http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXg6J9upaCg&feature=related :D;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuKWJeAKx_Y

So much about such claims here to stay polite.

It would be advisable for you to actually read what you provide as proof. The Pakistani tests were 5 bombs for a total of up to 40Kt. That’s an average of 8 Kt per bombs although one is said to have been bigger than the other 4.

India is said to have tested a 40 Kt device but that could not be independently verified AFAIK.

Hiroshima was 13 Kt and Nagasaki was 21 Kt…

In any case the ~ 6 tests both countries have done is way insufficient to provide a deterrence other than regionally or self defence. Things would be even worse for Iran. Their nuclear ambition would only be a threat to any country attacking them. A read on their nuclear stance would be interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Iranian_statements_on_nuclear_deterrence
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhran-II#Shakti_I

What prompted me to start this thread was a claim by Saab in 2009 that Gripen NGs defeated much larger Su-35s at a ratio of 16 to 10 in its 50 simulations.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/gripen-revives-war-of-words-over-norwegian-fighter-assessment-327317/

This claim should obviously be regarded with suspicion – computer engineers have a saying: garbage in, garbage out – but it gives me an impression that Saab believes cheaper lightweight fighters can overwhelm more expensive heavy fighters by numbers. At a given amount of money, you should be able to buy and operate more Gripens than Su-35s.

Quite a few simulations have been done a few years ago and they almost all were garbage.

How many Su-35 can Russia build and how many Gripen can Swedes field to oppose them ? What the exact quality of both planes, of their weaponry, support etc ?
In the argument quality vs quantity I would say from a historical point of view that the side with the will to fight and die will win.

However with modern warfare things are a bit more complicated. Russia has strategic depth which mean they can place their production and training facilities far enough from Sweden for them to be safe. Sweden cannot say the same. So how long can you keep on fighter if you cannot sustain your numbers ? Well the only advantage of quantity over quality is to be able to field more troops and win the attrition game. If you’re denied the possibility to sustain your number whether by direct damage or via the destruction of your industries the result is the same. You’re going to loose the attrition game.

Quality often mean complexity, which mean pilots need to be skilled in order to operate them. If you lose your pilots, you’ll likely lose the war. Germany had better aircraft (jets) but by the end of WW2 they had inexperienced pilots. The allied had lesser aircraft but far more experienced pilots. Their quality made the difference.

The Japanese kamikazes were able to damage targets that would not have been in danger by traditional aircraft. Had the US not used the Bomb how would they have affected the war ? I don’t know but I doubt they would have been enough for Japan to win the war. At the same time they only lost when they lost the will to fight due to the atomic bomb…

All in all I don’t think there is a single occurrence in history were one side only had quantity and the other quality, and quantity alone won. Whichever side has the will to fight + experience + ability to replace looses quicker will win. I only have example from antiquity but Hannibal lost in the end despite having superior quality and winning almost every battle, Carthage lost the maritime warfare despite having quality of ships and rowers, but Rome was willing to replace any loses far quicker…

After WW2 the US almost always made sure to have both quantity and quality so I’m not aware of any occurrence when someone won on quantity alone… In the end the US is losing any hard though ground because the public opinion isn’t willing to lose any more soldier. So I really think the men are the determinant factor here no matter which side of quantity vs quality they are on.

I’ve no idea. Syria was welcome back into the international community in 2007 IIRC but I don’t know if they were able to use it in order to get advanced weapons. Iran has been under embargo for quite a while now, and although they have links with Russia and China I’m not sure how willing they’re to provide Iran with latest technologies.

I’m under the impression however that Iran is far more resourceful, and having more to trade (oil) have been able to reach more compromises with other nations. They also seems to have a very active scientific community.
Have they been able to convert all this into capabilities, I don’t know. They’re one of China major oil supplier and they’re not under US control, so I’m sure China will protect its interest…

There is also that episode with the US drone, do they have a credible EW capability or were they just lucky ?

Right now their best deterrent I think is the size of their country making any war by air and land very difficult to conduct and sustain. Supports by regional extremist groups, very effective govt. and their usefulness to China.
I doubt their AD would last long under B-2, Tomahawks etc. Fortunately they’re not a problem that can be resolved with air dominance only.

I agree.. I mean Lockheed did their best with the transmogrification of the F-14 into the Raptor. Sometimes life is just like.. so hard, and confusing, and all. 😮

😀

Your thinking along the lines of the Soviet model with (the likes of) TsAGI providing fundamental knowledge and data to the manufacturers who then take these building blocks from TRL5/6 to a specific application?

Probably not a bad model to follow to be honest. It served the Soviets quite well.

Let’s face it, long term cooperation is a dream. It was attempted before (Jaguar, Concorde, Tornado, Typhoon) and each time politicians added their touch and almost or definitely messed the all affair.
Today countries like Spain, Italy and Germany are cooperating because they’ve no other choice. UK will want to remain in the sweet spot between EU and US (although the realignment of the US on Asia may help the UK re-evaluate the importance of the EU…), and France will want to remain the angular stone of Europe…
Sarkozy should be a goner (although GWB was reelected so never under estimate the stupidity of democracy…), and there are no indication that the next govt. in the UK or/and France will be really committed in cooperating leading to program’s reduction, changing requirements etc. so cost.

Navantia and DCNS didn’t work on submarines, Italy and France is an uneasy alliance with frigates… If it’s a collaborative technical success then it becomes an export failure (Scorpene), if it’s a collaborative export success then its technical success is much in doubt…
Every 5 years or so a new govt. may decide to change the tune of the previous govt…

In Europe the fight between industries are like the one with the immortals… There can only be one ! So instead of ending up with big expansive mammoth with all the monopole, it could be a better solution to separate research and financial gain. You remain technologically relevant while keeping companies competitive.

Fortunately we’re no longer living in the dark ages, and true information is no longer limited to a few selected gurus.

New horizons
The Week, Feb 21

The main challenges in inducting the Rafale to the IAF will be training and infrastructure

It was after a long selection process that the French Rafale emerged as the aircraft that will be inducted into the Indian Air Force from 2015. The 052,000-crore Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft deal involves the induction of 126 fighter aircraft, with an option to induct 63 more, if required, at a later stage. Apart from the huge money and the leap of technology involved, what does the deal mean from a fighter pilot’s point of view?
[…]
The air force is more technology oriented than the army or the navy. In a combat scenario, all other factors being the same, the air force with better technology will come out ahead. With two nuclear-armed neighbours, and given India’s political relationship with them, it is imperative that the IAF has the best technology that the country can afford. The MMRCA deal is about induction of such technology.
[…]
In 1985, I joined the newly inducted Mirage-2000 fleet. The aircraft was a technological marvel. What surprised me the most was the ease with which you could adapt to and assimilate these new technologies. I think it was the way in which it was presented to the pilot in the cockpit. It all seemed so natural and logical, and left you wondering how you managed without these technologies so far. While the aircraft performance was in a different league, mainly because of the innovative fly-by-wire system, basic flying was extremely simple. It was the management of the onboard systems that required skill. The availability of onboard systems like the multimode radar and the navigation and weapon-aiming systems made it possible to exploit the aircraft operationally for tasks limited only by your imagination. Also, the Mirage-2000 has an exceptionally good flight safety record.

As I went up in the hierarchy of the IAF, I got to see these aircraft from a different perspective. As the chief operations officer of a flying base, and thereafter as a base commander, I realised that the MiG-21 and other Soviet/Russian aircraft were not really maintenance friendly. Keeping these aircraft fly-worthy was a challenge. Compared with them, the Mirage-2000 was in a totally different league.

The Mirage-2000 is built on a modular concept. Most modules had built-in test equipment. If the test showed ‘no-go’, the faulty module just had to be pulled out and replaced with a functional module, and you were good to go. Even the engine was a module. Replacing an engine, which is required at times, took a little more than an hour. In the case of the MiG-21, an engine change was a major job which took significantly longer time and more effort to accomplish.
In 1993, I was part of the team bringing in more Mirage-2000 aircraft from France. Dassault, the manufacturer of the aircraft, made it a point to show us the Rafale, which was in the process of being operationalised for induction into the French air force and navy. The aircraft embodied an extension of the Mirage-2000 philosophy, but was more than a generation ahead in technology.

My association with the Mirage-2000 fleet included a fair amount of interaction with the French representatives, especially from Dassault. They are hard-nosed businessmen. If you have the money, and are willing to pay, they will deliver the required service. They did not seem too concerned with matters like foreign policy. However, like any businessmen, they will not waste an opportunity to exploit the customer if the opportunity arises.
In 2006, I was part of a delegation to the Farnborough Air Show. The Indian delegation was in demand because of the MMRCA deal. We were given briefings by all vendors in the fray. One common point about the two American vendors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, was that, when queried about specific equipment or weapon options for the F-18 and the F-16, the standard reply was “We will have to check with the State Department”. I do not think Dassault does business under such constraints.
The induction of the Rafale will pose challenges to the IAF. In my opinion, the main challenges will be training and infrastructure creation. The assimilation of these new technologies will not pose much of a problem, but the volume of personnel to be trained, especially for maintenance, will be a challenge. Induction of such high technology will also require the creation of dedicated equipment servicing and repair bays, and other allied infrastructure. This is a mammoth task.

The author has flown more than 3,500 hours on various fighter aircraft, including the MiG-21 and the Mirage-2000.

Apparently Dassault has fan in right places. While this article is mostly based on personal opinions, they are the opinions of Air Vice Marshal Mohan John (retd). That fellow seems quite happy with the Mirage 2000’s MMI and consider the Rafale is even better in all aspect to the former. So while I guess it’s ok to voice one’s opinion, stating it as fact and proof of “vastly” superiority is narcissistic at best…
On the MMI topic perhaps it’s better to concede that each side will think fondly of its own system ? After all we’re not all talking the same language (nor give the same meaning to even the same language…) are we ?

About the processors, the CAPTOR-E is already being designed. It means the main architecture has already been decided. The only reason why it’s going to be inducted 2-3 years after the RBE AESA is due to budget. Both radars are originally based on the same concept and prototype. So there should be little to no differences between the processors found in the CAPTOR-E and RBE. However due to funding, the only result is the CAPTOR-E been ready 2-3 years later but with the exact same technology as the RBE being inducted next year.

Talking about “the later development timeline” of the CAPTOR-E is a very cheap attempt to market it as next gen compared to present radar. That couldn’t be further away from the truth.

ESA technology provide an edge both in AtA and AtG. It provides better detection of LO targets, better mapping, SAR, virtually jam resistant etc.
For pure BVR A-A use, Captor’s disadvantages are, or should be, self evident;). There is a reason why every single export customer is asking for an AESA (even the Swiss) down the line:rolleyes:.

The more weight the Typhoon is going to take, the less effective its canard configuration is going to be. They still have to get a final product, and implement it successfully in the aircraft, then test its software and hardware in extensive trials to confirm any assumption they’ve made. Yet you heard about “vastly” superior “fact”:rolleyes:. So now that cost wasn’t good enough we’re back at capabilities. Now that pure performances aren’t good enough we try to take a shot at the sensors and MMI… If we can’t prove it’s superiority back then, we assume that 2 years was enough to go from average to crap, to “vastly superior”:confused:.

The Swiss evaluation says: “In the suitability assessment, only Rafale and Eurofighter were able to accomplish Air Policing missions with satisfaction, despite the Eurofighter showed some moderately objectionable deficiencies“
“Among the three NFA candidates, Rafale was the aircraft with the best effectivness and suitability for the accomplishment of a typical Air Policing mission. It also demonstrated better capabilities than the F/A-18C/D equipped with OFP-19C(S) and in addition in the accomplishment of Air Policing tasks it made the best impression on the pilots.”

In each categories both aircraft met the minimum requirements but the Rafale “has been assessed with the best overall effectiveness”.
The Typhoon sensors (including CAPTOR): “However, the Eurofighter would need some improvements especially in the EW and Sensors domain”.

Also “The supplementary effectiveness provided by the upgrades scheduled for the delivered configuration have not changed the NFA ranking obtained by the flight tests 2008 (1st rank Rafale, 2nd rank Eurofighter, 3rd rank Gripen)”

“The P1E upgrade of the Eurofighter does not provide big improvements for the Defensive Counter Air missions tasks.“

On every mission Eurofighter in its current state up to 2015 is rated as meeting the minimum requirements yet, is rated from medium to low on many areas. Rafale is good to very good. And that’s not even one against another, it’s against the F/A-18C/D !

Today it is said that at the time the Typhoon wasn’t up to the task yet. But at the time it was said that Typhoon was second only to the F-22 and already “vastly” superior to the Rafale by those very same people. What make them think they’re right this time ?

So conclusion, I’m simply a fanboy, SwissAF is inept, India is inept, Germany is inept, Brazil is inept… But Typhoon is a “vastly” superior cake…:o