which are the deciding, somewhat 'sole', factor in the competition.

  15. #585
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,405
    Quote Originally Posted by EELightning View Post
    From what I gathered the IAF Jocks didn't consider the Tornado F3 to be a major threat, however it certainly should never be underestimated & it was stated that they were 'very, very impressed' with the Typhoon, especially with its performance, power and it's Captor-M radar, (which wasn't even fully exploited by the RAF Typhoon pilots).
    I've read the articles and it was stated that they were "impressed". You've added an additional 2 "very very" of your own. the RAF was stated as being impressed by the MKI's agility as well. And in ID-2007, the IAF sent a mix of relatively new and experienced pilots to the UK, whereas the RAF side was comprised mostly of experienced aviators.

    link

    And even the Eurofighter World edition didn't use the kind of hyperbole that you're using regarding ID-2010. They did state that exercise restraints meant that the BVR capabilities couldn't be fully utilised, but the IAF pilots were impressed with the clear situational awareness picture provided by the Typhoon in its cockpit. Where did you find this thing about the IAF pilots being "very very impressed" with the Captor M?

    link


    There was also a hell of a lot of reliable sources reporting the Typhoon was technically leading the race and a handful of others stating it was favoured by many in India, however, costs weren't mentioned during these times which are the deciding, somewhat 'sole', factor in the competition.
    Only by those who belonged to the Eurofighter consortium. Considering its lack of maturity in the A2G domain, there was no way it was "leading" the race.

  16. #586
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    About 40 years ago you may have wanted to know why on earth would the US be anti-Iranian, when they were selling their most advanced weapons to the Shah's regime....

    I have said this many times at Key Pub: Pakistan has advanced nuclear warheads and the Saudis may have a hankering for these. After the "Arab spring" unrests where the Arabs finally got it that a genuine democracy is the way to go, the monarchy (which is hardly popular in their state) may really want to consider some ultimate form of protection.

    Ironically, Libya's strongman Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program out of fear that the G.W. Bush admin would attack him. In the end, he got attacked anyhow...and with no nukes to protect him.

    The Saudis have already politically backed up Pakistan on Kashmir politics - and you never know how things can fly from there. There may not be even a 1 percent chance of war, but the IAF would be cautious if they consider an adversary with a fleet of Typhoons.
    . Indian airlines was hijacked to Afghanistan. UAE was one of the government that recognized that talibuns and that plane went through dubai without any decisive effort by UAE
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/577769.stm
    there is no difference between Saudi/UAE/Qatar infact they are in the same alliance. and these countries have and will have enormous influence on France that is going to be bankrupt day by day. see France supply of satellite imagery for Saudi bombing of Yemen.
    India simply dont have that surplus money to built influence.

  17. #587
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post

    As for the others:

    - The canopy of the MiG-35 fell off.... The radar used fewer T/R modules as it was an early prototype and so failed the range requirements. It is a sophisticated radar and the missile fired from it hit the target but the radar was an early prototype (and as comparison with the Rafale, the RBE2AA was evolved over several versions with significant growth, including a 20 degree gain in azimuth). The engines were poor performers in Leh.
    MIG-35 failed range requirements? and claiming Eurofighter used helicopter for AESA. (helicopter is the least powerfull source for AESA radar range).
    Rafale radar doent have growth it will have the same small nose and underpowered engines. it is unbelievble that new RD-33MK engines will be poor performance.

  18. #588
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,591
    BlackArcher, I was quoting Air International about the 'very, very' thing. I didn't intentionally state the IAF were 'very, very' impressed with Captor-M. Still impressed neverless. The RAF pilots couldn't fully exploit Captor-M's BVR capabilities due to the size of the area they were cleared for operating in in the UK. This was also in Air International. Not necessarily word for word.

    As for the rest, I was just stating what was reported, not trying to convince people that it's true, and unlike some supporters I don't take everything for granted from the likes of Eurofighter GmbH or Eurofighter World. Whether one wants to believe them or not, then one is big enough to make up one's mind.
    Last edited by EELightning; 15th April 2012 at 17:45.

  19. #589
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,893
    will the T:W ratio of the super 30 really be improved considering the strengthening of the structure to accommodate the Brahmos?
    Wrinkles wrinkles my kingdom fallen to a wrinkle

  20. #590
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,280
    Anyway, I've always thought there had been a lot of reports and talking about those typhoon-MKI encounters, from RAF officers who are not supposed to talk about exercices
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

    Rafale news blog :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

  21. #591
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    811
    Indeed Kovy according to JL/Jackoniko/Typhoon fans you can't believe an officer so I do not understand why they are quoting an officer ????

    Otherwise well for the french side there is....Moussez (Singapore), Granclaudon and captain Romain for ATLC and Corsica. I recall they said that the typhoon was inferior in AtA, lost technically etc...

    And you are right I do remember JL/Jackoniko/Typhoon fans repeating that the RAF is shy speaking about exercises...Something must have gone wrong.
    Last edited by eagle1; 15th April 2012 at 19:21.

  22. #592
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    MIG-35 failed range requirements? and claiming Eurofighter used helicopter for AESA. (helicopter is the least powerfull source for AESA radar range).
    Rafale radar doent have growth it will have the same small nose and underpowered engines. it is unbelievble that new RD-33MK engines will be poor performance.
    The radar range requirements, not the jet range. That's something that occured because they had an early technology demonstrator rather than the scaled-up radar proposed. It was a sophisticated radar, by the way, just not sized right.

    A helicopter rig may be able to generate adequate power, and there can be additional power source hookups. I'm not sure how they addressed the power issue but long-range radars have been worked off naval helicopters. If they have a tri-engined Westland/Agusta chopper the power may be more than enough.

    As for the engines, they struggled in Leh, which is where engines have significant issues due to the air density. There were stress tests out there and under those loads any engine could fail.
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 15th April 2012 at 20:08.

  23. #593
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher View Post
    I've read the articles and it was stated that they were "impressed". You've added an additional 2 "very very" of your own. the RAF was stated as being impressed by the MKI's agility as well. And in ID-2007, the IAF sent a mix of relatively new and experienced pilots to the UK, whereas the RAF side was comprised mostly of experienced aviators.

    ...

    And even the Eurofighter World edition didn't use the kind of hyperbole that you're using regarding ID-2010. They did state that exercise restraints meant that the BVR capabilities couldn't be fully utilised, but the IAF pilots were impressed with the clear situational awareness picture provided by the Typhoon in its cockpit.

    Just to interject here since this is not addressing my bit - the Indradhanush exercises went much better for the IAF in India. The Indians did learn their lessons and the results for the Typhoon were less than impressive - though they dominated.

    The Typhoons did better in UK - and again this is a DACT exercise rather than the most realistic war game of the century.

    About Indians using a mix of rookies and jocks....that was done in Cope India as well. In fact, in Red Flag most of the pilots were rookies though some of the WSOs were not. In "pre Red Flag" war games the IAF MKIs held successfully against F-16s and F-15s in WVR fights - despite the rookies.

    In Indradhanush the MKIs perf against the Typhoon was clearly not of the same caliber. It shows that either there is a big difference between the caliber of RAF and USAF participants who "dueled" the Indian MKIs.... OR the difference was largely attributed to the difference in platforms.

    In Singapore, most notably, the Typhoon defeated three F-16s 1 v. 3 (!!!), and this feat has been repeated in Europe as well. So I would not be suprised if difference in platforms made much of the difference in field results.


    In contrast - the Rafale did exceedingly, supremely well in Corsica with a 9-1 victory over the Typhoon at gun range. The RAF squadron was of the type that had either instructors or newbies - we don't know from public claims whether the instructors were piloting or if these were rookies....so I'd take the result with a pinch of salt. But the altitude was ideal for the Typhoon's engines to roar with power, and they could not convert it into a win.

    The results with Italian Typhoons and Rafales is perhaps more representative....the French jet dominated but not excessively and some of the results were inconclusive. Given this, I do appreciate the Indian judgment for the Rafale because you do have better field results for this jet versus the Typhoon compared to the Su-30MKI.
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 15th April 2012 at 20:32.

  24. #594
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,591
    Have to giggle at the French side*

    When the IAF brought their gear to the UK, the exersice was more to do with how the likes of the RAF & IAF worked along side eachother with of course the Typhoon, MKI and other aircraft from both sides. It wasn't always RAF 'vs' IAF but more of, if one may put it this way, RAF/IAF 'vs' IAF/RAF with a mixed fleet of aircraft.

  25. #595
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The IAF operated under handicaps such as:

    - Lack of flares as they were not certified environmentally.

    - Lack of datalinks as they refused to provide the RF profile to the Americans.
    Thanks but we already knew that..pretty well reported by Aviation week

    There were a host of other issues including misunderstanding caused by accents But at no time were they disallowed jammers.
    Who said they were disallowed jammers? As if the US side would "disallow India" from using any jammers or even the radar at any level. Heck, they'd think Christmas had come early given the ELINT they'd soak up.

    I said the Indian side would never use jammers at full capability even if they could. Happens to be the case whenever India exercises with anyone - in India or abroad. Jammers operated by the IAF can be operated in a variety of modes, either autonomously or cued by the aircraft's onboard systems, range of power options and jamming modes even.

    India has used jammers in exercises in India against other AF including the US.

    However, to think that the IAF would use its current jamming suites at full capability, exercising all possible options, when it would not even use its radars @ full capability - is being naive, if not downright silly.

    Not using jammers at "full capability" is a silly argument as it is often not done....the French don't usually use it much at all - all sides keep things passive when they can. The French revealed active jamming only minimally (I believe with the Greeks) and generally don't use jammers actively.
    Congratulations, you made a "silly" thesis out of a topic you misunderstood & then proceeded to "counter it" by saying it was silly.

    That said, the MKIs got "painted" by SAM sites all over. The Rafale survived.
    ROTFL at this claim - the MKIs got painted -as if some magic sauce exists bar stealth that can prevent an aircraft the size of a MKI getting painted!

    The entire point of modern jamming is to prevent that "paint" from translating into a lock when its a FCR. Unless you carry noise jammers on transports that can actually drown todays radars in noise - hard going there..

    Your sang-froid is amazing especially when you have little data about what happened to begin with.

    Go on.. what details do you have of the Rafale performance & how they got painted and they did not? Which were the threat systems? Which generation systems were they?

    Did the French open up their Spectra details to you?

    If not, you are just passing hot air...

    The point is the Indian side operated against both ground & air targets with their hands behind their back. Restricted EW suite & restricted radar. Hardly reflective of what the Sukhoi 30 is capable of versus the Rafale in an all out conflict & vice versa.

    The main advantage of Red Flag was the training aspect. That's it. It would have got many IAF pilots out of "buck fever", had them realize where they stand against other premier AF like the USAF, French AF & given them the insight to develop something similar in India at the Gwalior range. That's the big takeaway.

    So you have no point whatsoever and just said "rubbish" because you could.
    I actually do have a point & made it quite clearly, that what you wrote about the MKI losing to the Typhoon each time around was rubbish given the IAF's first exercise against the Typhoons was limited by both sides and was pretty much a no-call & the second time around, despite the claims by the RAF chief, its a pretty well known fact to any serious observer that the IAF does not operate with its MKIs onboard systems @ full capability.

    The IAF didn't do so when exercising with the RAF at ID-1 either & deliberately limited the modes, going so far as to implement a training mode for using the radars at Red Flag. They'll continue to do so when exercising against any foreign AF in India or abroad, till the day the Bars becomes irrelevant with a more advanced system in widespread service. Even then, they'll limit its use especially when exercising against neutral/non OEM nation AFs..

    So, your statement and the sweeping conclusions you drew about the IAF having to do "X", "y" etc were rubbish. If it offends you less, I could say you were wrong..

    As for EW suite upgrades....I think if you read my post I did say that SOME upgrades can be implemented right away including MAWs.
    Very informative.

    Can you tell us which MAWS suite meets IAF requirements to be implemented right away? Because as a gentleman wearing IAF wings told a lot of folks just a year or so back @ a public event, no off the shelf MAWS met IAF requirements & hence they had asked DARE to develop one for them & simultaneously evaluating competitor offerings...

    The point is the IAF is working to a plan. Don't assume that because they are not tom tomming it, that such a plan does not exist. They don't have to export the MKI so are not really keen on publicity either..

    But to assume that the whole suite is tuned and developed to an incredibly fine degree is a fallacy. In fact, new European jammers are being planned for the MKI, so all those "local upgrades" are just part of the overall EW suite evolution.
    And what new European jammers are these? Please don't quote that "expert" Sengupta as a source.

    BTW where exactly did I make the claim that the whole suite is "tuned to an incredibly fine degree". If you can't point that out, then thats your own windmill you tilted at..

    I clearly pointed out the IAF is working towards evolving the MKI further & local EWS developments have been implemented already. And that this sort of evolution means that depending on the Rafale to provide some technology is not required. Especially given the timelines & TOT issues.

    You read all this & come back & tell me, that "all those local upgrades are just part of the overall EW suite evolution"..

    Wonderful, missing the point & then taking my own statements and repeating them.

    The SPECTRA has also gone through at least around three versions, with the SPECTRA NG being far more developed than earlier suites. Upgrading suites is nothing special.
    I see, upgrading suites is nothing special. Especially when it runs counter to your claims that the current MKIs lag considerably behind their peers and something must be done, implying that it is not being done.

    When, matter of fact, something (i.e. EW upgrades) are being done every few years & being progressed rapidly, without much public talk about it, it must be dismissed as "nothing special" ... oh very well!

    Every new jet claims "sensor fusion" but it is usually at a lower level....more multisensor integration at some degree, and the differences are something that needs to be tested and commented upon.
    Uh...say, what? This motherhood & apple pie piece above tells me that you had no clear way of admitting that sensor fusion is not such a big deal as you initially made it out to be, and you have no idea about what level of sensor fusion exists on the Rafale and whether it is superior to everyone else's and hence had to say something for the sake of saying it.

    Lets recap, sensor fusion is integrating sensor inputs to a single version of the truth, including coherent tracks et al, which provide a degree of redundancy against EW employed against individual sensors & also aid pilot SA by decluttering the display.

    How the display gets implemented is upto each OEM/Customer preference but to say what you just did was meaningless. Akin to Rafale claiming its sensor fusion is better than that of the EF or vice versa.

    You have no point at all. You speak in non-sequiturs. It's like saying all jets have missiles...yes they do, but are they not differences?
    For someone who provides meaningless "non-sequiturs" - as you just did above, pointing at others is pretty rich..

    Of course data fusion can be developed and some ability exists within Indian R&D also. But it isn't there yet at any high level at the MKI. Some MSI exists, that's all. The same story was seen for many other jets including F-16s and Typhoons.
    More claims...What do you know of what MSI exists within Indian R&D and what does not? How do you know of what MSI exists within the Typhoon & whether it is at the same level (and not better) than that on the F-16?

    You had no idea of the sensor fusion that already existed in the Indian field to begin with...no you claim "of course data fusion can be claimed and some exists"...thank you very much!

    Lets see...

    India deployed sensor integration for its GBAD several years back with locally developed sensor fusion software running for IAF's ADCCs linking several radars together (2D and 3D). Its now deploying the same for its IACCS (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/340-3/IB-IACCS.jpg) already up & running btw, and for its Akash system (in production), has developed sensor fusion for its BMD (http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=Model.jsp) and is well on track to develop the same for an airborne AEW&C (http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/CABS/En...missionsc.html and http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/dpi/..._awards_11.pdf).

    And this is the "back-up option" wherein the Su-35 fields sensor fusion to begin with and will be clearly tapped for the Super 30 upgrade (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...entId=blogDest)

    So
    a) nobody claimed that sensor fusion already exists on the MKI

    b) all that was said was that it can be implemented as part of the Super 30 upgrade thanks to the Su-35 capability

    c) even if that option were unavailable, India is working on it - including a far more complex AEW&C program (which hosts far more capable sensors, plus more diverse sensors as well and requires their integration with decision support aids) and a fighter program

    d) the R118 - a precursor to the Eagle Eye could already do sensor fusion - showing that India has already developed compact single LRU packages that can integrate data together (which function btw can also occur in the MC)

    In other words, sensor fusion is hardly going to be any killer app that distinguishes the Rafale from all its peers forever.

    The first D&D prototypes of the Super 30 are due by 2014 with series upgrade beginning thereafter (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report...-india_1626819). Even with a couple of years delay, we are looking at 2016 for the Super 30's to start rolling in.

    The first Rafales are to arrive in India in 2016 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...CA%20By%202016).

    Hardly any big difference there..

    The Rafale has been found to be ahead - by AdA pilots and Hellenic AF pilots and also by the Swiss AF - for instance:

    1) The Swiss found the Rafale to be ahead in "data fusion" but behind in "MMI" compared to the Typhoon.
    And those trials were done several years back & have limited relevance today.

    2) Greek pilots commented on the effective single display and sensor integration of the Rafale versus their F-16s.
    Irrelevant to the discussion as we were discussing the future upgrade possibilities for the Su-30, not the F-16.

    3) French pilots found the MKI to be behind in sensor integration. They have commented on how much easier the Rafale's sensor integration is to the point that they have to think a lot less about situational awareness.
    And the MKI is a two seater which compensates for the lack of sensor fusion currently, by splitting the responsibilities between the two crew. Not perfect but it works.

    The Rafale will be good, but there will be areas where the Sukhoi 30 or EF will remain ahead (e.g. radar performance vs A2A targets)...and it won't be some magic silver bullet as you are making it out to be..

  26. #596
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    In Waddington it was an RAF pilot that was the source. In India the RAF chief was the source. Where is the "mix up" as you allege? I did not say that the RAF chief was claiming things about Waddington...
    And what is that RAF pilot's name & where exactly is the data to back him up? Problem is you seem to lack discretion in source analysis and go ahead and add it all up (2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples etc) and end up taking anyone's words as gospel. This is not proper analysis.

    In other words, if a young IAF pilot raves about "showing the power of the Mirage, nothing matches it" - as one did at the first Cope India, it must be automatically true, and the Mirage 2000-H > F-15C.

    But you do admit that the RAF chief is a source about the Typhoon v. MKI case. It was a war game....not real war, and there are handicaps on both sides, but the Typhoon did blow off the MKI.
    Fairly illogical premise to run on, because it can be equally argued that the IAF was not attempting to impress the RAF with the Su-30 MKI unlike the Typhoon being in the MMRCA, and hence it was the Typhoon which could have been operated with more to show..

    Much the same as any fan saying because the IAF did well in any exercise against the Typhoon - the latter would be toast.

    How the heck would they or even an opfor person know what was on the table and not? Even the opponent in an exercise is only playing to certain rules of thumb - "missile ranges x, lock ons at y for eval purposes" etc. Do you think that is reflective of the actual equipment employed by either side?

    Bottomline - if you think this one exercise was reflective of a "real evaluation" and in any way a sufficient sample size to draw an apples to apples comparison....then dear sir, I have a bridge for you, moderately used, red in color, in SF...and I can sell it to you for the moderate price of (western union number ...etc etc)..

    I also said that the Typhoon did well "post 40,000" feet. At lower alts, the Typhoon did well but the MKI was able to hit back.

    That's no surprise - the Typhoon would be able to supercruise effortlessly at high altitudes, and it is really designed for supersonic agility. So it would be in its element and also gets good weapon range due to speed. The MKI is more for subsonic agility, and will also lose out on weapon range unless the fuel guzzling AB is blipped on.
    Boss, all this is by "on paper"...but in reality - pretty much no fight will occurs exactly as is scripted out ...meanwhile, consider per your own claims, the Rafale has done well against the EF, despite being lower, per data in all the same stuff you said about supersonic agility..

    Bottomline...a lot of the stuff you are relying upon for definitive claims, have enough loopholes to drive a truck through...

    By design, the EF claims to be better than the Rafale and vice versa. But in real life "exercises" both sides have come up with surprises. And being "exercises", theres no way of saying the Rafale is better than the EF or vice versa. In some discrete subsystems - we can make the claim but even there, nuance matters. But overall, its so much down to training & overall approach when fighting as a group..

    And that is why I find your definitive claims, based on limited exercises - especially using the IAF (which has made a habit of fighting with limitations in exercises) so flawed. A lightly loaded MKI can easily have a very potent T:W, yet have a decent warload for a mission against a nearby adversary like Pak. Its all about context, and training, plus doctrine. Bottomline, if a Rafale or Sukhoi were to go up against each other in a systems of systems fight, both would face a tough time. All these Gen 4+ planes are at an advanced level of capability.

  27. #597
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The Saudis have already politically backed up Pakistan on Kashmir politics - and you never know how things can fly from there. There may not be even a 1 percent chance of war, but the IAF would be cautious if they consider an adversary with a fleet of Typhoons.
    With the Super 30 & the Rafale, plus its overall C4I modernisation - the IAF is not going to be side tracked by a handful of Typhoons.

  28. #598
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by EELightning View Post
    Have to giggle at the French side*

    When the IAF brought their gear to the UK, the exersice was more to do with how the likes of the RAF & IAF worked along side eachother with of course the Typhoon, MKI and other aircraft from both sides. It wasn't always RAF 'vs' IAF but more of, if one may put it this way, RAF/IAF 'vs' IAF/RAF with a mixed fleet of aircraft.
    Exactly. This stuff of this jet dominated so this jet is far better is so much bull..

    As if the IAF when evaluating planes took some statistical analysis of which plane did better in which exercise. It shortlisted both EF and Rafale. Either of which could have been L1.

    I'd be more worried about weapons, especially if any one side fielded multi-sensor (RF+IIR) long range ramjet/dual pulse motor BVR AAMs. That will be the game changer. Right now, any RF BVR missile is the weak link in the detect, engage, destroy chain.

  29. #599
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    I said the Indian side would never use jammers at full capability even if they could. Happens to be the case whenever India exercises with anyone - in India or abroad. Jammers operated by the IAF can be operated in a variety of modes, either autonomously or cued by the aircraft's onboard systems, range of power options and jamming modes even.

    India has used jammers in exercises in India against other AF including the US.

    However, to think that the IAF would use its current jamming suites at full capability, exercising all possible options, when it would not even use its radars @ full capability - is being naive, if not downright silly.
    Genius, thank you for your crystalized opinions BUT the French also do not use full active jamming capability. In Red Flag they actually only tend to show very limited EW suite capabilities historically. To say that such-and-such jet does not use all its capability is like blowing hot air just because...

    And don't compare jammers with the Bars training mode use. The IAF has used jammers with the USAF extensively - but the radar is kept "discrete" because it is far more vital that the RF profile of this tool be kept secret.


    Instead of writing things merely because you can...see the point:
    Different RCS values + different EW tech + different posturing in tactics = Rafale being more survivable in the combat war gaming we saw...

    And of course this is NOT the real world. The IAF would have a ton of options - high power jamming (and they did use Israeli jammers in Cope India very effectively), use of specifc weapons to attack radar sites, etc. In fact, you would have a mix of aircraft to do different tasks so the MKI may be more survivable. So this is not representative of the real world, but differences in results do convey a few things.

    Quote:
    Not using jammers at "full capability" is a silly argument as it is often not done....the French don't usually use it much at all - all sides keep things passive when they can. The French revealed active jamming only minimally (I believe with the Greeks) and generally don't use jammers actively.

    Congratulations, you made a "silly" thesis out of a topic you misunderstood & then proceeded to "counter it" by saying it was silly.
    You just like hitting below the belt, don't you? I mean, Teer expertise is making solidity out of pure wind.

    Read my point before clamoring more with your sarcastic digs. As for the rest of your blah blah blah blah....I'll try to get to it when I can. Or then maybe not since the "sting" of some of these points have been done before.

    ******************

    You can argue all you want, but the Typhoons were dominating in ID exercises per a British pilots's claims (and of course a Typhoon propagandist like Lake tends to say that out very loudly). The Indian pilots did give some defense but it was more along the lines of "we could hit back" (not a quote per se mind you).

    In the end, the RAF chief described the difference in platforms in plain English. He fired point blank. AND....I did not see the IAF refute it one bit. In contrast they did refute, albeit poorly, the claims made by a USAF worthy concerning their alleged Red Flag war game performance.

    Now read the above paragraph, the one immediately above. Then tell us why we should not believe the RAF chief or the RAF pilot one whit.



    In truth, if there was a real war you would have a broad mix of jets and weapons, along with early warning and battlefield management via specialized assets. The Phalcon AWACS has huge capability and the Indian AEW to be developed will use something like ~3,000 emitters and have advanced ESM tactics - so you get vastly different results from whatever happened in Waddington or in India.

    Nobody is trying to posture the ID exercises as fatalistic or final in any sense. The MKI would be far more effective in a full set up versus some DACT scenario.

    Still....looking at how the Typhoon crushed F-16s in tests and the fact that British reports indicate strong ability against the MKI in DACT conditions, I would definitely consider newer non-MKI options for the IAF - to specifically handle a fleet of Typhoons like 72 Saudi Typhoons.

    Some points to look at:

    - The Typhoons are built with supersonic agility and supercruise in mind. You get more missile range from high-speed launches + a platform that is more agile at speed and will have an "edge" during high-speed handling.

    - The MKI is agile at subsonic speeds and you would want to blip the afterburner a bit to get it into high-speed launches. Moreover, its agility comes at a price of "energy bleed" when you use the TVC nozzles more than necessary. This is what the Americans saw what happened at Nellis, and their own Super Hornet pilots often use their high alpha capability to get into a similar mess.

    - Going low is where the Sukhoi would do rather well given that a delta wing (Typhoon) is less efficient at slow speeds and low levels - and the Typhoon's flight control system is also restrictive near the ground.

    - I am going to believe that the MKI is going to struggle more at very high alts with its higher weight and drag struggling against air density that reduces engine performance. I base this on the RAF chief claiming that the Typhoon was better above 40,000 feet. It also means that the Typhoon was perhaps not better at all below - he of course didn't say.


    (And just to sign off: the Super 30 package is perhaps all the change needed to greatly improve the IAF's results. It is not really an MKI but an MKI++. The downside is that it is still not even close to being turn key ready as of now...)
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 16th April 2012 at 00:02.

  30. #600
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Teer View Post
    With the Super 30 & the Rafale, plus its overall C4I modernisation - the IAF is not going to be side tracked by a handful of Typhoons.
    Now you did notice that you added "Rafale". I have never made it out to be a magic bullet as you allege...but then you tend to "over shoot" points by miles. Accuracy is not your forte. I really was supporting the Rafale buy as an asset against the Typhoon's impressive ability.

    What I said is that this jet - which on paper seems as much a thrill as a soft biscuit - has done pretty well in war gaming versus the Typhoons, so I'd express a bit more confidence in it. I argued on this for a very long time with Jon Lake so I am not getting into this with you here. There are of course many better criteria to judge it such as range and payload or IAF test data.

    I would not believe that the MKI is a great pitch against 72 Typhoons (which you call a "handful") but it is still powerful and an asset in large numbers. My take is that the Su-30MKI Super 30 package and the Rafale would be so much better to counter any Typhoon menace.

    And if you don't think that the Indians ought to be side tracked by the Saudis...feel free with that posturing. Most of our military preparations are really based off caution, with very little reality to show for it anyway.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES