VnomadHow is that an “ideal compromise”?
A negotiation/compromise implies that both parties get something in the deal. What does the UK gain? They already have everything they want.
This is like negotiating with a thief to only give up one of the cars and be happy to be left with the other.
Quite simply, the Falkland Islands get access to South America. Regardless of whether the economy migrates from fishing to oil, there will always be greater profit to be made if goods were to be shipped to and from the closest market rather than making a relatively expensive trip to Europe or North America.
Plus of course the UK will eventually be able to scale back a logistically taxing military deployment and improve relations with South American countries.
Vnomad:rolleyes: So what ? A lot of people can claim they discovered Falklands, and because some folks went and settled there its now British?
The operative factor is time. It wasn’t settled five years or ten years ago. Its been a part of the British realm and populated by people of British origin for over 150 years.
Its proximity to Argentina alone strengthens their claim, I hope in future, when Argentina defeats Britain, you will relocate the people to Devon or Cheshire or some channel islands.
What do you mean ‘you will relocate’? I’m not British.
Had the Argentinian govt. not made the stupid mistake of invading the islands, they’d have owned them today. Its their military action that hardened attitudes both in the UK and among the islanders.
As far as a solution goes – an ideal compromise would be to allow Argentina certain (negotiable) rights within the islands’ EEZ and turn sovereignty of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands over to Argentina (which in turn would grant British scientific teams unfettered access).
VnomadHow a country can claim anything thousands of miles off its borders is beyond me.
Falklands are one of the last remnants of Colonialism and one day i hope they will be won back militarily by the Argies (may be with the help of a radicalised Brazil !)
đ Were you serious there or were you joking?
The Falklands were uninhabited before being settled by the Europeans. Hardly an example of colonialism as we know it. Its people choose to be a part of the British realm – why would you want to see its population militarily forced to live under an Argentinian flag instead?
Though to be fair British claims of sovereignty over South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands certainly have no basis.
VnomadWe have high resolution pictures of the antennas, they can’t be mistaken for interferometric arrays. What more do you want?
Which antennas are we talking about? I was under the impression that the DASS was being upgraded with new antennas under the P1E program. No difference?
VnomadWith regard to the Swiss evaluation, I have been curious – how was it structured? Did it factor in the hardware and software upgrades to the DASS that are currently in the works (like how allowances were made for the Gripen NG)?
VnomadThe claim is “localisation” which does imply some sort of tracking (general pinpointing) mechanism. If this is airborne geolocation – then there could would be some sort of tracking of emitters, the way ground passive radar detectors can do some limited tracking. It is a pretty complex mechanism though.
Against a MESA or PESA, maybe. Tracking an AESA on the other hand, is a very different prospect.
Once you have even a simple RWR detect radar emissions, and general geolocation capability from the SPECTRA, then a single Rafale could switch on its radar and pass data to other Rafales (that may hide behind to minimize radar reflections via positioning).
The Rafale’s radar doesn’t need accurate coordinates from the SPECTRA – the AESA’s scan rates are near instantaneous.
By the time the Typhoon brood comes close enough to fire weapons at the Rafale pack, the emitting Rafale’s own radar would have been painting these fighters for quite some distance – 80 KM or more is likely given the typical effective ranges of the Meteor.
Unless it launches one or more ‘spoilers’ first. Out of effective range but forcing the opposition into taking evasive action.
This means – the Rafale pack would also have accurate (and timely enough) tracking for targeting the Typhoons…well before they could be fired at.
Assuming that is the case – how has SPECTRA helped?
The only exceptions would be fluke situations where you have – by chance – a Typhoon fire up its radar and other Typhoon jets in the front really close to the Rafale getting datalinked radar profiles, all this by chance.
It wouldn’t be a fluke. If you have a active emitter in your formation, it makes good sense to fly a fair distance away from it, to ensure you get the first shot opportunity.
Even this would probably not work when the OSF is upgraded to the “NG” standard, which may detect thermal targets up to 130 KM – depending on the sky conditions.
Like the AEW&C, don’t count on the IRST, particularly at longer ranges. Its susceptible to weather, has low FoV and wouldn’t give you a firing solution at ranges comparable to even a mid rung radar. Otherwise, a MiG-21 upgraded with a next gen IRST, would become competitive against an F-22.
If detected at those distances, the Meteor would still not be in firing range, and the Rafale can switch on the radar and paint hostile targets just in time.
The emitting Eurofighter certainly wouldn’t be a firing position, but doesn’t apply to the other aircraft in the formation. If it can get tracks on the bulk of enemy fighters before the opposing radar does the same, the friendlies can maneuver into a safer firing position – on or near the flanks of the enemy formation well out the hostile radar’s FoV (pincer action).
No denying that. But if the Rafale pack is cued on time by the SPECTRA (~200 KM is a figure I have seen) than you would have at least one radar turned on. It could be a single emitting Rafale that passes the picture to other jets.
If and only if the enemy aircraft emits in your direction. If doesn’t, it could simply fly across your nose, without you becoming any wiser. Or alternatively it could be a formation of strike aircraft on the way to hitting say a radar station that your counting on for early warning. Maybe even employing the tactic that you espouse – low level penetration, leaving GCI nothing aside from a general idea, to convey to you.
Point is, you cannot dominate the battlefield if you’re in a defensive position in a foxhole, waiting for the enemy to make itself known to you.
VnomadHow far that goes is beyond me, but if the SPECTRA is effective in airborne geolocation as has been claimed (and this is many times tougher than geolocating static ground emitters) than it means that whenever the Typhoon switches it radar it would be tracked in turn for distances easily up to 200 KM (claimed geolocation range of the SPECTRA according to some).
It means that the “first look” advantages of the Typhoon may be reduced to a very small edge – since both jets would “see” each other via different methods. AND since that “first look” capability is not matched by a “first shoot” ability due to lack of weapon range, there is not much of an edge anyhow for the Typhoon.
That leaves you detecting (not tracking) only and only the emitting Eurofighter. He could have a single wingman or flying in a 40 strong formation, you wouldn’t know the difference.
How do you detect the remainder of hostiles at long or medium range? That’s right – you turn on that radar. So let us first dismiss this idea that the scenario will play out without radars coming into action.
After the RBE-2AA and Captor-E light up, either the two forces are close enough so that everyone can see everything, or they’re a fair distance apart in which case the radar’s range (and various other characteristics) is brought to bear.
And lets not bring AEW&C aircraft into this – because it again results in the entire exercise becoming moot. The fighter with AEW&C support, regardless of whether its a Eurofighter, Rafale or Mirage 2000, will always have first look first shot advantage.
VnomadGreat then, that’s precisely the kind of war Rafale was designed for, back in the nineties…
That’s the kind of war the Eurofighter and Gripen were designed for too. In fact, the most common criticism one hears about the Eurofighter is that its a ‘Cold War’ fighter intended to defeat masses of Su-27s and is therefore unnecessary today, in the post-Soviet world.
VnomadFirst of all if you need to protect a area you’ll put in place early warning ground radar along with SAM systems in order to protect the most vital parts. Then you’ll have AWACS flying to plug the gaps, and your fighters will be used to ID suspicious tracks or provide air patrol (to protect AWACS, tankers or patrol most likely entry points). I really don’t know where you get your idea that a country would rely only on its fighters to provide zone protection. It would be incredibly expansive to rely only on fighters been airborne to provide a radar picture.
As of today, the IAF can field a maximum of three AEW&C aircraft to patrol a border that in the event of a two front war spans almost 7000km (roughly 4000km if one ignores bends). More if Nepal and Myanmar are also considered possible routes of ingress. In contrast the length of the land border between the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries in Europe was about 2000km (including the Greece-Bulgaria front).
Radar coverage is quite good on the western front but patchy on the China border (partly due to the challenging terrain). SAMs are mainly deployed at high value targets – airbases, command and control nodes etc, and with mobile army formations.
Point is, while India is still in the midst of what’s often referred to as an RMA, having an inventory of assets comparable to the NATO should not be taken as granted.
The idea of using the F-22 to provide targets coordinates is a result of a lack of sufficient numbers and an attempt to try and balance the odds. So far it has not been demonstrated to be effective.
How was it deemed ineffective? Or do you mean as a substitute for a proper AEW&C aircraft?
If a modern air force cannot provide enough survivability and availability to its fleet of AWACS to be reliable, then there is a huge problem. If you cannot “count on it” then you’re doing something wrong.
It should rather be count on it but be prepared just in case.
Consider your foe as well. You’re talking about what is or is soon to be, the second most powerful air force in the world. In the worst case scenario (one that the Indian military actively trains for), its acting in conjunction with another air force that, while numerically small, still remains among the better trained forces out there.
Even assuming the IAF starts out with a comprehensive radar network, well dispersed SAMs, sufficient AEW&C platforms and an all encompassing C4I system, how long would it last before a full scale war degraded it by sheer attrition if nothing else (and to be fair that of the enemy as well)? Doing so through a variety of means, including but not limited to, SEAD/DEAD air missions, cruise missile strikes, ballistic missile strikes, special forces raids, maybe even cyber warfare. Lets not take the Iraq/Kosovo/Libya type limited war as a blueprint for all modern warfare.
Now should Rafale face a aircraft capable to detect it before it can do the same. The question is can Rafale survive long enough to get in range of its own sensors/weapons ? That’s where SPECTRA comes into play. Dassault obviously knew they could never be 100% sure Rafale would always have first look first launch even if they tried their best.
The PLAAF fields a large and still fast growing fleet of Su-27 derivatives that sooner or later will feature capable AESAs of their own, will be linked in to their own C4I network, and flown by crews that are far better trained than their predecessors. They could very well be flying in with only a third of the aircraft emitting, and others datalinked to the emitters, detectable only when they enter range of passive sensors, while the IAF remains tasked with checking all intruders.
Vnomad1 Rafale in 1 sortie will strike just as many targets as your three jaguars, with much less chance of being shot down.
How many compared to four Jaguars? Or five? Also when a Jaguar gets shot down, you’re still left with five that soldier on. Six Jaguars can be deployed at three different airbases in three different theatres of combat. The Tornados have more moderate capabilities vis-a-vis the Rafale, but they did just fine over Libya.
India’s threat situation is very different from that facing coalition forces in Libya, but if we’re discussing hypotheticals :shrug:.
As for defensive abilities, no sane air force will defend in the blind only sending fighters looking for targets with their own radars.
Been doing so for decades. Combat air patrols aside, IAF operations today require the aircraft to perform a radar search after a GCI vector.
Rafale with it’s TV channel enabling it to identify targets at about 40 km and an IR missile to attack them at same distance or even more is perfect to carry out intercepts in an integrated network.
Don’t have to bother with the Meteor then, even the R-73 should do in a pinch. Don’t have to bother with all this AESA nonsense either, even the RBE-2 PESA is obviously more than sufficient (if not bordering on overkill).
BTW what’s the FoV of the TV system when cued to 40km? How many hostile aircraft can it track simultaneously?
VnomadWhen a thread start generating too much BS maybe it’s time to give it a rest for a while don’t you think ?
Are you sure you want to compare the all digital Rafale with advanced multi-role capabilities with the Jaguar ?
Please pay some attention to the context in which the statement was made. I was saying the MRCA should be acquired because of its advanced multi-role capabilities, given that the IAF faces a significant threat in the air.
Are you sure you want to rate the PAF which is inducting bvr missiles for the first time of its history about now or in the near future on the same level as the PLAAF and IAF ?
I don’t recall doing anything of the sort.
The point is even small countries are making the effort to spend on AEW&C platform that are becoming cheaper because you simply cannot replace them with fighter jets playing “mini AWACS”, and in such an environment the maximum range of a radar isn’t as important as his reliability, multi-modes, cost effectiveness etc.
Ideal conditions aside, it’ll be a long time before the IAF can provide total AEW&C coverage in potential combat zones and even then there is no surefire way of preventing the fleet from taking attrition in wartime. Bottomline: if you have an AEW&C aircraft in support, excellent. But don’t count on it.
Now and until someone can prove the CAPTOR to be “superior” in range or whatsoever to the RBE2 this discussion is becoming pointless.
That is a different question. The assertion made by Shiv1971 was that the Captor-E’s greater range (supposed or otherwise) was immaterial, because radar range has become irrelevant as far as combat in subcontinent is concerned. Which I strove to prove is incorrect.
This debate should ideally speaking, have been on a different thread, but I’ll leave it to moderators to decide if the posts should be moved.
VnomadWhat a load of BS. 1 Rafale is much more effective than your 6 jaguars, while much cheaper to run.
‘Effective’ meaning what?
Cheaper yes, but then that Jaguar fleet will be able carry out at least three times as many sorties in the same time period.
Besides, you’re totally overlooking the point that I was illustrating – the Rafale is being acquired for its multirole capabilities, and if air superiority is assured by total coverage of airspace by AEW&C aircraft, you’re better off with a bomb truck. Quit nitpicking.
Vnomaddjcross –
Guess I was wrong then.
Appears to be incredibly dangerous. Why is it practiced at ground level instead of a simulated hard deck?
VnomadReplying to Vnomad’s posts:
I said âquietââŚ.not âinvisibleâ. You donât get a truly silent jet. But there are tactics that today are used in ways not used during the Vietnam war. Both the F-35 and the F-22 are developed with these in mind. Itâs a big difference from the earlier F-14/F-15 approaches used.
Both the F-22 and F-35 were designed to operate with expensive state of the art radars.
Then how is the F-22 able to whack anything in the air without being that much of an emitter? It does use an LPI radar but it relies on âdata fusionâ from a lot of other assets. The radar switches on only when needed.
What do you mean without being much of an emitter? In training exercises, it often switches to a mini-AWACS role after expending its missiles. It isn’t done in international exercises for reasons of operational security (just like the IAF’s MKIs operate their Bars in ‘training mode’ when abroad), that doesn’t imply that it doesn’t train for it, or that it is foreign to its doctrine.
In the case of the Rafale, a single Rafale may be an emitter and then datalink information to other Rafales and go in for a mass attack with very little radar emissions (relatively).
So can all other fourth generation aircraft. Point is, that single Rafale does have to go active, which is where its range comes into play.
True â the Typhoon also can use stealthy modes of attacking, but IF it relies heavily on the Captor-E it does tell the Rafale squadron that a Typhoon pack is around. On the other hand, the Rafale can be masked better if it does not use its own radar assets.
What does rely ‘heavily’ mean? It fuses data from RWRs and PIRATE as well.
And â you have made my point here as well. The tactic now is to switch OFF the radar and use datalinks â which means that half of the Captor-Eâs case is lost. The Captorâs case was the radiating power (range) and azimuth. The minute you âover useâ the radar it becomes detectable noise. So the case for lots of early detection is a curiously mixed one…it depends on how you choose to set up strategy, and the trade offs you are willing to accept.
Datalinks cannot detect or identify the enemy. If you want enforce air superiority over a region, you’re going to have employ your primary sensor. Your basically like a sniper, lying in your nest, waiting for someone to move into your rifle’s scope. You can’t defend your position and you can’t attack your enemy’s.
1. If the hostile aircraft isn’t emitting – you can’t see him.
2. If the hostile aircraft is emitting, within missile range, but not doing so in your direction – you can’t see him.
3. If the hostile aircraft is one or more helicopters – you can’t see him.
4. If your hostile aircraft is a UAV – you can’t see him.
5. If your hostile aircraft is actually a cruise missile – you can’t see it.
6. If your hostile aircraft is a entire formation of a 50 transports airdropping a paratrooper brigade behind your lines – they do so with impunity.
7. If your opposition is a 20 aircraft squadron armed with 150 missiles, but with only one aircraft emitting – you see only one aircraft on your scope.
Like I said, the old methods of fighting are disappearing away especially as datalinking is getting to be better over the years. The case against the Rafale on radar range does not play well when you have other radar assets supplying the radar picture.
Its RAF, AdA and USAF can afford to factor AEW&C aircraft into planning when they’re thumping Iraq or Libya. That’s not something the IAF can take for granted when a nearly 7000km long border has to be defended against two first rate air forces.
What if the IAF cannot guarantee 24×7 AWACS coverage in the aircraft’s area of responsibility? What if your mission brief calls for extending air superiority into enemy airspace, where AWACS can’t follow? What if a preemptive missile strike on Agra wipes out half or more of the IAF’s fleet of AEW&C aircraft?
The Tejas not being there is the reason why India went for the MRCA. If the Tejas was built in numbers and had the right level of development, there would be no need for new buys until the PAK-FA/FGFA and the AMCA. The fact is, the Tejas is a total failure because it has been a âno showâ. Plus â I donât think it is much of a striker.
That isn’t the point – buy Gripen C/Ds instead of the Rafale then. If you can decisively count on a Phalcon radar on an IL-76 with a 800km range always being there to back you up, radar, IRST, ELINT, SPECTRA, DASS is all meaningless. Go for the cheapest thing that can fly.
As far as strike missions go – buy more Jaguars – get six for the price of one Rafale.
The Mirage is too old and it will take about 9 years to get just 51 jets upgraded. You donât have a production line in the first place! The IAF did want the Mirages at the turn of the century, but I would rather go for something more modern.
The MiG-29 would make a better case for air superiority but a rather weak case for ground strikes. India did try out the MiG-35 version but the jet was not in the right development cycle…
Your missing the point. Its that the quality of your aircraft has a vastly diminished value when you’ve got thumping great AWACS at your back.
The MRCA is not merely about air superiorityâŚa HUGE application is ground strikes. And potentially the IAF was impressed by French future plans to use âsecond generation RAMâ and stealth shrouds to reduce radar signaturesâŚ.
What’s second generation RAM? And what’s first generation RAM? And where does 60s era ironball paint fit in? Also, ‘stealth shrouds’ – what are those?
Also, if its ground operations that the aircraft is being acquired for, then don’t muck around evaluating its capability in air combat – the SV and SH can do as well at a substantially lower price.
Because of the way the Indians and Pakistanis tend to fight, and also because China and Pakistan will use low level penetration to attempt to beat really high-quality ultra-powerful radars bought by India (from IAI and Thales, not to mention new Indian radar designs that will be put out).
They cannot exclusively use low level penetration for all operations. Some aircraft like the Mirage III or JH-7 employing those tactics I can understand, but why would the F-16 or Su-27 variants be ducking and dodging in valleys, exposing themselves to MANPADS? Unless they have absolutely no intention of engaging the IAF.
Also, the best way to detect an aircraft trying to exploit radar clutter in mountainous terrain is to fly high in look down mode.
You have a very different geography and warning times in the Indo-Pak and Indo-Chinese theatre. So tactics used in Europe wonât apply here as easily.
The European theatre during the Cold War had all sorts of warning times depending on where the aircraft was based. In Germany it was as low for NATO forces, as it is for the IAF in Punjab. Geography makes little difference over 10,000 feet. Any aircraft deliberately flying below that is either a strike aircraft or has no intention of fighting.
The ASRAAM wonât likely go much more than 22 KM unless it is a theoretical shot. The MICA IR sensor can work past 30 KM, and the near infrared TV camera on the OSF-IT will detect targets at 40 KM. As I said, there was a plan to develop the unit into the OSF-NG standard, with an Indian company (Samtel, iirc) involved.
Can I get source for that range quoted for the MICA-IR seeker?
Moreover, by the time you are in WVR, radar can definitely be used as the Rafale would itself be easily detected by the Typhoonâs PIRATE sensor way before then…
Within visual range, its the HMS and missile seeker’s FoV that matters – the radar has limited utility.
The ASRAAM is not agile! It is designed for a âfast straight blastâ⌠The MICA is much more agile due to thrust vectoring despite the extra pounds and higher drag.
So the ASRAAM has low range, low speed and low agility? Don’t go by looks alone, give the design team some credit. Its a lot like saying the Mirage 2000 is less maneuverable than the F-16 because it doesn’t have any elevators. The RAF already had a missile that could do a fast straight blast in the Aim-9L.
Also, while we’re at it, the IAF had the option of going for the IRIS-T.
Also, the ASRAAMâs seeker does not offer the 240 degree FOV of the AIM-9X due to the way it is machined in. The American missile allows the seeker to swing both sides, but the British weapon does not. That’s the same imaging infrared seeker, but a different fitting mechanism.
I’m fairly certain both the ASRAAM and Aim-9X are restricted to a near 180 degree FoV. If you have sources that say differently, do share.
VnomadThe french are the only ones to have a missile that acts as an IRST complement to its weapons system, and we see quite often people from other parts of the world claiming “it’s useless”… If it was, why would the french spend millions on developing such a system? It’s not like they are new to fighter business and have no clue what it is all about… What’s more, Does anyone here consider France as such a rich country that they can just throw away money as they have too much on their hands anyway?
Did it spend millions of dollars developing such a system? I’d imagine it was a good deal cheaper than if the USAF or RAF wanted to integrate the Aim-9X or ASRAAM into their systems, given that the Rafale/Mirage can already interface with the missile via a datalink.
Sign In
