Nick_76*The mature MKI has capabilities the Typhoon currently lacks – but they are mostly unrelated to A-A performance. Whereas contrary to that perception the Typhoon currently has A-A capabilities the MKI will always practically/realistically lack.
Incorrect..the MKI will have capabilities the Typhoon also lacks.
*We can beat around the bush all day – but the fact is the EF will have an RCS advantage over the MKI – no matter what the IAF have done to rid the baseline Su-27 of its 5m2+- RCS. Despite the fact that you will claim conjecture here – the fact is the EF will have an RCS at worst that is better than the F-16s and at best as BAE claim – 2nd to the F-22/JSF. Whether that is in the 1m2 to 0.5m2 to 0.1m2 range head on or something else – all we know is it won’t be to far from those figures.
Sorry! But where do these figures come from? The 4th scale law pretty much ensures that the range differential from the 1 to 3 Sq Mtr figures dont matter much! And we know the MKI can engage targets of the same. As far as tactical advantage is concerned, not really – because the MKI would have backup AWACS and will remain passive anyways, till it gets into engagement range.
*Using the 4th root law – it is apparent the RCS reduction measures will offer some tactical advantage.
Pretty much nil, I am afraid, unless one goes stealth in the complete sense.
*External stores argument – the EF can jettison tanks – and go in with 4 conformal munitions that again shouldn’t add significantly to the RCS of the jet. Make of this what you will – I can understand it is nothing but conjecture – but it is conjecture accepted by people generally in the know – even if their allegiances are suspect :).
Tanks are expensive!And if one needs to keep jettisoning them each time the BVR game appears- ouch!!
And if the EF needs tanks to keep up with the MKI, then that is a RCS advantage lost, if it ever were a tactically significant advantage to begin with. And the EF has 4 conformal munitions? But why? The MKI would play with 12 AAMs- that would be its standard A2A fit.
*With reference to the Typhoons supersonic performance advantages – dismissing them is probably as bad as dismissing the MKI and its abilities. Claiming that opposition with equally good operators – flying good aircraft – with excellent support makes supersonic/performance advantages irrelavent is in my opinion nonsense.
In your opinion is very correct! I will be as forthright as you were with my statement.
Because your claims dont stand up to any real life claims whatsoever and are indeed “nonsense” as you said.
In “real life”, as obtained from real operators, these so called advantages are best restricted to fanmags. In real life, fuel is so critical, that subsonic intercepts & brief dashes are all that matter & the EF’s so called supersonic performance is hence constrained. Its of marginal utility, to use an economics turn of phrase.
*By that logic – all one would need to do is upgrade the avionics on the Tornado – fit it with the new HMD being developed for the EF and take that into the fight. The Tornado currently being one of the best BVR platforms in the world with its datalink/AMRAAM/AWACs combo has been chopped down in excercises by the Typhoon. No matter what the avionics/systems engineer tells you – there is no substitute for performance. So called 4.5 gen aircraft wouldn’t have a point.
FYI, the Tornado handles like a brick even otherwise & never was meant to serve as an fighter aircraft (as compared to a bomber). So its ridiculous to even bring it in.
*Supersonic performance/agility for non VLO platforms is crucial and even to some degree important for VLO – being able to make high G supersonic turns without bleeding the same amount of energy as an older platform gives a distinct NEZ missile advantage assuming similar missile range.
The simple point is that the EF’s supersonic performance is nowhere as great to make a difference that would be in anyway construed as overwhelming.
It can go supersonic all it wants, and go bingo fuel. I will remain subsonic, increase my standoff viz the EF armament & use my TVC to increase the dynamic range equivalents for the EF weaponry.
*Accelerating rapidly from subsonic to Mach 1.6+ is essential for the BVR game. SC has some benefit here – but for the sake of having little information of the EFs capability in this regard I won’t stress it.
Sorry, this is absolutely wrong and you need to speak to real operators, there is no such “essentiality”.
I can assure you that there have been many actual BVR exchanges in detailed engagements, where both sides remained firmly in subsonic, and played a detailed cat & mouse game, exchanging locks and attempts to gain the tactical advantage.
*High altitude performance – such as turning/acclerating at high altitudes again essential.
Again – wrong. You might even want to do the exact OPPOSITE. To get the best performance from your weapons system by NOT operating in look down mode, even with medium PRF selection.
*These parameters are where the EF has an advantage over most of the oposition it faces. This is the reason it is scoring well in national and multinational excercises. Because being part of the system doesn’t make irrelavent the true advantage of performance – that is not the case now days in WVR as much – but in BVR performance is essential.
I am sorry, but you are just quoting the EF fan stuff without any real world input. Please spend some time with actual operators, and you will change your views about the amount of complexity involved in BVR or any ACM for that matter. Almost all you have said is a virtual copy from EF press material – and unfortunately, almost ALL of it, is “this way is the only way”, which is plain wrong.
I dont blame the EF guys, they have to sell their bird…but its way overdone.
*Lakenheath F-15s are reportedly being routinely trounced by EFs throughout the UK – which probably highlights the importance of this KE advantage over the view point that systems engineering is becoming completely dominant.
Again dear sir. I can assure you that if an EF force would go against a F-15SG/K force backed up by proper support (E3’set al) with the SGs having AIM-120D’s, the blood would flow either ways.
Its one thing for Brit sites to rabble rouse about having shown them F-15s, but the reality will come when large force packages operate.
*An example: 1 EF + AWACs(A) vs 1 Tornado + AWACs(B) – both using AMRAAM C5 and MIDS communicating with the AWACs. The AWACs(A) detects the Tornado first – alerts the EF which climbs and acclerates. Shortly afterwards Typhoon is detected by (B) which alerts the Tornado – which climbs and acclerates. The Typhoon and Tornado close – the both traveling at Mach 1.6 + but the EF being able to operate at higher heights has a height differential. Both fighters start to enter the nominal NEZ of the C5 against a target with the kinematic performance of the Tornado – They both fire and the Tornado is downed while attempting to crank away as it uses AWACs (B) to guide its missile. The Typhoon on the other hand having impressive top end performance hands off its AMRAAM to its AWACs – just after it had kept the Tornado on the edge of its gimbal for sometime – and advantage in BVR that M-SCAN possess – essential without AWACs or support. It then cranks and dives maintaining much more speed than the Tornado had in a similar maneuver. It outruns the missile as it has the speed to drop its NEZ. Now of course this is extremely oversimplified – and please excuse my tone if it comes across as arrogant and simple because that is not my intent – but it does demonstrate the performance advantage the Typhoon has that no sensor/system is going to negate fully.
One the MKI is not the Tornado. Second, there is no guarantee who will detect whom first. Third, there is no given, that the MKI will be alone..fourth, there is no given that Fighter group B units go supersonic…they might very well withdraw and maintain a defensive CAP to pull A in, and ambush him with additional assets..what then? See, the BVR game is by NO means simple.
*The Typhoon is essentially a point defense fighter in terms of internal fuel. But that doesn’t mean it automatically bingo’s after one BVR engagement with AB use – especially with tankers in the so called system.
Who in whose name is speaking of one BVR engagement?? Why would the first engagement occur succesfully? The entire game of BVR is to win! That doesnt mean attacking and following through at step 1 itself!
*I don’t believe in DERA kill ratio’s for the Tiffy on current missiles but I can see how it could achieve positive kill ratio’s against the MKI.
The simulations were quite frankly, per what has been declared on this forum, junk. They were valid for a decade back, against the then Soviet industry.
*In longer range ops the Flanker becomes a lot more flexible than the Typhoon no doubt.
There are no longer range/shorter ops – think of it as a flow. Staying power. I have more range and twice your numbers, who stays there longer?
*MMI in high intensity conflict with jamming, hostile ROEs and SAM threats will stress even the two seat MKI – a more computerised EF type solution is essential – that being said who knows what the Indians have in the MKI – but if I were a betting man I’d be in the Typhoon – especially since the MKIs avionics are a collection of different systems from South Africa/Israel/Russia/India and probably more – whereas the EFs cockpit has been designed from the ground up for MMI by a dedicated team and not as an afterthought.
Sorry, this is absolutely wrong again. The EF avionics are by that logic, equally a political mess with a Europe jobs program contributing to it. The MKI program sees avionics selected by a single user, integrated by a team again led by that user to his MMI needs & which is why the program has achieved so much more faster.
*As for Russian BVRAAMs my sources say the R-77 Ramjet RnD stopped in 1999. The K-172 program had RnD dedicated to it as early as 1984 – which says a lot. Whereas Meteor is a reality.
Please look under user Pit’s posts for the status of Russian AAM programs.
Nick_76Well I think no one suggested that the MKI wouldn’t posse any capabilities which aren’t available to the Typhoon. What LmRaptors conclusion was is that the Typhoon is ahead AA not more not less, if it is really the case is difficult to say for various reasons. Yet I see some advantages for the Typhoon which the MKI seems to lack or obviously lacks. The mentioned superior supersonic agility/maneuvreability and performance is one thing that comes into mind. Add NCW capabilities, sensor fusion a complete EWS are others.
My point is that performance in any particular corner of the envelope is not really an overwhelming advantage for either type. The MKI can go supersonic as well, and it has better range plus with IFR it can keep doing the cat & mouse game. Plus it has TVC which has use in both end game BVR apart from WVR as well. And netcentric – the details matter! So the EF has JTIDS or MIDS, so the MKI will be integrated with the Phalcon & local ADGES. And sensor fusion needs be qualified, both fighters can access far more sensors than can be used, and the MKI has two sets of brains to make use of that. All in all, I dont see any categorical advantages either way. EF export oriented PR apart, the key things are AWACS (For passive situational awareness at long range) & staying power (which means the guy who keeps dashing, goes off!!)
And I dont see the MKI lacking for each. All said & done, I see the FCR more as a weapons engagement platform. It will remain passive till it needs to engage. And for systems the size of the Phalcon et al, the EF’s signature reduction does not really matter. (Considering the absolute worst case scenario for the MKI etc!)
The difficulty is to filter that stuff. You can’t compare things which are unknown if you have no hints at all. You can compare what you know and leave an open mark such as “there might be additional capabilities here or there”.
My point is that we simply cant discuss the stuff that “is” versus the “stuff that may be”. Because the IAF wont go public, so it puts a lid on me from speculating. I do wish however, that they would.
And from where do you know that the datalinks have these capabilities. As I understand it the russian datalink being used are similar to that of the Su-27SK and other export model, I do at least know what this datalink is capable of. Correct me if I’m wrong and another datalink is used.
I dont know the Su-27 SK datalink because I dont have my old files with me & yes, this isnt the old Lazur/Biryuza system. But we do know the datalinks the MKI has & what they allow. The MKI system allows passive intercepts of upto 4 MKIs in a section, with one sharing track data with others. More sections can join up as well. If we see released pics, one can easily make out the same, with the datalink controls visible.
Well FOC is already achieved with the Typhoon though not with all different customers. The RAF has declared Typhoon fully operational in the AA role on April 1 and in the AG role on July 1. Sure there are things which has yet to be developed and proven/mature.
My point is FOC varies: For the RAF, AA is FOC & several of the AA capabilities touted by the EF team will come later. And as you state that there are things which are yet to mature. For the IAF FOC, was full A2A and A2G capability as per original agreement. After that, they have continued to add capabilities such as SAR Pods and this and that, which are extensions of the original but hey, who cares. The point is that the MKI today has capabilities, the EF will aim towards a few years from now & some it never will. But the IAF is not publicising it, as the bee’s knees (nor should it) so we miss out on “regular updates” and what not.
I don’t think it’s assumed that the Typhoon is automatically superior at all, furthermore you have to differentiate between different areas. The Su-30MKIs AG capabilities or lets say multirole capabilities are more developed and mature than those of the Typhoon, hence the MKI is clearly superior in that area. That doesn’t mean it is in others and the other way round.
My point was that we know more about the A2G capabilities because it is less sensitive. But it is the A2A capabilities that dominate & the IAF will not talk about it. Tell me, is the MKI EW fit as current = what has been reported? What is the definitive status of the armament? Such details are at least available to some degree for the EF, for the MKI details stopped appearing moment it got into service some 2-3 years back.
Which I would point to, reiterates the fact that the A2A comparison of the EF vs the Su-30 MKI is pointless, because on one side we have detailed export oriented data, and on the other, we have a nearly complete black hole. Where are the details of Squadron raisings and interviews to AFM or AI about sensor/weapon/training details?
A last statement: At Red Flag, there were days when the MKIs dominated the kill tables. Per the so called public data – it shouldnt. What I am getting at, is what is public is very limited per what we should be able to make out, which renders comparisons moot.
What we can estimate however, is that even under “worst case” scenarios, the MKI can use tactics & a support system to face an EF force on equal grounds. And this is what makes the two fighters evenly matched, because the EF simply isnt the Raptor to blow its opposition away!
It’s not a single factor that matters but the combination of different key capabilities. The Typhoon provides a quite good combination of key performances/capabilities which make it a capable air superiority fighter. MMI, sensors, sensor fusion, EWS, weapons, performance etc. all come into mind. The Typhoon doesn’t dominate in every single area, but again what matters is the best possible combination of the single factors.
Sorry Scorps, but this is again generics when we speak of specific capabilities. I fail to see how a MKI backed up by a Phalcon with complete battle management capabilities including a fully capable ESM suite is going to be in anyway severely disadvantaged. In unit costs, even assuming the MKI is inferior, we can put two MKIs to one EF up, wherein disadvantaging the EF severely!! But even that is hardly the case- simply put, we talk of MMI – but we can also point to the presence of the second set of eyes & brains, and so forth.
True as is the Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 or about every other fighter for their native customers. Though I understand your point, that the MKI is different in comparison to the MK2 for Venuzuela for example.
My case was more of the MKI being an ever evolving program because it is both feeding into and feeding off the local programs. This is because India has an evolving aerospace industry which is being funded & grown.
This year we have the Astra in trials, if it comes good, it is supposedly a missile better than the RVV-AE. At least kinematically.
And that gives India the capability to work on something better, either on its own or even as a JV, such as Brahmos was. This is the difference. Venezuala is not investing as much into fiddling with its Sukhois as India is. And India intends to keep doing so, constantly. For the PRC, they had their imported ones, and now their local derivatives. For India, they are one & the same, as the Indian license gives India leeway to play around with them.
Regards,
Nick
Nick_76By the way: the Eurofighter is even better in all terms of performance than the Suchoi 35.
I seriously have my doubts Schorsch. There simply is not so much to differentiate the EF from the Su-3XX MK/35 series. One can point to the elegant conservatism of the EF (minimal this, that) vs the brute force approach the Flankers bring, but each has a reason behind it. All said & done, the day can go either way when both face each other, and thats the sticking point. Whereas if a Raptor faces the Su or EF, easy money is on the Raptor.
Nick_76It is indeed a bit odd that while the russians give great details on their radars and other equipment, they are quite enigmatic about their missile capabilities.
Search under Martinez’s name. He had put up a RVV-AE ie R-77 brochure with a level of detail that is (nowadays) almost impossible to find for most western AAMs. What we do have comes from AvLeak (ie not manufacturer certified) or extrapolations from media or Janes et al estimates.
Nick_76You’re thinking with blinders on. I didn’t say Pakistan supported the Taliban or AQ specifically, I said they supported terrorism. Pakistani-backed militants are under the US radar because they aren’t blowing up American targets.
Yeah well. I wonder when it is that the US wakes up to the biggest con job perpetrated on its troops fighting in on Afghanistan and reads the law to Pakistan.
I ain’t hoping though, ‘coz like its gonna happen.
We just had our umpteenth attack in India, traced via forensic evidence & intel to their handlers back in Pak.
Indian Govt. (predictable response):”the dastardly perpetrators shall not break our resolve”. Yeah well, you useless political cretins, its easy to be tough when y’all use choppers/protected cavalcades, have Z++ and what not acronym security. The rest of us have to grin and bear it.
Paks response of course to each time folks get upset (over such minor trifles like a few dozen folk dying, several more crippled etc) is like the sherriff in blazing saddles – put a gun to their own head & bleat about how extremists will take over the country if Pakistan/ the Pakistani Army is destabilised.
Yeah well.
Earth to saturn.
The extremists took over a long time back & they ARE the Pakistani Army, namely the Army staffed & run ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) which runs the terror campaign in India and supports the Talibs with logistics and training vs the ISAF/US/UK in Afghanistan.
And the Pakistani Army including Musharraf, and now Kiyani are fully in the know & have always looked the other way, since a proxy war is easy, and fulfills Pakistans “Strategic objectives”, without getting their army into another war which they cant win. So Pakistan deploys 100,000 troops (another ridiculous figure btw) who occupy British era forts, rarely stir out, and promptly strike peace deals with the Taliban when they do. Anybody remember the ridiculous charade of a Pakistani corps commander shaking hands and embracing his so called enemy & while the Pak Govt is asking for aid in the US because of the heavy fighting thats going on! Yeah…sure..!
In the meantime, the ragtag paramilitary Frontier Corps is used to conduct antiTalib ops, whereas the regular Army engages only “bad militants” (those who dont follow ISI writ, versus those who do), publishes ludicrous inflated figures of “thousands of Pakistani troops have died in the WOT & what not” and promptly ask the US for P-3C’s, AN/TPS-77 radars, F-16’s because we all know the Taliban have a Navy, Air Force and etc.
Oh btw, the anti Taliban Frontier Corps, the great fighters of the Taliban – got bombed recently. When they opened fire on US/Afghan troops so that Taliban fighters could get back into Pak & the US guys called in Air strikes.
Gee, thats the premier Anti Talib force. Meanwhile the Pak Army strike deals.
As long as the Taliban exist, the Gravy train flows. NATO keep asking Pak to “do more” & let our supplies through, and the US pays up.
And Pak can continue to make merry in India & Afghanistan.
Nice double game.
When will the world wise up & have Pakistan end this charade?
Not like its going to happen.
Nick_76You’re thinking with blinders on. I didn’t say Pakistan supported the Taliban or AQ specifically, I said they supported terrorism. Pakistani-backed militants are under the US radar because they aren’t blowing up American targets.
Yeah well. I wonder when it is that the US wakes up to the biggest con job perpetrated on its troops fighting in on Afghanistan and reads the law to Pakistan.
I ain’t hoping though, ‘coz like its gonna happen.
We just had our umpteenth attack in India, traced via forensic evidence & intel to their handlers back in Pak.
Indian Govt. (predictable response):”the dastardly perpetrators shall not break our resolve”. Yeah well, you useless political cretins, its easy to be tough when y’all use choppers/protected cavalcades, have Z++ and what not acronym security. The rest of us have to grin and bear it.
Paks response of course to each time folks get upset (over such minor trifles like a few dozen folk dying, several more crippled etc) is like the sherriff in blazing saddles – put a gun to their own head & bleat about how extremists will take over the country if Pakistan/ the Pakistani Army is destabilised.
Yeah well.
Earth to saturn.
The extremists took over a long time back & they ARE the Pakistani Army, namely the Army staffed & run ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) which runs the terror campaign in India and supports the Talibs with logistics and training vs the ISAF/US/UK in Afghanistan.
And the Pakistani Army including Musharraf, and now Kiyani are fully in the know & have always looked the other way, since a proxy war is easy, and fulfills Pakistans “Strategic objectives”, without getting their army into another war which they cant win. So Pakistan deploys 100,000 troops (another ridiculous figure btw) who occupy British era forts, rarely stir out, and promptly strike peace deals with the Taliban when they do. Anybody remember the ridiculous charade of a Pakistani corps commander shaking hands and embracing his so called enemy & while the Pak Govt is asking for aid in the US because of the heavy fighting thats going on! Yeah…sure..!
In the meantime, the ragtag paramilitary Frontier Corps is used to conduct antiTalib ops, whereas the regular Army engages only “bad militants” (those who dont follow ISI writ, versus those who do), publishes ludicrous inflated figures of “thousands of Pakistani troops have died in the WOT & what not” and promptly ask the US for P-3C’s, AN/TPS-77 radars, F-16’s because we all know the Taliban have a Navy, Air Force and etc.
Oh btw, the anti Taliban Frontier Corps, the great fighters of the Taliban – got bombed recently. When they opened fire on US/Afghan troops so that Taliban fighters could get back into Pak & the US guys called in Air strikes.
Gee, thats the premier Anti Talib force. Meanwhile the Pak Army strike deals.
As long as the Taliban exist, the Gravy train flows. NATO keep asking Pak to “do more” & let our supplies through, and the US pays up.
And Pak can continue to make merry in India & Afghanistan.
Nice double game.
When will the world wise up & have Pakistan end this charade?
Not like its going to happen.
Nick_76Why would India develop the Astra if they have plans to buy off the shelf BVRAAMs from Russia? Probably because anti-fighter missiles like the proposed Izdeliye 180(R-77 upgrade) are nothing but hot air at the moment – with so many promises coming out of Russia’s missile agencies over the last decade and so little actually being delivered, India have a right, like me to be very skeptical. Meteor on the other hand is a reality – being designed for the anti-fighter business unlike K-172 and R-37 which probably have limited capability against fighter sized targets.
India’s programs are driven by as much a need to be home based, i.e. self reliance as of procurement issues. Whatever India gets from third party OEMs, unless it is a JV (such as the MKI, Brahmos or now with IAI) are likely to be expensive or limited in some manner (External dependence for upgrades et al). The ideal case is to go completely local, but India doesnt yet have the money (or the political willpower, whichever way we slice it) to invest so much into local programs that they manage the time aspect of the program management triple constraint.
So the dual sourcing strategy. In the case of the Astra, it was originally envisaged for the LCA. But the MKI is already in service, while the LCA is still in development working towards IOC. So it makes ample sense to use the MKI as a testbed and then integrate it further.
Another datapoint btw, in the process, the IAF has also revealed that it has a locally developed integration rig for weaponry, it has been delivered and is being used for Astra tests. As more items become available, it is entirely upto the IAF to integrate what it sees fit.
I’m also skeptical of of claims that put MKIs avionics in the Tiffy’s league – a larger radar is possible in the MKI – but thats about it, while it is likey the EFs frontal RCS would make such a difference moot – if not in favour of the Tiffy. I would personally be very surprised if the MMI/DASS equivalent on the MKI is in the same league.
My simple point is that much of the Typhoons avionics & other claimed advantages are marginal in a combat situation against a skilled adversary which has equivalent fighters and worldclass supporting assets. And it is entirely this evaluation which led the US to go down the stealth path (though again, the costs incurred in todays world make one wonder whether even stealthier, simpler UCAVs wouldnt have been easier). BTW, no national colors here. Whether it is Rafales, or MKIs or F-15SGs- I believe it would be the same deal.
While the MKI has a range advantage the Typhoon can’t bridge – in Indian colours – the Typhoon will be subject to many upgrades that will be seen on the MKI. Where in certain flight regimes it is arguable the Tiffy has a performance advantage that the MKI can’t bridge. If both are flown to their design philosophies I can see the EF scoring higher kill ratio’s.
The Typhoons upgrades are in fact as conjectural IMHO as those on the MKI. There are capabilities on todays MKI, which are still not there on any Typhoon, and there will be some that wont appear either, such as the integration of Brahmos-A and whatever India churns out over the coming decade.
In terms of kill ratios, the MKI has proved its mettle – in Indradhanush it held its own vs the Typhoon & in various evaluations, there has been nothing yet that has made the IAF even reconsider its decision in any respect.
If a MKI force ever goes up against an adversary, it will be backed up by AWACS, + IFR & it will fight as part of a system & that is entirely the point of the IAF exercising constantly these past few years.
As I have said, it is the Meteor, which is a key capability, and the FOTD, which are two items missing from the MKI inventory – but we simply dont know what the IAF has planned. Again, there are ample indications to suggest that even these are being addressed in some manner.
This year, it was confirmed that the MiG-29 upgrade included a quite capable locally developed jammer. It had been barely hinted at earlier, and apparently something similar is being done for the MiG-29 K, if we look at it logically.
All in all, I would not take anything for granted viz the MKI. Its being evolved very rapidly in terms of additional features, even whilst the IAF is ramping up squadrons.
Not to downplay the MKI – its brilliant, I respect it, it’s beauty – but again, it’s coming to the limit of the Flankers design potential. It faces a plane that is more focused in the air-air role – being smaller, less draggy, less visible and more agile despite what airshow enthusiats believe.
I would in fact point out that for every “Advantage” of the Typhoon there is a con as well. The small size for one limits the amount of doodads that the airframe can hoist. And the MKI’s avionics and systems are meant to be modular. In a significant step forward for Russian (and Indian) aviation, the avionics and many key assemblies are designed to incorporate future technology.
The EF is imho, limited in some aspects – it can never achieve true stealth & its volume & size limitations limit what can be added, plus the cost base of the European suppliers makes it very expensive to develop constantly. This is no slam on the aircraft, its just the way the world is today. HAL built Hawks are apparently some 20% (forget the exact figures) cheaper than the imports, and this is despite the bulk of assemblies still coming from the UK.
Nick_76Remains yet to be seen if and when the MKI will receive such goodies at all. A completely silent engagement as it is possible for the Rafale is indeed a nice feature, but it is possible with ARH missiles as well, at least to a certain degree. The ARH missile will go active in the terminal phase, but you can launch it passivly as the MICA IR for example. The main question is the pk here at longer distances.
BTW the Eurofighter and Super Hornet includes RCS reduction measures as well.
Stronger engines for the Rafale are potentially offered but not on order, the fact that France has to pay for it all alone until now is a problem and technologies such as a HMD/S had been canceled to budget constrains.
Hi Scorpion,
Like I posted in the other thread, the MKI has capabilities today that are still in development for the EF.
The Bars can engage a target A2A, another A2G while searching for more, while the Captor is yet to demonstrate all that was promised earlier. This is not a slam on the Captor, but just indicates that one platform is already mature and is well placed for the next set of planned improvements, whereas the other is working towards maturity. In terms of pods, in terms of additional capabilities, they are being added to the MKI at a faster pace than on the Typhoon. And unlike the Typhoon, there is not much publicity about it either. I believe this is partly because the Typhoon is still competing for external orders so needs the PR, but also because the IAF wants to keep certain aspects close to its chest.
Stuff like Mission computers, RCS reduction, EW fits, avionics displays and upgrades, newer weaponry – who exactly here knows about what is being done to the MKI, and whats planned for the last batches? And this is about in service gear or which is already being flown. Have we even heard about the MKI’s radio fit or whats being done to make them Phalcon compatible? No.
Has the IAF even talked of the MKI’s existing Russian datalinks allowing for passive intercepts with one vectoring MKI? No.
While the EF is still working towards maturity, the MKI had already crossed its FOC sometime back & even while it was in IOC, the Russians & IAF were negotiating on the next set of block upgrades, including the radar and weapons suites.
One snippet released then – we wish to integrate newer weapons that allow us to exploit the aircraft capabilities. Again, has the IAF even mentioned the same.
My simple point is there is a lot of conjecture here to begin with, which assumes that the EF is automatically superior to the MKI – when the former is yet to gain many of the capabilities the MKI already has, and second – again no disrespect intended, statements like these from Lmraptor play to the gallery, [i]
I do believe however that the EF has a supersonic performance/agility advantage that can force its enemy to engage in the same respect, ie fast and high unless the Su-30 pilot wants to accept less missile range and a smaller NEZ – allowing the first shot to be taken by EF.
in that they absolutely fail to take into account the fact that the MKI allows the IAF to field superior numbers of a fighter that has most of the same abilities, and has supporting assets which allow it to fight as a system. The EF’s much vaunted supersonic performance will count for little in many scenarios and as matter of fact, in those cases, even the EF would prefer to be BVR at subsonic unless it wants to bingo fuel w/ or w/o supercruise .
The simple fact is that the MKI is a program. Its not a fighter being purchased from Russia and just inducted into the IAF.
The deal allows for India to constantly update/modify the plane as it sees fit. Which is what India is doing with minimum fuss.
Which is why I said I dont wish to speculate. Unlike the EF- again no disrespect intended, which is unlikely to see conflict (who is going to invade continental europe or when is europe going against a top adversary), the MKI might very well be in the firing line.
My 2 rupees.
Nick_76You seriously need to cut down on FAUX ..err FOX News:D, Its reflecting on your views nowadays.
Really? Care to show what exactly was wrong in that piece of report and what “told” on SOC? Curious.
Nick_76You seriously need to cut down on FAUX ..err FOX News:D, Its reflecting on your views nowadays.
Really? Care to show what exactly was wrong in that piece of report and what “told” on SOC? Curious.
Nick_76I haven seen any condition of PAK-FA sale to anyone.
Look harder. Use that univ Lexis Nexis connection to its limits. FYI – this is an Indian precondition.
I havent put Iraq and Jordan in same category. future direction of Iraq is some where else.
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/17501
Iraq-Iranian agreement to lay oil pipeline
I didnt even try to make sense of what you wrote!! Lucky me!!
Nick_76so if they could not do 500 to 600KM BVR they wouldnt be attemptiing of building 900KM BVR missile for PAK-FA.
Ok.
What?!?!??!?!?!
Ok.
(Must have oxygen).
Nick_76Interesting point of view – and whether the F-22 is more of a jobs program than anything else – it still has – against a peer nation in a conventional style war – a top notch tactical anti-threat capability.
Most definitely, but 183 F-22s against a similar number of mobile S-3XX batteries? I’d wager it would be “I cant touch you & vice versa” if both sides are equally skilled.
Against non peer nations it should be overkill and very much a niche jet – taking out what few high end systems they possess, but who wouldn’t want to be in something that keeps your chances of surviving as high as possible.
My point is against non peer nations, the F-22 is waaaaaaaay overkill (pardon my letter’ed histrionics). What the USAF currently has can whack countries like NoKo, Iran etc seven ways till Sunday, and then some. Its simply not required.
What would be more impressive? That money into the US economy, to sustain a long term fight in Iraq (Advantage? The US “stays”, it doesnt cut and run), research into inexpensive UCAVs and swarms that are smaller, cheaper and more numerous than the F-22 blanking out weapons sites with nil threat to any USAF personnel.
From an economic point of view – its just part of the DoD budget – like all the systems – eventually the US government re-capitilis(z)es that cash spent through tax anyway – while stimulating one of the Wests biggest industries. Also giving an answer to modern fighters/SAM systems that would otherwise inflict casualties against the system of the US war fighting machince – which would eventually of course overwhelm them; but why sacrafice life?
My point is that the ATF knocked one guy out of the fighter business (McD, and then brought him back as a “aw shucks” in the form of Boeing) and took far too much time & money to make a fancy gee whiz aircraft that makes me go “wow”, but provides little effect to the new gen wars the US is fighting. If all that money had gone “my way”, the US could have dominated both the conventional and the non conventional fight.
Nick_76LM, you have a PM.
Nick_76LM I am constrained by the fact that the MKI is currently in operational service. As much as I would like to discuss certain aspects, its probably silly of me to do so.
I will say this, please dont take offense at my “tone” since it is because of time constraints alone.
1. The EF is not superior to the MKI. In some areas it has a marginal advantage. In others, it has a marginal loss. All in all, it is not a system which will dominate the MKI in a fair fight, all said and done, with both sides having eqvt systems. To whit, in terms of unit costs, every EF fielded can get you 2-3 MKIs, making it even more lopsided.
2.Toan estimates of a MScan etc- are not to be taken too seriously according to Toan himself (See other thread) because its apples to oranges. In my view, 9/10ths of the journo stuff about M Scan printed is absolute BS. I can go into details but I would rather not – basically, for every “pro”, there is something out there, which is eqvt. The only true “wowzer” is LPI. And only the Raptor has it. Yet.
3. EF pilots will be enthused. So are MKI pilots. So are Rafale pilots. So are F-15K pilots. So are Block 50 pilots. Perhaps its age, but I am very cynical about comparing aircraft purely on the basis of pilot comments unless they specifically say “my aircraft is better than y because”…and even there, there are caveats. Its belief. RSAF pilots have never spoken up. People have spoken on their behalf. And that is not the same. IAF observations are candid – they -in my experience so far- never rubbish a type, if it is worth it, nor did they rubbish the EF. They were just not “awed” by it. They said, good. But manageable.
4. You missed my point. My basic point was that a crank at supersonic speeds is not necessarily needed. And for BVR, a fighter may want to remain subsonic & stay far off, and let its BVR do the heavy lifting, if its capable to do so, like the new Russian LRAAMs, instead of burning up fuel and energy and getting closer to the enemy by rusing towards him & then trying a limited G turn.
5. There is no standard BVR engagement. Each AF trains for its weapon system. The MKI has some advantages which the EF doesnt and vice versa. They will exploit it to the hilt. To expect the MKI to play to the EFs game is pointless. TVC has many uses, again this is an operational system and I’d rather bide my peace, but no, it has proven to be very useful in IAF evals.
6. You may personally choose an EF, others may choose otherwise- was my point. That doubt wouldnt exist for MKI vs Raptor, which is not the case here.
7.If the EF’s only achieve what legacy jets do in a system vs system fight, my point exactly. Not a big deal.
Sign In
