totoroDoes any plane in us inventory have an officially stated capability of handing over its launched missiles to its wingman, which did all the initial radar tracking and will do all the course corrections?
totoroIs ALE-70 decoy also meant for air to air combat? I’ve read previously that Tornado’s decoys and ALE-55 are made for mach 2 speed, for demanding maneuvers and are made to withstand afterburner plume going over their cable.
totoroWhat’s with all the recent (10 years or so) drop tank announcements which then mysteriously just vanish. First Raptor was credited on paper to be able to carry 4 drop tanks. But in reality that became just two. Then F-35 was meant to have a two drop tank option, but that design of drop tanks vanished and now F35s seem to be going without any (save for the alleged custom made israeli large tanks for their own variant).
And now it seems tanks for su-35 haven’t really been integrated even though at some point the maker was mentioning them as an option to reach 4500 km.
totoroOnce again, IAF has so many planes to replace by 2035 or so that there is room for both Tejas and another, somewhat larger, single engine plane. New plane requirement doesn’t necessarily mean Tejas is dead.
totoroAre there any images of Su-35 with external drop tanks? Are those in service?
totoroThey’re pylon attachment points, i’d say. Just compare them with images of f-35 hauling pylons. like this one. [ATTACH=CONFIG]249081[/ATTACH]
totoroI’d put my money on an one-off specialized airshow scheme. Kind of like the specialized paintwork for the PLA parades. I don’t expect to see it in actual combat units.
totoroIs there a source out there which would give composition of Indian air force in 1990s, before first su30 arrived? How many hunters, canberras, mig23s, mig27s, mig21s, jaguars and mirages were in indian air force inventory back then?
totoroI know i should take this discussion “outside” but what the heck…
All those planes can’t really be put in the same category.
FA50 and Tejas are similar on paper, weight class wise. But FA50 lacks political support to have better/more subsystems and weapons integrated to it. That also extends to fuel options, as FA50 external tanks are pretty meager and its whole range suffers from it. FA50 would need further investment into more options to get it to level where Tejas *plans* to be, once its production finally takes off. And Tejas is designed around slightly higher speeds, and has a set roadmap of future improvements in kinematics with more powerful engine. Yes, FA50 *could* have some of that, but in reality, the airframe is not planned to be developed into that.
Tejas of 2020, a mature tejas, could be compared to gripen C – roughly speaking. But Gripen E is again a step ahead in pretty much every regard, with possible exception of future tejas mk2’s acceleration/speed ability. Again, subystems like sensors are currently behind for tejas and it’s not realistic to think Gripen’s future development will pause and allow to be matched.
Since there are way too many f16 variants out there, i’ll just concentrate on latest and greatest, akin to Gripen E getting greatest of its world. f16 airframe with 132 kn engine, CFTs, modern sensors and plethora of subsystems its US suppliers can offer – is ahead of Gripen E in most regards, actually.
It lacks integration of AA missile in class of meteor, that’s one drawback. It may also have certain maneuvering drawbacks in certain situations. Where it does beat Gripen E is acceleration due to better thrust/weight ratio. And it also beats Gripen on payload/range curve for all but lightest of Air to Air loadouts.
Gripen E in ferry configuration has a formidable range of 4075 km. It also weighs some 16 tons. So there’s maybe room enough for 2+2 AA missiles on top of that, or maybe 2 very small bombs instead. More than that and it hits the MTOW limit. It really isn’t designed to carry ALL available fuel and an air-to ground loudout on top of it.
F-16 akin to block 60 and Sufa weighs close to 9 tons empty (according to F-16.net) and has mtow of some 20 tons. It carries 7,8 tons of fuel (with 370 gallon tanks) or 9,2 tons with 600 gallon tanks.
Ferry range figures are not available for CFT or 600 gal tank versions. USAF f16 weighing empty at 8,2 tons with total of 6,5 tons of fuel has ferry range of 3500 km. Heavier block60 would have less, but that’s why modern variants of F16 overcompensate that with additional fuel. Linear addition of range as function of extra fuel would yield perhaps unrealistic 4300 to 4900 km ferry range. In reality, that is bound to be less but still a figure of around 4000-4500 km is highly plausible. LM has estimated 24% range increase for one specific mission if 600 gal tanks are used over 370 gal tanks, and 37% range increase if on top of said tanks CFTs are used as well. While these may involve specific situations, said 4000-4500 km seems highly attainable.
F-16, however, can carry all that fuel and still have some 1,8 tons available for weapons, enough for a half decent air to ground load. Air to ground loadouts suit a larger plane better and such a plane will lose less range when hauling the same loadout.
totoroderby-er is noticeably longer. they went for simplest and fastest development, changing missile design as little as possible. they just elongated the body and inserted another rocket motor. i actually think derby-er might be the first dual pulse rocket motor missile to enter service. if it gets sold to someone. but who knows what sort of compromises the design suffers from such an approach.
totoroThey’re not the same length. Derby is 3,6 m long, mica is 3,1. Weight wise they’re similar though, derby being only 4 kg heavier. these is data straight from rafael webpage. Which is why i find the double the warhead claim a bit dubious.
It would seem mica has rocket motor of similar proportions to derby’s, though. Compared to its body length, derby has a fairly short rocket motor. My personal guess would be that derby development was constrained by python base design – so with the forward control surfaces the designers had to stick a lot of subystems aft of the control fins, closer to middle of missile.
At the same time, lack of mid body wings seems like another result of python starting design point. While a valid choice for highly maneuverable short range missiles, lack of mid body wings may result in lack of lift during the cruise stage, requiring greater angle of attack and producing more drag – meaning less speed and thus less range.
In the end, i would expect derby not to outperform mica kinematics wise. It may even be slightly behind mica in that regard. Even maneuverabilty wise, control surface at the end of a missile seem a bit more effective than surfaces at the 1/4 length of the missile, especially considering the shift of center of mass as fuel burns out. The distance between center of mass and control surfaces seems to be slightly on mica’s side.
Though actual, hard data on either missile is very hard to come by.
totoroIAF:
1. Su-30MKI: 241 (Sep, 2015) –> 272 (Final).
2. Mig-21: around 245 now –> 132 after 2017 –> 0 after 2022.
3. Mig-27: 120 (now) –> 0 after 2018.
4. Jaguar: aroud 140 now, retired by 2030.
5. Mirage 2000: 50 now, retired by 2030.
6. MIG-29 UPG: 69 now, retired by 2030.
7. LCA Tejas: 2 in service now –> 20 in service during 2018-2019 –> 120 in service after 2022 (40 MK1 and 80 MK1A).
8. Rafale: 36 (2019-2022).
These retirement dates are just placeholders, as far as i know. And we don’t know if all of them are official dates and even if they are, there are plenty of examples where various air forces couldn’t stick to their plans and timetables were stretched. Especially with India I see that as likely. Whole squadrons won’t be inactivated overnight just because year X came. They would *like* to replace old types by year X and retire them. But it won’t always be possible. So planes will be in service, even if it means they will fly less often and be less effective.
Tejas is indeed being very, very slowly produced. only three serial standard planes exist, i’m not sure if third one was indeed handed over in october, like it was planned. So far that means one serial standard plane in 2015, two in 2016 and God knows how many/few in 2017. They seem to be making them one by one, as if they were some pre-serial batch. But they had 8 preserials hand made from 2007 to 2013. Which then means there were more like pre-preserials. Certainly with plans for 20 in 2019 it means actual schedule can go only slower, not faster. And it’s a very steep jump from 20 in 2019 to 100+ in 2022. I don’t expect there will actually be over 60 in 2022. So a good deal of mig21s, even if they are flown less and refurbished once more, will have to soldier on a bit longer. But i don’t expect MF variants to survive until then. So with 120 mf minus 60 or so tejas, there will be a downfall for sure. Even if somehow HAL gets its act together and manages a whopping 25 Tejas per year from 2022 onward – that’s a total of 260 Tejas produced (so with attrition, maybe 250 in 2030?). Enough for mig21 squadrons, perhaps even an extra squadron.
Also, when su30mki is concerned – we don’t know if 272 is REALLY going to be final. There have been several additional contracts that were uknown to be planned to public years before they were announced. At the same time, FGFA was originally planned to be put into production for india by 2017 and total requirement of 200+ planes was announced. So it seems quite clear india plans to just switch from su30 production to fgfa. Of course, with schedule slippage, that will not happen. Last announced plan was certification in 2019, but in reality serial production will probably start after 2020. So HAL’s su30 line will have spare capacity. A project that is mature and known, at a time when IAF is running out of planes. Seems like a no brainer another contract will be negotiated and extra planes will be bought. Mind you, inital fgfa requirement was 200, which was later cut to 144. So there’s requirement for heavy planes. Su30 production could thus easely go to 300 planes, and perhaps use up all the cut fgfa plans (60ish) and go up to 330.
if IAF stands firm by the decision not to go for more than 36 rafales – and with a pricetag of $105 million per plane and likely 20-30 thousand per flighthour is not something IAF can afford to replicate for further 150+ planes. But at the same time IAF *needs* more planes. More capable than Tejas, less costly than Rafale. After all, requirement for 126-200 mmrca planes didn’t go anywhere. Plans to fulfill it were just paused. Hence the new initiative.
Mig27, which may have to soldier on a few years beyond 2018, will probably be offset by su30 and rafale buys. Still, We’re talking about 70ish planes covering for 120 by 2020 or so.
With jaguars, m2000 and mig29 and probable fairly slow buy of fgfa during 2020s, there simply must be another, significant source of new planes. If india could really set up a licenced production line (helped by actual US production line components moved to india) – with lower indian wages i could totally see indian f16 costing them around 50-ish million dollars. Which would be affordable. It wouldn’t match rafale capability, but it’d be a jump over average capability the jag/mig29/m2000 offered.
The ideal number of fighter that IAF wants is 750 to 810 in-service fighters for 42 to 45 sqns, or around 850 to 960 fighters in total (including the back-up and storage).
However, according to the anticipation mentioned above, IAF will have no more than 670 fighters in total after 2018, and this situation won’t change a lot even after 2022 if IAF doesn’t find the way to introduce at least another 100-plus new fighter ASAP.
100 plus new fighters will come from the initiative for a new medium fighter. or basically a continuation of previous mmrca initative. While i agree i don’t see how IAF could hold onto current numbers in 2030, i do believe it will not drop under 750 or so fighters on paper, even if it means sub 50% availability for certain types. 240+330+100+36+100 minus attrition: around 750 planes. And they’lll probably try for less planes per squadron with rafale and fgfa, and they’re already going for 20 tejas per squadron, so total number of such future squadrons may be around 36-40.
totoroHow about a little discussion on future IAF orbat, circa 2020-2040?
Currently IAF has some
130-200 mig21 ??
140 jaguar
60 mig29
50 m2000
120 mig27
240 su30
15 tejas?
some of these planes are new, some are old but are being modernized, others don’t have more than several years left in them.
How’s this list?
mig21 5-10 years left
jaguar 140 10-20 years left
mig29 15-20 years left
m2000 15-20 years left
mig27 5-10 years left
su30 20-40 years left
15 tejas 35-40 years left?
If the list is more or less correct, it’d mean IAF needs some 300 planes within the next ten years.
Then it would need another 250 planes from 2025-2035.
currently it hopes to produce 20-ish tejas per year and hopes to have 36 rafale by early 2020s, alongside a dozen su30/fgfa per year (i do believe that production line will go on until it is superseded by FGFA)
So maybe IAF can indeed purchase some 350 planes by 2025. But then what? Will tejas be making up a greater majority of the future fleet than mig-21 is now? Or will a somewhat more capable type emerge in numbers? Perhaps the alleged “medium single engine fighter” requirement proposal is just that. And tejas production will be curtailed by end of 2020s so a made-in-india f16 (or something) can take over?
I don’t really see how a twin engined amca has room to exist though, alongside fgfa and more immediate need for a medium fighter. I fear that project will for some decades more remain more of a study and its elements will eventually merge with fgfa, making it more reliant on indian next gen subsystems.
totoroRussia doesn’t give out stats on pak-fa either. And whould should they?
As for GE imagery of j-20, there isn’t just one. There are at least half a dozen different images and they all point towards a 20-21 meter length. Average of many images can’t be wrong.
Also, there are images of j-20 with both pl-12/15 and pl-10, missiles of more or less known lengths. Comparisons based on those images also corroborate 20-21 meter length.
totoroSo basically there’s no way to know for sure and one must choose to believe one source over the other?
Sign In
