Nick_76Vikas
The IAF leadership can speak their mind, they are not watched over by GOI 24/7- its a democracy after all, you cant muzzle your soldiers. So Barbora said the truth (as he perceives it) and also took care to avoid the media from blowing up his comments ..thats all pretty normal stuff if you ask me…usual we are prepared to thwart the enemys nefarious designs soundbytes…followed by…BUT we are doing ok ..peace etc etc
Nick_76TMor,
Japan won’t get F-22. Japan has demonstrated its willingness to buy non-US with the EH101.
It would be great if Japan buys the EF- I can just imagine the red faces at LM. :diablo:
Giving up before you start is no way to sell airplanes, IMHO.
Amen to that!!
Nick_76Hey everyones got there own opinion.:)
Yes some of it does get done to death, but when someone posts an enticing comment such as;
“When EFs get plastered by Raptors or Rafales or Flankers in any exchange or exercise”
It will get an answer;)
And you think it cant happen? I have known of MiG-21 MFs getting the drop on Su-30Ks. Age and guile wins over guts and brawn most days. I dont think the EF is invulnerable. Its got some nifty features but nothing like the combination of stealth and LPI radar that the Raptor has. That – as some would put it- is the proverbial shark with a frickin’ laser on its head.
If i’m not mistaken, when 2 eurofighters were sent to the USA to fly against Raptors they came on top in WVR, due to there sheer agility, I have read this from many sources. But in BVR, as expected, it was the lesser of the two. Except, lol, when it tracked a raptor 80 miles away.
I am sure some Raptor pilots will dispute both the above, but never mind…
Sure, I bet Commando Comics will run a special on it as well.
Just wait a few years matey when this joke will become a realitiy đ
Dunno mate, I think Commando stopped publishing…or it still around? Battler Briton, Commando etc were quite good. đ
About ID, this, in my opinion cannot truthfully justify the performance of the typhoon NOR the su-30. It was a big logistics exercise (Read many articles mainly in AFM, Aircraft Int. and Aircraft illustrated) đ .The flanker chose not to use a few systems mainly the N011M radar, as did the typhoon and they both did just about nothing to reflect their true capabilities,alot more so with the typhoon. To show how much of a tamed exercise it was they didn’t even use real weapons for peaks sake, just ones with generic ranges and performance to comply with security regulations. Hardly a representation of the real world.A blind MKI stood its ground against a typhoon with a lead on.
The last statement hardly shows the EF to be an uber killer does it. ID was a serious exercise, to call it an issue of logistics is a joke- nobody deploys half the world away for logistics- and the entire reason why the MKIs didnt show all their cards is because they are the best the IAF has. When the MRCAs come in, and if they have better radar/airframe performance than the MKI, then the latter will be more on display. All exercises use notional ranges for weapons, in case you were unaware.
Just out of interest have you ever seen a typhoon? maybe then you will appreciate what many of us, EF fans are getting at. It really does look in a different league when seen, compared to all contempories.
I daresay you havent objectively looked at its contemporaries then, personally I think all these birds have pros and cons and are far too evenly matched. Only the Raptor, and to some extent the JSF has some silver bullets in the A2A arena that cant be met easily. And the JSF could also be addressed to some degree with iterative upgrades- a 1 Mtr antenna aperture allows that leeway.
Final comment you made. TOO true a statement, Falklands war showed that in a nutshell.
Yup, always respected the RAF.
Nick_76Broncho, Inverted commas in that article imply direct quotes and not mere journalistic interpretation. Unless of course AVM has been misquoted completely as happens in media, my questions still stand.
Vikas
Why in the world would the IAF count upon some “diplomatic” ties and overlook how badly their force structure is slipping in the east with MiG-21s against a Flanker equipped PLAAF?
Surely, they’d deploy and keep their powder dry.
Nick_76Lol, what’s wrong with him supporting the eurofighter?
Nothing wrong. Only that he pretends to be the Pope and be neutral! Everyones got an opinion and they’re entitled to it. Its only when they start getting smarmy and self righteous about how their support is ok and others isnt…that people speak up.
In a nutshell, wear your colors openly and be a man about it.
If he hadnt done that utterly asinine bit of namecalling in the earlier post about those who were questioning JOUST (and well they might!)- the debate would have remained civil.
But thats vintage Jack. Just likes to hand it out, but gets testy (and has chaps like you pop up) when he gets it back. I daresay the French contingent on the board (TMor et al) have been mindbogglingly patient with all the EF baiting.
As much as I like the EF (and would support it being chosen for my nations AF)- its bloody irritating to open the thread and see the same old same old “MY EF IS BETTER THAN YOUR RAFALE” bilge again and again. And once the French posters give up in disgust its “MY EF IS BETTER THAN YOUR FLANKER”.
And this is a professional Journalist. A professional who wants to be taken seriously and as an authoritative source.
A shame really. Why resort to all this?? If he made his point simple and civil, he’d have blokes looking upto him not engaging in dissing contests.
The only one in that trio that could make the typhoon sweat is the Raptor,
Understatement there. It would chew the EF and throw it out like a wet sock puppet. Dont feel too bad, that’d be the case with almost everyother 4th gen a/c as well.
nd only in BVR, Flanker nd rafale = easy meat,
Sure, I bet Commando Comics will run a special on it as well.
and I carn’t wait until there is an exercise that will finally settle this jelousy/critisism many people have of the typhoon.
Earth to saturn – the exercise is over, and the EF didnt walk all over the Flanker. It held its own, and that itself proves that its designers did a good job and that it is a worldclass fighter that the UK/other partners can be justifiably proud of. Unfortunately, it doesnt mean that its so good that in BVR, its opponents will fall out of the sky squawking “EF MMI”, “EF range at gimbal” or whatever xyz may believe.
In reality, every professional AF will train itself to exploit its platforms strengths and minimize its weaknesses, and there will be no one sided turkey shoot.
This is what I have always held- that the RAFs strength are its people and its experience, especially in large scale BVR-AWACS engagements.
Give the RAF Tornados with E3s vs the Saudis and EFs with E3s and there’ll be many Saudis who wont return home (imho). The experience, the stick time, tactics will decide how the game is played.
Nick_76Interesting that those from nations whose aircraft didn’t show well in JOUST automatically dismiss its accuracy, relevance and credibility.
Care to show which nations aircraft type did well in JOUST apart from the EF? Next you’ll be telling us that webbased calculators prove EF superiority in all aspects.
“Were EFs facing Sukhois with equivalent AWACs support and with both sides having equivalent training and tactics, without assumptions of Soviet style GCI control.
[
B]YES[/B]
And that suffices right? Just like all the unnamed experts who “off the record” diss the Rafale! Pardon me- but I’d rather wait for some credible evidence to show that JOUST was in anyway better than the bulk of simulations worldwide, which are invariably full of assumptions, “technical estimates” and sometimes, a fair bit of elbow grease to favour the home team. Heck, a few posts thence, you were yourself admitting that you knew precious little about JOUST.
Details, details. Was the assumption made that the Sukhois would be backed up by state of the art deception SPJs? Etc? YES”
Parity was assumed in training, tactics, missile performance and radar. Multiple scenarios were flown, from 1 vs 1, to 1 vs many, to many vs many.
Didnt answer the question at all. First tactics evolve- parity wont do. In fact, the “respawning” thing the Raptor chaps are doing is good- its out of the box. Second, did JOUST take into account that a Flanker could field worldclass EW fits? Or that its opponents would use BVR traps? Or use Escort Jammers? Details, details- and frankly, just cursory one-two-liners are not enough.
BVR tactics as examined by JOUST remain entirely valid if you have one side defending against an enemy who are progressing towards an objective, and if you need to kill the enemy and prevent that progression.
There you go…and what of real world situations, when both sides would set BVR traps, bait the other and make him play his hand? What of situations when the Flankers target your AWACs with extreme LRAAMs? Stuff like this..
And the use of E-3D/E-3F does not obviate the need for decent onboard SA, and for the best possible MMI.
Semantics. There is no proof that the EF has any huge advantages over the Flanker in either.
You may be operating in heavy jamming, and AWACS may be somewhere else, doing something else.
In heavy jamming, the AWACs has far better chance of burning through or combating it, then a small sized fighter radar. And no, if the issue is crucial- the AWACs wont be elsewhere. Do show me how many times first class AFs operate without AWACs nowadays. The AWACs will be where the air dominance fight is. The air force that sends its AWACs elsewhere is plain stupid. They have eliminated their greatest advantage or piece on the chessboard.
Nor does AWACS obviate the need for powerful onboard sensors – with ARMs inbound,
The number of countries fielding A2A ARMs is…zilch. The Russian proposal is still vapourware. And for a good reason.
or a tech fault, Rafale needs as much range as it can squeeze from whatever is mounted in that pretty but slender nose, and to pretend otherwise is silly.
Its more silly to imply- as you are doing, that range is the be-all and end-all. What matters is whether the Rafale cannot support its armament to maximum range and that it obtain tactical surprise. It might do well for you to read about BVR conflict in the real world – which has the element of surprise as the key determiner. The Rafale or for that matter the EF will routinely practise on lighting up only when they have missile launch ranges. Anything else, and you might as well tell the whole world where you are at.
If IRST, Mica IR and Link 16 were enough, the AdlA wouldn’t be spending money on supporting RBE2, let alone on getting an AESA.
Of course they need the RBE-2- thats to illuminate the target for missile launch. And secondly, the AdlA is not too gungho about an AESA either, its the export market which wants one, in the eternal spirit of keeping up with the joneses.
And Su-30 is not even the equal of Rafale in BVR, when it comes to performance. It doesn’t supercruise, and it’s longitudinally stable at supersonic speeds, so doesn’t turn well at those speeds, while it bleeds energy like a b*s*a*d.
More b*llocks I am afraid. The Su-30 has more than enough fuel to burn and turn and do so for quite some time, and any proper sustained campaign will have refuellers on both sides. If I were to similarly put pros/cons/claims- I could well point out that the Flanker airframe has key attributes- such as ability to field a massive aperture AESA and other subsystems and so on and so forth.
But I do need to be told off for getting muddled on BARS…… (thanks for pointing it out, I will go and do 100 lines) ….. though the underlying point remains that in migrating from a high powered inverse cassegrain array in the -27/-30 to an electronically scanned array in the 30MKI means a significant reduction in performance at the azimuth limit (and reduced range, overall).
I was actually laughing as I read this, since you blew the complete credibility of JOUST outta the window, and you wouldnt have done it unless despite all the mumbo-jumbo apart and the usage of terms like “inverse cassegrain array”, you really are so out there when it comes to the details. FACT- the Bars produces much better performance than the cassegrain array systems it replaced, across the board and is much more efficient with what it does with the power that it gets. And as far as Azimuth limit is concerned, its got mech scanning, for tactical advantage, as and when it needs it.
These were the kind of assumptions your JOUST chaps made and you expect us to believe them. What else did they do? Set up a MiG/Su-24 low strike streaming across with a top cover of Su-27s against EFs backed up by AWACs? No wonder it’d be a turkey shoot.
I dont blame them- they did what they could manage best with limited data and could only model as much as they could support. Anyone with DOE experience would know you model what is predictable and count the rest as error. But you dont have these figures, I daresay you have zero sim time or modelling experience! But only a blind person would think that assumptions made so long back, in an era of limited transparency would stand the test of time, and that too against systems which were nowhere in the picture at the time- would be inviolate. And only someone who is beyond the pale of reason, as you have been would be so insistent that he cant but rage and flame, and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
You have a lot of talent mate, and its a shame to see you wasting all those graycells in this ludicrous manner, trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Nick_76seems confident that JOUST was a pretty good predictor of what real world results would be
Though JOUST style classic BVR EF vs Typhoon set ups weren’t flown, the results of JOUST were repeated and validated in the more recent SILVE simulations.
That tells me that ID showed that JOUST style turkey shoots aint realistic. Not unless the opponent is dumb.
Second, depending upon SILVE to validate JOUST is introducing two levels of errata into the equation.
Moreover, though representative sorties weren’t flown on ID, there were obviously relevant performance parameters which people were keen to see. Had Su-30 performed better in these areas than the ‘developed Flanker’ used as a threat in JOUST it would have implied that JOUST results would be over-optimistic, whereas if the Su-30 wasn’t as good as the ‘developed Flanker’ then it would imply that the JOUST results were pessimistic.
That also depends on whether the IAF were dumb enough to put all their cards on the table. They wouldnt be. Exercises like these are a case of cat and mouse. You reveal only what you are comfortable with, whilst managing the risk of not being caught too far out on the win/loss ratio side.
You may imagine what the parameters people might like to confirm would be. ID did not allow anyone to measure Su-30 weapons performance by comparison with the ‘parity weapons’ assumed during JOUST, nor was anyone able to compare BARS with the ‘Captor parity’ radar assumed in JOUST – though in terms of range and range at gimbal, no serious analyst would assume that the AESA would be anything other than inferior in these specific parameters.
Here you go with the humour again. First Bars is PESA, not AESA. Second, for all this onanism of range and range at gimbal, please be aware that no serious AF is going to operate without AWACs support. Or have a single aircraft take on multiple bandits as on Playstation. Its going to be flights vs flights, and what matters is whether a single aircrafts weapon control can deploy its weapon at the latters maximum effective range. The SA will be taken care of AWACS feed. And both the Captor and Bars can do that. The rest is intellectual hairsplitting, and which is why the French arent too bothered about the raw range parameters etc of the RBE-2- they have enough E3Fs to pull their bit.
There were opportunities to look at turn rates (though you’d have to assume that the Indian pilots might have been holding back) and at IRST performance.
And sure they would, why on Earth would the Indians or anyone for that matter, show all that they could do?
But there were no unpleasant surprises (much better turn performance, better sensor performance, etc.) to suggest that JOUST was over-optimistic, and indeed some of what the RAF saw suggested that the developed ‘Flanker’ modelled during JOUST was a more capable aircraft than the real-world Su-30. That being the case, the attitude seems to be that JOUST and SILVE remain valid.
Pretty rich since the assumption is that the Indians played “show ’em all” and secondly, they have been very conservative about sensor performance throughout exercises. Even in the first ID, the Indian side blanked out a fair bit of the Bars performance.
To cut a long story short- in BVR- if I were you, I wouldnt count on the EFs technology winning the day. I for one would point to the RAFs long expertise in this arena, coupled with AWACs support. By all accounts, the RAFs Tornado (soon to be EF) with E3 coordination is first class and has taught many AFs hard lessons.
Thats what the Indians will find a challenge, not the fractional pros and cons of the EF vs the Flanker or MiG or whatever.
Nick_76In other words, you dont know the specifics but are “extrapolating”
No Iâm not. Iâm repeating the generalities.
Semantics. Generalities quoted as fact or implications thereof are meaningless.
JOUST models were not âbased on aircraft with more limited performanceâ, in fact, performance estimates for Rafale erred on the generous side, while the âFlankerâ was deliberately exaggerated (with parity in radar, missiles and pilot quality) so that it represented the worst case threat.
Really? Care to bring out the specifics- I doubt the modellers had the specifics of what to include or what not.
Unless you think that BARS offers greater range than Captor M, then it has less range than was assumed in JOUST.
And what exactly is that range? Bumping up the power output on a Cassegrain array system is not the epitome of accurate modelling.
JOUST included sorties with and without AWACS support.
This is generic. Were EFs facing Sukhois with equivalent AWACs support and with both sides having equivalent training and tactics, without assumptions of Soviet style GCI control. Details, details. Was the assumption made that the Sukhois would be backed up by state of the art deception SPJs? Etc?
Without the details- quoting JOUST and similar exercises is a study in intellectual onanism.
âAnyone who depends on a simulation will have to face reality sometime.â No doubt thatâs why Dassault have been such a good customer for SILVEâŚ. Of course simulation is of limited usefulness â but it is useful.
Dassault is hardly all over the ‘net using SILVE in comparison to the EF gang and JOUST.
There are websites with JOUST calculators and such things..:rolleyes:
Nick_76“your original contention was that the findings at ID validated the results of the simulation.”
No. My contention was more subtle. That ID produced nothing that contradicted JOUST, and what the exercise did reveal were aspects of Su-30 performance that tended to confirm it rather than the reverse.
Sure, and the truth would be if the EFs wiped out the Su-30s. But that didnt happen and the IAF crew are more than confident about the capabilities of their bird, wonder why!
It does seem you are just stretching. In fact, if anything ID has validated the IAFs belief in the Flanker, not to mention the fact that it is a darn sight less expensive than the EF in unit costs, and has significant growth potential on account of its airframe.
“1.The findings at ID were not sufficient to validate anything worthwhile (let alone reality or a simulation you claim to be closer to reality).”
Again, not really accurate. I don’t claim that JOUST is ‘closer to reality’, period, only that the simulation was merely more representative of real-world BVR.
Unless you present the exact details of what was covered in JOUST and how, this is meaningless. Real world opponents dont follow predictable tactics and methods. The next thing we’ll be hearing is that Harpoon depicts exactly how real war would turn out.
“2. Whatever can be extrapolated from the little findings at ID, say that those two planes compare very evenly with each other.”
Certainly inaccurate. The ‘Flanker’ is a previous generation fighter with some useful WVR capabilities, but lacking the supersonic performance and agility and the MMI of more modern fighters, of which Typhoon is merely an example.
Oh please- Jack- give it up already. Its tiresome, not to mention ridiculous. In sharp BVR clashes, with both AFs fielded refuellers, and AWACs, the Flanker can maintain supersonic performance as and when it wants it, and it has the agility to deliver a deathblow. So has the EF.
Unfortunately, thats how modern wars are fought- the side that commits the fewer mistakes, has the better training wins- unless theres overwhelming dominance in technology. Thats Raptor area- not EF, as much as you’d like to convince everyone otherwise.
As regards previous generation- several of the most critical systems in the Flanker come from the same timeframe as the Eurofighters, and deliver equivalent performance. And MMI is an overstated red herring in this case- the Su-30s operated by the IAF are two seaters and have more flexibility in weapons employment and deployment than an overtasked single seater.
Nick_76I’m not ‘read into’ the official report into ID, and people who are will speak only in the most general terms.
In other words, you dont know the specifics but are “extrapolating”
Since JOUST was a predictor of BVR exchange ratios (subsequently validated by SILVE), between aircraft which were all using their radar, ID was of limited relevence.
Models based on aircraft with more limited performance.
However, it is clear that the Su-30’s aerodynamic performance and T:W was no better than that modelled during JOUST, and no-one believes that BARS is better than the ‘parity’ radar modelled during the original JOUST evaluation.
This goes to show that dont know the details about the BARS or for that matter what the MKI is capable of- when used sensibly- in both WVR and BVR. The actual details will remain classified, and with good reason but there is enough to draw sensible conclusions, which you havent as far as this case is concerned. Secondly, no AF- unless it doesnt have the resources- will fight fighter to fighter. It will be system vs system with AWACS on both sides and fighters acting as weapons systems deployment platforms.
JOUST’s conclusions are therefore reckoned to remain as valid as they were before the exercise.
Anyone who depends on a simulation will have to face reality sometime. Whether its the F-22 or the MKI or the EF.
Nick_76And you can bet a pound to a penny that as old as Invincible is and techinally in reserve, she is a thousand days plus closer to being availble for active service than the Viraat at this time, and may well be in better condition :rolleyes:
The problem is, what will she “fly”? The SHars are long in the tooth, and even with upgrades, will only stick around so long. Plus they are limited platforms, in terms of range and payload.
Nick_76Cancelling the AG now and retendering…the mind boggles. Anyone who knows how the Indian MOD operates will know that simply means that the IN will be bereft of a carrier till the ADS comes online.
The F/A-18 E/F is a fine aircraft- dont know what the controversy is? Its simply too “political” for the Indian Navy to field, plus wouldnt have the logistics commonality with the IAF fleet.
This played a substantial role in the decision to go for the MiG-29K. Quite a few of its avionics and other assemblies will be common with the IAFs upgraded (to be) MiG-29s and HAL has prior experience in dealing with this type, along with the IAF.
The Rafale is more of a dream, if anything. Its unit costs alone would make an IN admiral think twice. Besides, against the Pakistanis, its overkill.
Of course, if the PLAN takes to the carrier business, the MiG-29K+LCA combo may not be enough against navalized Flankers, and hence the Rafale may be required.
Personally, I am hoping the MRCA deal goes to Rafale or EF, and that derivatives of these will be available for naval roles in the future.
Nick_76No.3 Squadron already has a USAF F-16CJ pilot on exchange. His name has been published, but I’m not going to repeat it.
I’d expect to see exchange pilots from other EF partner nations eventually, and I’d expect a US Marine, a Norwegian, and at least one Dutchman, eventually.
Glitter, you’re a naughty boy!
You imply that I only listed ‘programme’ Rafale strengths, and not ‘technical strengths’ ignoring the fact that I said:
“And the aeroplane itself has some impressive features – and the French did a great job in getting it into service with a wide variety of useful weapons.
And while it can hold its head up among other land-based fighters, the basic aircraft proved adaptable to the carrier role with astonishingly little modification.
Low speed agility is as impressive as anything out there (to the extent that comparisons with Typhoon will rely on the alpha and g limits set by the users, so close are the two aircraft in that area).”
That’s hardly saying Rafale is “behind the Typhoon in EVERY aspect.”
There’s plenty on MMI in the real world. Craig Penrice has written about it under his own name, and I can quote what Singaporean and Korean pilots said, they just don’t want their names published.
Radar performance isn’t just the max range, though that’s the key parameter. It’s also about range at max azimuth. It’s about scan coverage. It’s about gimbal. And yes, it’s about LPI, beam agility too. Rafale will “get the AESA asap.” It’s less urgent for Typhoon.
And the evaluation teams in Singapore and South Korea preferred Typhoon. The Koreans didn’t want to wait for the aircraft, the RSAF were keen to wait but were overruled.
Dunno mate. For all the claims of being unbiased, any chap can see you are slagging the Rafale pretty hard in there.
And quite a bit you have posted is contentious. For one, the Rafale radar is stated to have LPI characteristics. And with AWACs operation and proper tactics, raw range and even gimbal limits are not the be-all and end-all.
Secondly, MMI alone isnt a war winning combo. A bit of proper training and pilots compensate. Supersonic performance? Again- where are the proper figures for comparison. They are classified- oh right!
Heck, at times it doth seem you are trying to hard to “sell” the Eurofighter. Even whilst stating you are neutral.
Fairs fair mate.
Nick_76“The point is that there is no point for France to buy Typhoon”
unless they want a better performing aircraft with better MMI for the AD role….
“Defence Analysis, June 2007, (PAGE 17 VOL 10 NO 6)
AS THE NEW GENERATION OF COMBAT AIRCRAFT see
more service, so more pilots from different countries get to fly them. And such is the case with both the Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon. Of note is that RAF pilots, including some pretty senior ranks, have now flown Rafale. And without having to get picky, they donât seem that impressed.âFrightfully underpoweredâ, one such pilot told Defence Analysis. âWe were struggling at 20,000 feet basically unladen. I wouldnât want to be in Rafale at 15,000 feet and +30 degrees with a combat load!â The pilot went on to describe the cockpit and its layout as, âdistinctly Frenchâ, which was not necessarily a major compliment, although some of the individual instruments he thought had been very well thought out. But overall Man-Machine Interface was, ânot a patch on what we have in Typhoon.â
:p :diablo: đŽ
Whos the author of this piece? Jon Lake? Sweetman or someone else? :confused:
Also, never heard of this mag/ review- – is there a URL? Is it part of Janes?
Nick_76Dozer puts a polite beatdown on Lake in that fencecheck forum link.
Says Lakes conclusions are wrong and cant be relied upon.
Seems to be pretty damning, coming from an active fairly senior pilot flying the F-22.:confused:
Or is he wrong and is Lake correct?:confused:
Sign In
