Nick_76the F-117 might have difficulties against a ‘stiff IADS’ but a SH won’t even attempt it because it’s impossible
that is assuming the f/a-18 e/f doesnt get a new fangled long range cruise missile system which is stealthy
in that case, the f/a-18 e/f can do what your f-117 can, and is multir-role also
Nick_76Thank you for the balanced view from the Indian side. That does allow to understand the problems India did suffer from.
thx for the kind words, but its also frustrating to see how much politics can screw up the simplest of things even when ostensibly money is made available, a decade too late, because there are still things for which money wont be available.
for instance, all critical defence programs in india suffer huge attrition as manpower moves to pvt sector, which the govt can easily address by paying comparable payscales. but they wont, even tho it works out much cheaper than delays. as they say, humans are foolish, but it takes a bureaucrat to be truly insane
Nick_76When we take Sweden and Israel as fitting examples (both are even smaller and have (especially in case of ISrael) a weaker economy), we see what actually was developed in-country and what not. Both countries purchased:
– engines (the heart of a fighter!)
– weaponry (or parts of it)
– FBW consultation
israel purchased a heck of a lot of stuff for lavi, including tech and expertise, sweden did the same for gripen, and so could netherlands. i see no reason why netherlands cannot make a fighter if it had to, and put its national will to that end.
Nick_76I know, nonetheless I mean to remember that already similar ranges were given for older radars and the ratio of detection range was significantly different between AA and Sea targets. The Russians throw around the 400 km figure since the early 90’s at first for the N-011 for the old Su-35. It is no news that the N-011 didn’t held what it promised and I have some doubts that Irbis will do so.
thats understandable, but it may be simpler, that the trials havent really touched on a2s work yet, and hence only estimates and earlier figures for bars etc are being trotted out.
also, the irbis vs n011 comparison is not linear since we know, n011 is a planar array which was superceded by n011m which was a pesa, and now irbis is a pesa which makes use of the bars capability.
the bars may do 300-400 km against large targets at max height of the mki platform. a bars radar detected a su-27 in trials, at 330 km.
and sukhoi has been pointing out that the su-35 would get a new radar for some time, so its possible that they were just proceeding per plan.
also, the n011m is said to be a modular radar, with twt upgrades possible (provided power gen is also addressed).
ur quite right that final figures for irbis may not be as impressive or fancy, theres always that risk.
imo, the 400 km range for irbis is likely to be vs and tws, will be lesser than that
Nick_76I really don’t know how much time the scan takes in these 100sq deg (100% sure these 100 sqdeg mentioned), but it may be about 4-5 seconds, which is normal for a particular scan frame. Well – 100 sq deg is scan frame 10×10 deg or 20×5 deg, the usual pure ESA scanning zone is 60×60 deg or in theory 3600 sqdeg.
.
first, lets find out the pure esa scan limits- these shud be equal to or slightly greater or lesser than the bars. thats approx 40 degrees in elevation and 40 in azimuth, within that scan area, the beam will move in milliseconds with the processor controlled beam scheduler. the signal processor will do its job, and data processor will show it to the pilot.
now as you say, the mechanical scanning comes, then the scan rate will be a combination of mechanical and electronic, but how niip has done this is their ipr. they could still achieve a higher rate than what the slow rotation of heavy antenna suggests, since that phased array can shift beam in milliseconds without entire antenna turning.
so the basis is that irbis or bars will usually detect their targets very fast within pure electronic field of regard, and it will take more time when mechanical scanning is employed.
in real life, with awacs everywhere nowadays, that mechanical scanning is useful for one thing, allowing the pilot to fix his antenna to side while taking a bvr shot and trying to crank his airframe away. and of course, useful for tactical build up, when you are doing a volume search early on, and allocating targets, if there is no awacs.
In the article is also mentioned that Irbis can detect incoming A2A missiles not less than 6 seconds before their possible impact and this time should be enough to set countermeasures and escape
yes but you have to take into account the speed of the aam as well and the extremely low rcs of the aam as well, in a head on profile.
Nick_76Since the older thread was closed, I started this new thread with the same name as the earlier one to avoid ambiguity.
Link to the last page of the earlier thread.tphuang, I agree with the above as actually the figures are 4000 kgs of weapon-load at 5020 kgs of fuel, whereas I had earlier mistakenly interchanged the two.
The empty-weight of Su-30 MKI is 17,700 kgs and weight in ‘normal’ fighter configuration is 26,600 kgs. The fuel-load in this config is 5020 kgs. Thus, the weapon-load is 3300 kgs. As per vayu sena website, on a fuel load of 5270 kgs, the combat radius is 1,500 kms.
Hence, the figure is 3,300 kgs at 1,500 kms on an internal fuel of 5270 kgs.
dont look at absolute weight- look at payload, vayu sena has the combinations marked out. the 14/16*250 kg bomb scenario is ok but the combinations of pgms or kh-31s on target is what is going to where the mki is required.
second, you dont have the cruise figures in the above scenario, nor the fuel marked for reserve, nor the fuel marked for combat (self defence) or loiter. what this means is that fuel is reduced and for that reduced consumption, you reduce the payload.
its not so simple as you are calculating. ie x weight at y range with z fuel.
Upon addition of an external fuel tank, the weapon-load can be increased to more than 4000 kgs (and so weapon-load + fuel pod shall be > 5500 kgs) at the same combat radius.
the mki does not carry any external fuel pod
The corresponding figures for Tejas were quoted by members at Bharat Rakshak forum after attending the Aero India 2007 air show. The figure is fighter configuration (presumably 3000 kgs) at 1000 kms.
u do realise that these were “estimates” and that 3000 kg is your estimate (as u used the word “presumably”)..because for all we know the actual lca, may carry 2 fuel tanks, two strike munitions, two r73e with a litening, to get the range/ performance combo, keeping above issues in mind
namely whether the mission is lo-lo-lo (high fuel consumption), or hi-lo-hi (moderate), or hi-hi-hi (low), plus amount earmarked for loiter, for self defence, for reserve..
dont come to conclusions based on 1-2 parameters pls
Nick_76i wouldnt be surprised if the us has already evaluated this concept and that its doable and possible.
Nick_76ELP, have you moved to Australia. seem to be seeing a lot of stuff from you on Ozzie lately.
just curious, nice blog, btw.
Nick_76What is particularly interesting (or funny) is that the range against a 3 sqm fighter is about the same as for a huge ship:diablo:
Scorpion, range against naval targets is significantly affected because of sea clutter. look up different radars including the captor, and it will be the same.
And if the scanning process takes that long it is unlikely to be usefull at all.
this is also a very doubtful statement. i know hexpop has mentioned it, but i would like to see the support for the same!
his statement makes little sense since the 100 sq degrees niip has mentioned is the usual angular coverage by pure esa scanning, not the mechanical turn, and the irbis-e has two all new solo data and signal processors for this purpose.
remember, while the irbis-e makes use of the osa/wasp antenna array which is sligthly worse than the bars in terms of receive sensitivity, it makes up for it by a much more powerful dual twt.
Nick_76As pointed out earlier, the range-payload figure of Su-30 MKI is 5270 kgs at 1,500 km and that for the Tejas is 3000 kgs at ~1000 kms. As was mentioned, there is no distinguishable “middle-ground” between these two, that may warrant the purchase of MRCA.
where are you coming up with these numbers? provide an accurate source, and then we can discuss, but suffice to say you are mixing up things. there is of course a middle ground, talk to some iaf person about what they expect of the mrca, the tejas and the mki- theres a step up function from each to the next.
Unfortunately, whenever we mention figures like 300 Tejas or 250 Su-30s for the IAF, there are concerns saying that this is “too high” a number. Whether it is an aesthetic measure, or a traditional ‘taboo’ is unclear. It may be remembered that small nations like Israel and South Korea operate 200 ~ 250 of just F-16s.
who cares about aesthetics and what is your fascination with looking abroad for validation?! what india does is often driven by its own mixture of politics, needs and financing. and of course, small nations like israel and south korea are in the us camp and will get us aid if the tide of war moves too much against them, india has no such alliance. we sink or swim on our own. depending only on light fighters is not possible for us.
israel and south korea are not india at all. in fact, those who tell you that 250 su-30 mki are too much for india are right, because even 230 are towards the high end of what the iaf can afford. the actual figures would have been at the 190 level, but for the delay in india in purchasing the mrca and the consequent retirals of our fleet year after year. last year we had 35 sq, now its 32, by next year, expect a few more to go too.
Thus, by the proportionate threat assessment of 2 nuclear neighbours and the huge air-space to defend— not to mention replacement of half the IAF’s present fighter fleet — there should be not less than 450-500 Tejas and ~300 Su-30 MKI in the IAF. **
your numbers are totally off, for one, and second, the govt of india has already put a 39.5 squadron limit on the indian air force, which is unlikely to be raised in the immediate. second, 400-500 tejas? 400-500 light fighters, when the force mix is yet to reflect adequate numbers of ifr, and support measures? pls tell us what the range of tejas is, and how many are in service already for the iaf to depend only on 2 types?
This is also true if the IAF seeks to have a ‘global reach’ like USAF, as CAS Mr. Fali Major famously mentioned in a TV interview. Taking a “cue” from USAF which operates a few thousand units of just one fighter it is high time the IAF embraces the idea of 400-500 units of a single fighter type..
now you want the iaf to become the usaf and have a global reach? there is not one awacs in iaf service yet, the whole of india has huge radar gaps, the stocks of pgms need to be built up…the list is endless. concentrate on regional deterrence first, the rest can come later. and for longer reach, thats what irbms are for.
** The issue of hourly operational costs has been discussed earlier in this regard with examples. These induction figures will not impact the per hour operational costs vis-a-vis an unknown foreign MRCA. As calculated, in fact it can be a much cheaper option.
cheap does not win wars, capability does.
Nick_76Of course I can compare India with Netherlands. Both are rich countries with a strong aviation industry that have been assembling fighter jets for years.
The reason I chose India was just to show how difficult it can be to design and produce a own modern jet fighter without any former experience in that field, it does´nt matter if you are one of the biggest and richest countries in the world.
thanks for the compliment, but you have to be kidding if you think that india has been anywhere as rich as the netherlands, for many years. its only in the past 10-15 years that india has regained its business edge which was shackled thanks to socialistic policies since independence.
the lca and similar projects were launched when india couldnt fund them and it was conveniently assumed govt would make funds available. in the mid 90’s, india even pledged its state reserve gold to the bank of england as a pledge to avoid defaulting on payments, this crisis prompted india to open up its economy, and resulted in todays state (which still has a long way to go).
to sum it up, the lca began with some money available- 83-90 when all the paper work was done, infrastructure was commenced, and consultations agreed to, from 90-5/97, it struggled for lack of funds and foreign exchange issues. its only been in the last 5-7 years that the govt of india has openly declared its will to support the program with whatever funds it requires. this after another 5-7 year ramp up period where money was deliberately not spent on defence so as to keep up the economic momentum and use the money to move it along.
iow, comparing a program run by a developing country with a huge guns vs butter complex to a developed country is not always the best option. after decades of crashes, the hawk was purchased (21 yr delay), the mrca purchase was cleared only post 2000.
todays india is not india of the 80’s, early 90’s when foreign exchange was a tightly controlled quantity since the economy was growing in fits and spurts to a planned economic model.
that is why you are seeing more business like decisions on funding and clearing projects. otherwise, it was shoestring budgeting, and the project would run along till things became better.
Nick_76vikas, the iaf “officially” wants to concentrate on 3 types. mki, mrca and lca. but then it itself went for the pak-fa. and there will obviously be a push for the mca. my take on things is that 5 types for the iaf is no biggie- they have faced far worse with far lesser budget and done ok.
just to give an idea in the late 90’s we had:su-30 k’s (2 squadrons), mig 21 fl, mf, bis, um, (~50% of the iaf) mig 23 um/bn (3 squadrons) , mig 27 (5 sq), jaguar is/ ib (4 sq), canberra (1 flight), mig-25(1 flight), mig 29 a/b (3 sq), mirage 2000 h/th (2 sq)
now lets drill down to the 3 fighter type plan:
we’d be left with su-30 mki’s (12 squadrons), mrca ( 6-8 squadrons), lca (6-8 squadrons)- that still leaves, 11.5 squadron shortfall. see in the meantime, we ‘dhave jaguars, mig-27s, mirage 2000s and mig-29s making up these 11.5 squadrons..but who replaces them. now, assuming that we took 6 lca squadrons and 6 mrca ones . taking the lower limits, we have 24 squadrons. add another 6 of hawks + lifts or purely hawks (today we’ll have 3). that still leaves 9.5 squadrons.
i’d say around 5 squadrons of pak-fa and mca each are sustainable. and these can continue to come in, as the oldest mkis are withdrawn.
the 39.5 squadron plan is for combat units alone and was raised post 62. uav’s, force multipliers are separate.
similarly, the iaf has 30 sam squadrons equipped with pechoras to bypass the limit on combat squadrons at the time. but now, it will end up becoming a mix of akash, barak-ng and the new aad/ abm system. the osa-ak- 8 “flights” might end up being a mix of spyder and drdo maitri, or maitri alone, since the spyder deal is cancelled.
here you go gentlemen, as official as it gets, proof that the above analysis is fundamentally correct, and that the 39.5 sq figures are also tacitly pointed out
Depletion of the combat force of IAF will manifest once again even after induction of the Sukhoi-30s, the multirole combat aircraft and the light combat aircraft, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal S P Tyagi has said. Writing in the inaugural issue of “Plane” the in house magazine of defence aviation major Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, he said the depletion of combat force would be faced at the end of the technical life of existing aircraft such as Bison, (upgraded MIG 21) Jaguar, Mirage and MIG-29. “This needs to be addressed at the earliest, with HAL playing a major role” he asserted. ACM Tyagi said HAL should take a lead role in the development of a fifth generation fighrer aircraft, which should be developed and produced in an international joint venture. Even aviation leaders such as the US, Europe and Russia have been forced to collaborate with other countries for such ambitious development projects because of cost implications and technical challenges, he noted.
Vijay Times (28-12-2006)
Nick_7621Ankush, we may assume momentarily that the MRCA contract is divided into 90 Tejas and 36 Su-30 MKI. We may also assume that the per hour operational cost of the Su-30 MKI is $5000 more than the least expensive MRCA contender, and that the per hour operational cost of the Tejas is $2000 lesser than the least expensive MRCA contender.
In that case, assuming 200 hours of flight per year for each of these planes, the total annual cost of operation of the 36 Su-30 MKI units shall be $36 million more than 36 units of the least expensive MRCA. Likewise, the total figure for annual cost of operation of 90 Tejas units shall be $36 million lesser than 90 units of MRCA.
Thus, as these figures nullify each other, there shall be no difference in cost of operation if a spilt order of 90 Tejas and 36 Su-30 is chosen instead of the least expensive MRCA.
Besides, the avoidance of introducing a new type of fighter by streamlining of existing Su-30 and Tejas units shall reduce logistics costs that can be of the order of a few hundred thousand dollars annually. Over a 40 year lifetime, it shall translate into savings of tens of millions of dollars.
However, the most significant saving shall be in the few billions of dollars saved in the purchase of a foreign MRCA. This amount can sustain 2-3 air-wars fought in one decade each for the next 4 decades.The total number of Tejas fighters in the IAF shall thus be 310 and those of the Su-30 MKI shall be 266.**
In my view, it would be strategically better to be dependent on 1 indigenous plane and 1 foreign nation, rather than “little bit” indigenous planes and 2 foreign nations.
**These are in fact “mediocre” figures, considering that the Tejas is anyway meant to replace all MiG series in the IAF that number over 400. It may also be noted that much smaller nations like Israel and South Korea operate 200-270 of only F-16s.
the whole problem with your reasoning is that you are assuming that the lca will be equal to the mrca in terms of combat capabilities. across the board.
it wont be.
it is combat capabilities AND the combination of cost- known as cost capability matrix which drive the numbers of which type is to be acquired in what proportion.
what you are dismissing as mediocre figures is because you havent understood the impact of why the lca was replacing the mig series in what timeframe.
that was when the plaaf did not have su-30s in the hundreds. today, the threat perception has totally changed, because of which we have to reorient our strike arm.
as a result of which the iaf will be :
-majority heavy fighters
– equal numbers of medium and light fighters
why light fighters at all? coz they are still useful against pak, because they are cheaper to operate, and because they are required for local aerospace devept
try to think of things in multiple dimensions including the iafs point of view, otherwise that is not analysis
Nick_76If Russia manages to lure Brazil and (even China in the future) into the PAK-FA, then it can be called ‘BRICs Fighter’.
Cheers,
Sunho
one of the key conditions of india being part of pak-fa is that no part of pak-fa tech will find its way to china.
Nick_76Everybody dies in a Many v Many WVR fight. A 2-seat airplane’s crew will still miss 45% of threats and will die just as quickly as a single seat airplane’s aircrew. The smart aircrew stays out of the furball.
yes, but one doesnt always have the option. besides, most western af’s have gone to bvr, with wvr to be avoided. in the subcontinent, because of short distances between primary afb, the iaf trains extensively for both wvr and bvr and it may have a significant advantage over its regional adversary pak in having the only 4+ g aams (r-73e vs pak) or 5g (python 5).
Sign In
