Short in memory as always. Who was the main power, which did support the Talibans to fight the Russians. The ISAF will leave Afghanistan in the near future as US-troops will leave the Iraq. The results from that will be multiple.

Sens do me a favour. Please Read about the topic before you decide that you can get away with being patronising. You are out of your depth and your slip/s are showing. The US supported the mujahedin, yeah well – everyone knows!!. The Taliban are a later creation of the ISI and the narco-warlords of the ragtag muj who wanted to get their produce to market safely. The ISI and the PA wanted strategic depth. The US turned a Nelsons eye since the war was over and they didnt GAS about what went on in Afghanistan. Later on, there was a short term attempt to strike an oil deal with the Talib for lines, but it fell through. But the basic credit of the Taliban and the associated orgs belongs to the ISI and others, including KSA funding.

Even so, blaming the US for the Afghan affair- sure, fine, forget Zia ul Haq, forget the KSA – fine, credit where it is due! But do you not think that that was then, and today, now you have a chance to FIX things – it should be done!! Or do you want it to let it remain and fester? How many more London tube attacks and what not does Europe wish to see, before you chaps realise that in a globalised world, extremism and training are but one flight and one summer holiday away?
Sure, you want to join Israel and the rest of us, in our paradise, where public transport is dangerous, where the next strike can occur anywhere, oh, please do! Welcome to our club! Your choice! Or realise that ISAF is at least a beginning, to a long road wherein both Pak and KSA need to be coerced out of this business. But its a beginning nonetheless!

And about ISAF leaving and the US leaving Iraq – if you are in the crystal ball business, please – give me a few stock quotes while you are at it. Frankly, this is all polemic and rhetoric. My money is on the US being in Iraq and Afgh for a long long time. Despite all the contortions US politicians do about “bringing our boys home” ..reality bites, and they are in for the long haul!

In politics there is no ‘Black and White’ in general.

Thanks for telling me something, I surely didnt know! Kindly realise – my country has seen more terror and “blowback” from the USs actions in Afghan and the later Taliban resurgence than anything else. Even so, I support ISAF in Afghanistan because they are doing a job which NEEDED to be done. I could in fact – take your attitude, after all- werent your respective Govts least bothered when the swamp was created and gave patronising comments to nations which were bothered? Even so, a decent attempt is being made and for the right reasons – and I’ll leave my point scoring at the door, as I see the effort.

I have already clearly proven in the previous thread that Iranian support of HAMAS is below 5% of their total income, almost a half of this coming from Saudi Arabia and Egypt so, please, stop spreading nonsense here and one more, please, do me a favor and bother to check facts before claiming anything. Thank you.

And next time, before making a complete fool out of yourself, learn to read what others write- namely, Iran is supporting both Hezb and Hamas. And here is some more on Hezb.

A wide sampling of URLs from all sections of the political spectrum & regions! Irans support for Hezb is so well documented that its a joke to be even telling anyone about it!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/iran.php
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/0922_iran_hezbollah.html
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/html/iran_hezbollah_e1b.htm
http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2006/0922_iran_hezbollah.html
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2368658
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm

Just one snippet, from the obviously biased American zionist BBC etc about Hezbollah. Oh wait, the BBC and Israel have long been at loggerheads over several issues.

The party was long supported by Iran, which provided it with arms and money.

In its early days, Hezbollah was close to a contingent of some 2000 Iranian Revolutionary guards, based in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to Lebanon in 1982 to aid the resistance against Israel.

As Hezbollah escalated its guerrilla attacks on Israeli targets in southern Lebanon, its military aid from Iran increased.

And HAMAS and Iran?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/world/middleeast/06mideast.html
Hamas wages Iran’s proxy war on Israel
A Hamas leader admits hundreds of his fighters have travelled to Tehran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3512014.ece
PA intelligence chief: Iran aided Hamas in takeover of Gaza Strip
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/874410.html
Fatal attraction: the Hamas-Iran alliance
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=24228
Iran using Hezbollah, Hamas to threaten Israel
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/06/iran_using_hezb.php

So next time, talk with decency before you talk about “spreading nonsense on the forum” and “bother to check facts before claiming anything” and what not – I leave all those lessons to you! “Thank you”, indeed!!

Frankly – for all your talk about “dumb Americans” and what not, the average American I have met, both on the forum and off it, is anything but! Time for you to introspect perhaps, for all your love of insulting the average “dumb American”, you might actually be their mirror image. You are in fact more ill behaved, far worse in your apparent ignorance and too arrogant to even admit it or even debate in a civilized manner!! For you behave EXACTLY like you claim, THEY do. But dont seem to realise it. Amazing. Perhaps its the internet, but I wonder.

Nonsense. With or without presence in Afghanistan the security related costs are the same in Germany. Much more than the military costs are the German costs for “rebuilding” Afghanistan, which does fill the pockets of Afghan warlords and a related “help-business” at first. So far none incident was triggered from Taliban here, when some were from Pakistan for sure.

Your comments are frankly comical, and if others think like you, no wonder the Americans, UK & Canadians are disgusted. While you are more concerned with money, and about “paying warlords”, they are both doing the heavy lifting, and fighting, and stabilising a country, which would otherwise be a swamp for terrorism. And your last comment is equally farcical, do educate yourself! The Taliban & the LeT and Jamaat al Islami, the HuJi are all brothers in arms, so continue fiddling about splitting hairs, while the reality is that your nations security managers have more common sense & realise the swamp has to be drained, one way the other & that most of these organizations share common goals and objectives!

At least the resistance in Afghanistan is limited to claim some minimum “success”. The deadly drug traffic from Afghanistan is not even reduced to keep the population neutral at least. I do fear an atomic Pakistan
out of control much more than some thousand Taliban in Afghanistan. Maybe some in Iran do feel similar about that, the present insane leadership aside.

What polemic, and completely ignorant of the reality! Drug traffic is a concern right now since it impacts the actual war fighting, which it does, since it funds the Taliban! Otherwise, the hallmark of COIN is to first defeat the armed movement, then stabilize the locals by pumping in development or even in parallel! What you are unable to grasp – simply – is that the spiral of an atomic Pak out of control and a lawless Afghanistan are tied together! If the Taliban come back to power having defeated ISAF, their stock rises in Pak, and the ISI and other elements who support them get that much of a boost!

Kindly read more about the topic in concern before writing off YOUR OWN nations involvement in a sensible venture in Afghanistan. As a start, I would reccomend Ahmed Rashid’s Taliban, which should inform you about the organization and its overall focus. The Talib movement was started in part for strategic depth by Pak’s more jingoistic elements & if you think that cutting and running from Afghan is a good idea! More power to you, but the blowback will remain.

Cognitive dissonance? You have no idea what you’re talking about. Save yourself before it gets less dignified than that.

Well given what you wrote – dignity is the last word I’d use for your post, frankly – because it came across as really weird and I am not even Israeli (or horror of horrors, right wing US neocon republican etc etc)! And yes, cognitive dissonance – since you latched on to semantics to whitewash Irans rather odious record in supporting Pal militias – which are as adept at brutalizing their own people as attacking Israel and then ended with a plaintive oh i want everyone to live with peace & dignity ..etc! Oh well!! Wouldnt that..errmmm…require the Iranians to first realise that the state of Israel has a right to exist and stop sponsoring attacks on the same? Contradictory things, hmm?

Your post was a masterpiece in semantics! I mean, Israel just had a brutal war recently with the Pal militias, backed by Iran. Several scores of people died, and you have the cheek or naivete (I dont know which, which is why I said cognitive dissonance!) to suggest that its not the Israelis the Iranians dislike but the state of Israel which they dont seek to destroy but abolish etc etc. By jove, I read that stuff three times over – AND it still sounds as weird as the first time I read it!! How exactly do you think the Iranians plan to “abolish” the state of Israel? By giving them the Comfy Chair treatment from Monty Python?? Or stuffed teddy bears signed by Ahm. himself?

Or could it be that they have put their money where their mouth is, by repeatedly sponsoring groups that attack Israel, and are now working towards a nuclear weapon exactly because it will give them full deterrence against israeli retaliation!

Sure, but blindly using his conclusions on capability as “proof” of said systems superiority is almost laughable, for the reasons stated above.

So who is using it as proof? I just pointed out some of his conclusions are tenable, some are not. You are so caught up in detesting his more F-22 bandwagon tripe, that you are missing the parts that are worthwhile.

You can’t use said systems supposed performance characteristics as “proof” of anything. None of us KNOW any of said systems true performance numbers, and if any of us did we wouldn’t be discussing it on an internet forum. I’m sure they’re all very capable radars, and they are all utilizing very mature technology (especially CAPTOR), however a mature AESA should outperform a PESA or Slotted Planar Array all else being equal due to the generic sensitivity of said systems. Now maybe that alone doesn’t automatically mean the APG-77 will outperform IRBIS in detection and track performance, but it’s defiantly a consideration.

This is a handwave. You made the claim that a single TWT on the Mature Russian radars is worse in terms of noise than an AESA – which is false. Thats all there is to it. A 3Db noise factor is eminently reasonable and compares well to several AESAs- ask any RF engineer.

No I didn’t, I was comparing 2 ESA’s. Anyway I wasn’t questioning the validity of such a comparison, just its relevance to this discussion.

The relevance matters, because both MSAs and PESAs can equal several KPI of AESAs and may in fact prove as good in combat application.

To quote an earlier sentence of yours “technology is moving goalpost” and just because the BARS’s SL performance was respectable, does not mean its comparable or better when compared to more modern technology. Quite simply the state of the art has moved on, and using past respectability when comparing to a new form of technology is not entirely relevant. Of course if said system performed poorly when compared to its technological contemporaries then obviously its going to be outclassed by something more modern. In any case I guess the fundamental point isn’t whether BARS or IRBIS’s SL performance is ‘good’ but whether it is inferior to the AN/APG-77 or AN/APG-79 and if so by how much.

Apart from the last line, the rest is generic stuff. Technology for technology’s sake is pointless and has been demonstrated as such in many acquisition programs worldwide. The Bars performance parameters are quite eminent in their own right & there have been several reports that they are of the level of the APG-79 – see JED about the RMAF evaluation for instance. The APG-79 may have more growth potential & better A2G features, but in A2A performance, the Bars is very much its peer.

No I don’t think I am. First let me point something out, there is a lot more to radar performance than a detection and track footprint. As an example CAPTOR may have a comparable detection & track footprint to say BARS, but BARS would still have much better multi target track & engagement capability, better scan rates, more efficient track while scan, true multi-mode capability, and ECCM. That is simply because of the tools PESA’s provide the user which MSA’s don’t. The same goes for AESA’s, now of course a systems maturity is important, but there are things AESA’s can do that PESA’s cant (EA, high capacity data-link, wide spectrum LPI ect). All of these features need to be taken into account when considering a systems aggregate capability. So even if Irbis has a comparable detection and track footprint to the AN/APG-77, the latter will still provide greater capability.

The point being made was that you are again talking about what AESAs can do without getting the fact that even so, in several KPs the PESA is still a peer. And what the PESA cannot do, can be done by other systems! And if the entire package turns out to be more cost effective, then a procurement official might well go for the federated system, then an all singing and dancing AESA which does everything. And secondly, many of the claims being made for AESA are testbed claims of now- operational deployment is still several years away.

Anyway you answered your own question. To put it simply they didn’t have the array technology at the time, the Americans did. As soon as T/R modules reached the level of maturity required and the funds were provided, AESA development began in earnest. As form of technology AESA’s are distinctly superior to PESA’s and Slotted Plannar arrays, even if in some cases the latter can achieve comparable detection & track performance. Therefore I doubt the Russians put AESA development on the back burner because they had an uninhibited choice on the matter. If at the turn of the century (when the Americans were operationally fielding their 1st gen AESA’s) NIIP had put all of its available funding and considerable nouse towards AESA development, considering the state of Russian T/R module technology at the time, they would probably still not have operationally fielded their 1st gen AESA until now. Considering the immaturity of such a system, it would not have fielded any of the advanced features that AESA’s can, would have been very buggy, and would have been outperformed in “traditional performance” parameters by the radars NIIP did produce in that time. So obviously the smarter choice in that position was to use limited recourses on a technology that would produce greater returns, and clearly PESA technology was much further along in its development curve than AESA at the time (however AESA’s potential capability is far greater). But that doesn’t change the fact that US array technology was and is more advanced, which was my original point.

I am afraid you need to read up more on the technology in question and understand what these systems comprise of, and the benefits gained. Simply put, NIIP waited till comparable investment in tooling was available and COTS items were available, and they kept prototype development going forth! In the meantime, they kept working on PESAs with modular components and software, that could match the performance claimed by AESAs & achieved it! Simply put, they took an option which puts them well on track to match AESA performance as driven by the US. Their Tx/Rx modules may be bigger, their radar may be heavier by a hundred odd pounds, but the PAK-FA will be designed to take that into account & in terms of performance, the radar & associated systems will be equivalent! Thats been the export user experience with the Flankers & in fact, this approach works out better for the end user, since as better block upgrades become available, the aircraft turns out to have substantially more volume for avionics growth & integration!

No mate I’m not mistaken. That was and is EXACTLY my point. Most current fighters can make BVR missile shots without using their radar as the fire control device, only a radar track is needed which can be data-linked to the launch platform. That was and is my contention. It seems you agree with it.

I’d agree with it, if you could point out when & where ANY AF has been guiding missile shots without the aircraft FCR coming into the picture for MCG, as the transmitter. One way or the other, the aircraft FCR comes into play!! Even if ALL it does is tranmsit MCG picked up via its datalink to the AWACS!

As for the AIM-120D, I’ve had a quick 5 minute Google and I can’t provide anything (sorry mate but there’s only so many hours between work and sleep). But IIRC the new 2 way data-link enables the missile to be updated directly by a 3rd party, same goes for METEOR. Of course said 3rd party would have to be equipped with the dedicated missile data-link (which suggests a 2nd platform) but conceivably an AWACS could be said 3rd party. Although I doubt it since another platform could just relay the data. However the effect remains the same, the launch platform can remain EM cold and still take effective BVR missile shots. The reason no one has implemented this as yet is because neither of these systems have even reached IOC at this date.

On the one hand you say it hasnt reached IOC. But on the other you say its been done?

Ok, but I have not read a single source that says this has been done and I’d welcome a source. Methinks you are getting confused via missile handoff – AC1 hands it off to AC2 – eg Gripens which can do this, with AWACs Missileer concepts! Where the AWACs was to do all the heavy lifting and missile guidance..

As I understand it this technology records and analyses EM patterns over time, and this should increase the probability of intercept significantly, and its not the digital RWR per se. Assuming there isn’t another level of encoding at the EM source (which is possible) these systems will still take a significant period of time to ascertain that the various hits they are receiving on various frequencies are in fact a hostile radar. The difficulty of this should not be underestimated, and just because a technology is designed to combat LPI does not mean these techniques will suddenly be rendered moot. While it might increase the PI significantly, LPI radars are still going to much harder to geo-locate and the time delay may be significant. Compared to the degree Irbis will light up the battle-space LPI will still be a significant advantage.

Again generics, Please look up CFAR & see the point – there are systems today which undertake far greater complex realtime decision making than picking out LPI signals alone! The issue is not in “time” via processing, but to correctly recognise a LPI pattern characteristic, and then program a digitial RWR to track the pattern – which can be done! And of course Irbis will light the space up – but then thats the differing approach – its akin to having a huge flashlight which lights up the sky but can transmit good SA to everyone else, vs limited closer range SA, but to get the benefit of getting closer to the enemy. And if the enemy develops countermeasures to LPI- which is all too possible, its back to full power transmissions.

First of all I don’t know where you live, but in my neck of the woods there are several regional Flanker users, one of them with BARS equipped SU-30MKI derivatives (MKM) and none of them field an AWACS capability or have immediate plans (or the funds) to acquire such a system. Within 2 years my nation will field both an MESA based AEW&C system, AN/APG-79 & AN/ALR-67(v)3 equipped fighters, all working within a integrated (link 16 based) network. Therefore in real world parameters, BARS/IRBIS equipped Flankers facing APG-79 equipped Rhino’s with the latter having AEW&C support is a very real possibility.

This is no fun! 🙂
For a proper comparison, it should be “even steven” on both sides.
Be as it may – Malaysia does have plans for AEW&C aircraft – Erieye is my guess.
Even so – with 100 F-35s, and some 40 F/A-18 E/Fs etc and MESA, RAAF is in a different league altogether. So what difference does it make if its Irbis or Bars or AESA or PESA?

Second you’re missing a vital point. Its not just the advantage of knowing the Flanker is in the battle-space, as you stated if you have a working AEW&C in the battle-space you would know that anyway. The point is that if he has a working AEW&C in the battle-space the only reason he is going to be looking at you is if he’s setting up for a missile shot, either from you or from someone else. That is valuable information, and its information you wouldn’t have had if the radar concerned was an LPI system. Now even if he’s not the shooter you can still take defensive action which could save your bacon, because the threat is probably going to come from somewhere in that direction. Much, much better than your RWR lighting up with an incoming active seeker and 15 seconds to evade the threat, with no previous defensive action taken.

My point was that with an AWACs out there on both sides, one – your LPI system/s are going to get tagged. The amount of ESM/ELINT gear carried in an AWACs sized platform is humongous. Second, he will put out enough RF energy to detect your VLO platform at – ~100 Km, whereupon it develops into a classical – who’s got the better tactics & airframe & weapons fight. In that sense, an Irbis armed Flanker might well prove too much for a F/A-18 E/F and even the equal of a F-35 force depending upon a bunch of factors which could swing either way.

I’m sure the manufacturers do. However there is a fundamental flaw with SPJ’s which means they are always an option of last resort. If the ECM source is the target itself, unless you effectively fool the missile with extremely complex ECM, and it realizes that its ECM its looking at then the missile will just home in on the EM source until it reaches burn through range. Remember the fastest evolving element of MRAAM capability is ECCM, & the cards are always stacked in the missiles favor in this game.

Who says SPJ are an option of last resort? Whoever told you that has no idea of how modern warfare is fought. FYI, tactical groups engaging with each other will have their ECM active to degrade the others SA. And you are still concerned with “burn through range” when the reality is that noise jamming is a thing of the past & its deception techniques which dominate!! And no, the cards arent stacked in the missiles favour at all – the more the TAC ECM in the play, the harder it is for FCRs to lock on & take long ranged missile shots! And modern SPJs like the Elta can handle multiple threats simultaneously.

Just because a towed decoy was proved “workable” against larger SAM’s does not mean they will be significantly more effective vs a small AAM.

You do realise how unworkable your above statement is? A larger SAM has much more volume for a more sophisticated seeker and is more often than not backed by a much more powerful FCR & several other sensors. OTOH, an AAM is left to its own volume limited and battery limited seeker, and its launch platform is scrambling the heck out of dodge! If a decoy can work against an active SAM, it can do so against a lighter AAM with much more limited electronic and kinetic potential!

Remember it’s the missiles ECCM capability that matters in this case, and it’s the decoys job to convince the very sophisticated active missile seeker that the distinct return of the aircraft is not what it wants to destroy, but the EM lightshow behind it instead. Now just like chaff & flares were in the last generation these systems have their place, but they are always the option of last resort.

Please look up at the hit rate of AAMs w/o such measures being employed & then consider the impact of a fighter equipped with SPJs and TD’s to the equation. FYI, the Pk will dip appreciably. And that is considering that the missile were launched w/in parameters to begin with – which combat has shown, is rarely the case!! NEZ and all are very well for discussion, in real life, its going to be very hard to get textbook launch conditions.

Therefore I don’t see it as a ‘spy vs spy’ situation; the cards are always stacked in the shooters favor if you’re only relying on ECM to defeat his incoming. Even if your systems work 50% of the time (which would make them very effective) the survival probability will drop to 25% if there are two incoming shots, hell that was always Soviet doctrine. Realistically higher energy states and early defensive maneuver will always be much more effective, because if you are outside the NEZ/V or if you are in an a high enough energy state to defeat the incoming, it doesn’t matter how many the guy has launched, or how the ECM vs ECCM battle shapes up.

The point is that energy states, TVC, EW and countermeasures ALL combine to make missile kills much harder! I would say the only “confirmed” chance is if its a WVR fight and a P-5, IRIS-T, AIM-9X or ASRAAM is launched.

That’s true but LPI modes still have detection and track footprint’s that are tactically significant, i.e. big enough for current gen BVR-AAM missile shot.

And if they are detected by upgraded RWRs – they wont remain LPI anymore.

First, please read what I wrote, I never said ECM would render AWACS moot, just significantly reduce its detection and track footprint. Two different things. And remember each side is going to have those assets 100nm or more behind the fighters they are controlling, which may be several hundred NM from the bad guy’s fighters, and so on. So a 30% reduction in detection and track footprint could be enough to keep the opposing fighters out of the AWACS sensor footprint. In that case an IRBIS operating at peak power is going be detected and geo-located quick smart.

100 nm *behind* the fighters they are controlling is too far behind – Be as it may, you keep saying geolocated!? It mean/s full 3D coordinates – so tell me – what advantage does locating ONE Irbis give, when he already knows you are there thanks to his own AWACS? And why would he be active when his AWACs is doing his work for him? And even if he were active – why would you bother “geolocating him”, when your AWACS knows he is out there?

Second, Geo-location aint easy, and its usually beyond the capabilities of the average fighters EW suite (Typhoon and Super Hornet BII aside). However if we’re talking high end players, then they will have dedicated ELINT assets in the battle-space which will be able to geo-locate a contact in a matter of seconds, especially something as visible as IRBIS. That information will be distributed throughout the network.

Geolocation is a term usually used for ground targets & for sharing data – via triangulation – to take out ground targets. In contrast, for something like Irbis & similar systems, when two nations w/ similar systems go up against each other- both with AWACs, its tactics which will win the day. Just think for a second – how many fighters can your networked “super fighter” geolocate? A radar, with a dedicated SP and DP, can barely TWS 20 odd targets, and engage a handful of those, and you think a few fighters can GL similar numbers? And take missile shots? All that bother, when you have an AWACs of your own?

Even if only a small number of the Flankers need to have their radars on, if each one is detected then that’s still better than nothing.

Sigh. Why do you need complicated triangulation to detect your target when you have your AWACs behind you?

Mate I was being facetious. Currently the IRBIS radar system is equipping the flanker family, which again is what we are discussing. If others want to consider other missile systems that could possibly be integrated onto the flanker form other platforms (i.e. MiG-31M) then we should discuss the possibility of US missile systems. The original point I made was that at the moment it’s the US competitors who will have the longer ranged missile in the AIM-120D over the IRBIS equipped Flanker’s R-27ER/EA. That will be the state of affairs in 2009. R-33 & R37 are as relevant to a Flanker as an air launched ESSM is to a Super Hornet. A possibility, that’s all.

You are missing the point. First, the Irbis is not going into service in 2009. Add another 2-3 years at the minimum, and second, the Russians plan to couple Irbis to a brand new A2A LRAAM, which was the entire point of developing that huge FCR to begin with. Otherwise, like I have been hammering all along – for long range SA, you dont need Irbis – its a limited solution, all aspect limited FCRs are!! Any competent AF is better off investing in AWACs, rather than goldplating its fighters with a capability that is of limited use at best!!

When did i ever say that budget was the sole determining factor in R&D performance? Sure there are a heap of other factors, but the common difference between Raytheon an NIIP IS budget. THAT was the point i was making. Of course the correlation is not linear, but total budget/funding has a huge effect. What technical institute in the world could continue to perform and deliver in the same manner after having their available economic resources quartered? None. THAT is reality, and that is what the Russians faced in the 90’s. Widespread economic collapse & lack of funding is why you see such a disparity between US and Russian array development. Thinking otherwise is living in a fantasy land.

What you seem to be missing is that Russian funding has been hardly as behind as you seem to think it has been – take a look at what I said about exports for instance, and that they made a conscious choice to restrict funding on AESAs till the enabling production tech became cheaper and more easy to procure!

Indian Sea Harrier Tests BVR Missile
By vivek raghuvanshi
Published: 16 Apr 11:09 EDT (07:09 GMT) Print | Email

NEW DELHI – Operating in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Goa last week, an Indian navy Sea Harrier test-fired a Derby beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile.

It was the Navy’s first live test of the Israeli-made Derby, a senior service official said April 15, and two more live tests are planned in the near future.

Indian navy sources said the missile hit its target on the high seas from a distance of 20 kilometers at a speed of Mach 1.2 and was able to lock onto the target before launch.

The Indian navy signed a $25 million contract in 2005 with the missile’s maker, Rafael, for procurement of 20 Derby missiles to replace aging Sea Eagle missiles bought from BAE Systems in the early 1980s.

Meanwhile, India’s state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics is upgrading the Navy’s 15 Sea Harrier jump jets, purchased from BAE in 1983, under a $115 million contract. The upgraded aircraft will be armed with the Derby BVR missile.

The Sea Harriers were set to be retired along with the aircraft carrier INS Viraat in 2010, the Navy official said, but this upgrade will keep the planes in service for deployment on the planned Air Defense Ship.

Indian Sea Harrier Tests BVR Missile – Defense News
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3480072&c=ASI&s=AIR

Trust me i’m familiar with Carlo Kopp’s previous work. I used to be one of his “supporters”. His technical knowledge is impressive, and the elements he actually addresses he does quite comprehensively in most cases. However its his loaded, biased and in some cases malicious analysis that has ruined his credibility within the Australian defense community. As an example I’ll summarize his arguments against the F-35A in RAAF service (i stress this is a summary). Due to the steady advance in Russian ESM & IRST technology, & IR guided BVRAAM’s, the flanker series will have the ability to engage VLO fighters in BVR. That coupled with the SU-XX’s kinematic advantage (notably when equipped with AL-41F variants) render the F-35 uncompetitive (or at least not provide anything better than parity). While the technical points may (& i stress may) be accurate said analysis does not address the effect of Radar/Missile combinations vs IR based systems, EW, information dominance, networking/C4ISR, theater ISTAR platforms or what VLO brings to a wider, integrated air combat system. All of the above have a far larger impact on real, no kidding warfare than a kinematic advantage (unless we’re talking hypersonics). Who would dispense judgment on a platforms suitability without addressing how said platform fits into the wider organization, how it complements the other elements of your air combat system, or what its specific capabilities the platform provides(ala VLO or EA) allow you to achieve? Someone with an agenda thats who.

Still doesnt detract from some of his technical work though. As I have said, he is by no means infallible, but to write him off would be a mistake.

IMHO (and most of the Australian defense “community”) Carlo Kopps work is a great resource for technical data, but his conclusions are always suspect, simply because he only addresses 15% of the argument. Its platform centric analysis, and any general conclusions on real world capability need to address the ability of the wider system, including all of its elements.

Sorry for the rant, its a tad OT.

No, its not OT – and you are welcome to your POV, and I understand, but I’d also add what Bill Sweetman of AvLeak fame said. To paraphrase, a friend of his from the “Culinary institute” said that if he openly wrote/ admitted the kind of stuff CK did, he’d be locked up and the key thrown away.

The point isn’t that NIIP have designed a bad TWT, its the generic problem with having a single, large TWT with that much EM energy flowing through it. AESA’s (US or anyone else’s) don’t suffer this problem because they don’t have a single, large TWT. If you respect Carlo Kopp’s work, he did a piece outlining this effect, it’s here on Key somewhere.

This “generic” effect is nowhere in evidence when it comes to practical application, I am afraid- the RDY, Captor and the Russian performance proves it. Please remember – technology is a moving goalpost and its not uncommon for mature technology to constantly outperform more modern systems which are yet to hit their stride! For what you mentioned about “generic EM leakage” I can point out the generic problems AESAs have in several respects, including gain issues – but its all about individual design & optimization.

My point was there’s no point comparing MSA’s to ESA’s in this discussion.

But you yourself did. And besides, comparisons are always done, both by amateurs and professionals. Ask Thales, they have published several papers on the pros and cons of each & its by no means an open and shut case.

Side-lobe performance has a direct impact on the systems detection and track footprint. As to how much this is, I guess that depends on the difference in performance, and lets face it, speculating on that is probably an exercise in futility.

Point was that Bars SL details & others are eminently respectable. And Irbis builds upon the Bars – its antenna is inferior to the Bars, but not by an earth shattering amount & it makes up via a much lighter weight. Pros & cons!

I never questioned NIIP’s professionalism or skill as designers, simply the recourses they had to play wit compared to US designers. And unless you want to live in fantasy land (ahem “flex” ahem) there is a direct corolation between available economic resources and R&D performance. Of course there are other factors involved, but AFAIK the Russians had trouble in the 90’s with the retention of some of their best people due to greener pastures on civie street. Why have the Russians fallen from near parity to 1.5/2 generations behind in radar development (they are yet to operationally field their first AESA)? What happened over the last 20 years that lead to such disparity I wonder? Are the Americans just smarter? I don’t think so.

You are missing the point again. Why would the Russians invest in AESA when their own mature PESA systems could provide performance equal to and even superior than 1st/2nd gen AESA systems? But they kept their hand in & now that funding is available, they are rapidly catching up in the last arena – miniaturising Tx/Rx modules and packaging. Much of the software & detailed EM functions between beam control & steering in PESAs and AESAs is similar, which is exactly why NIIP is leading the PAK-FA effort.

No not “wrong”. That was my exact point. In these cases the platforms radar will not even act as the fire control device, it will use updates from a 3rd party relayed through the launch platform. Plus AIM-120D & Meteor can be updated directly from said 3rd party. Assuming an AEW&C/AWACS is in the battle-space & operational, & the data-links are secure that render’s the point that quote was addressing moot.

You are mistaken again. Please reread what I wrote. The AWACs provides cues to the launch platform which then passes it on the missile via its own radar or dedicated Missile guidance links. Kindly provide the sources which state that Meteor and AIM 120 D can be vectored by the third party AWACs w/o the involvement of the launch platform -afaik, this has not been implemented by any AF till date.

Wrong! (Sorry, i hate it when people start their paragraphs like that). The US is already fielding fully digital, wide-band RWR’s, ala AN/ALR-67(v)3 & AN/ALR-94. By all reports neither of them have rendered LPI irrelevant, or have even made significant inroads, and they are the exact technology you list above. Detecting and geo-locating EM sources is hard enough with non LPI radars, wide-band LPI is an order of magnitude more difficult to effectively counter. Don’t hold your breath if you think a digital RWR is the answer.

Sorry -you are wrong – no offence intended, either. Please read up more on the subject – there are digital RWRs and digital RWRs, and digital RWRs are key to recording, storing and analysing random frequency hopping sets! And the US would be the last to admit the potential of the above systems, especially when it renders their own silver bullets fungible.
And you have not kept up with the industry – FYI – several firms worldwide have already displayed systems directly targeted against LPI sets- its by no means impossible, just a question of funding & demand. If enough customers demand it, it will be done – just look at the explosion in AESA devpt for eg. To read up on the topic use IEEE seminars if you want open domain confirmation.

Sure its not the same as being painted AIM-7M/R-27SARH style, but if the threat platform is outside of your own radar footprint (remember fighter radar footprints are narrow and one directional), then you have detected the threat which you didn’t know was there before, BIG advantage. Even if you have detected the threat previous to being painted, you now know he’s looking at you and potentially setting up for a missile shot, from him or someone else. Then you can take evasive action or engage the threat yourself. The advantages of which should be obvious.

Please reread what I wrote. The point was that you should know that the Flanker is ALREADY there, on account of AWACs, and if you dont have AWACs- no point in playing a well integrated game, is there? And if he has AWACs, and you dont, thats an advantage/ equal playing field for him – unless you have the gold standard US F-22A. And unless you can discern how many other Flankers there are, and you dont have AWACS, how will you know how many other Flankers are being datalinked your information and are setting up passive intercepts using their IRST? Flanker A will remain passive & just datalink the information to other fighters which launch on your guys and then MCG them using data provided by Flanker A.

If you’re court in a low energy state by a missile in the middle of its engagement basket and its in a high energy state then your in deep, deep sh*t. SPJ’s are not much help when facing contemporary ARH AAM’s in the terminal phase, whether its R-77 or AIM-120. The missile will simply home in on the ECM source until it reaches burn through range. Towed decoys will fair better but they’re hardly a substitute for evasive action earlier in the missile flight path. Any AAM’s Achilles heal is its kinematics, if you can take evasive action early enough you can bleed its energy off to a point were it cant make the intercept track any more (or out run it). LPI radar’s have a significant effect on the above.

Modern ECM systems use a variety of deception techniques and manufacturers remain confident they can spoof the most modern of missile seekers. And towed decoys are regarded as workable against much larger, much higher energy state missiles,let alone range limited lightweight AAMs. So its “spy vs spy” and w/o any clear advantage to either side.

And LPI radars are no panacea – LPI by current execution, limits range within current limits since power management is vital & theres only so much you can do w/limited power.

Of course, but that being said large scale, modern ECM will still have an adverse effect on their detection & track performance. Anyway the integration of ESM you point out adds to my original point, said ESM will detect and geo-locate every operational Irbis in the battle-space, irradiating 21kw of EM energy on a single frequency ensures that.

I am yet to be made aware of any large scale ECM which can render an AWACs performance moot. And only a couple of Irbis need be active. The rest can be passively datalinked and sponging off the info. And geolocation requires substantial effort, all the hype apart – thats why complex EW suites w/the ability are fielded by 2 seaters where the WSO can spend his time fiddling around w/the gear & the everyday FCR remains the sensor of choice for quick, effective A2A combat.

Sure they exist, but IIRC neither of the above have been integrated on the flanker family, and neither BARS or IRBIS have been integrated on the MiG-31M either (which uses the Zaslon family of PESA’s). I mean of course there is a possibility the R-33 could be integrated on the Flanker, but if you want to take possibilities into account the US DoD did several tests on air launched ESSM’s, with a theoretical engagement envelope in excess of 300km. Or how about air launched SM-6?

You are stating a possibility at this point, whereas it is almost a certainty that the K-100/ KS-172 project exists & is intended to field a LRAAM.
And Bars/ Irbis level performance can be achieved viz an upgraded Zaslon as well.

This is your best shot at star49? :rolleyes:

Reading through this thread, most of the stuff he posts of pretty relevant.

Actually looking under your profile, it seems you are very interested in “shots” and “who won”.

What I was so gently pointing out to Star49 (and now to you) is that I am not.

I am least bothered with Star49’s bilge, and would prefer he doesnt spam me with his incoherent, badly written, 2-3 liner copy paste posts.

He can debate to his hearts content with nice people like you. Have a great day.