How? All India has to do is to get Tactical Air Superiority.. a handful of F-16s and several JF-17s wont change that..!

Second, as a % of GDP, India is still not spending as much as Pakistan is. If it were to do so, it could easily swamp the current expenditure by an order of magnitude.

Austin,

Well you were the one who described the hyperbole surrounding BrahMos’s deployment?. You cant make the Indian Navy’s reticence to talk about any Klub missile proof that they have inducted the supersonic variant and have it operational and reliable. This is the whole point. The last information I saw about Klub 3M-54E was from a Russian source that said it didnt work very well. Nothing substantive has been released since then saying it works and has been fielded or has even past acceptance.

Why would the Indian Navy tom tom the Klub? If it is a wunderweapon or whatever you state it is, its to their advantage that they keep discussion on it to a minimum.

I’m NOT sticking my fingers in my ears and trying to make the scary missile system go away here, likewise I’m not really all that concerned about it as – like I said – UKPAAMS is in part designed to defeat it and its still an ARH and vulnerable to RF softkill anyway!. All I want from anyone is a confirmable, credible, report that the bloody thing works reliably as, if it does, its a very considerable engineering feat.

Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder. What you are asking for is for Austin to lay his source on the line or reveal something that the IN has not sought to publically share. At this point, I’d also like to request Austin not to reveal anything that the IN has not publically shared, even for discussion’s sake.

If BrahMos wants its touted stand-off advantage then it is obliged to go high. If not you’ve go to get your launch platform in to about 120km from target undetected to maintain the suprise. Possible, I guess, but not necessarily an easy feat.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1077550&postcount=243

Lets see, last time around you stated that the Brahmos choice was not thought out, ad hoc etc. But now there is a public source rebutting the same and stating the decision and why it was made. What do you say to that mate?

So what Austin has stated may come out one day…or it might not.

The difference is that Brahmos is being targeted for export, so publicity and hence more transparency viz. the weapons capabilities is required.

But otherwise…

..Can you tell me the range of the HUMSA sonar (even roughly) on an IN warship? The number of targets its CAIO can manage? Or the exact performance and peak power of the 3D CAR variant being developed for the Navy?

I think not…its not in the Navys interest to tout these features..even the developers dance around these details, bar private conversation, since they are not meant for export..

IOW, if you do get data, it will be from the Russian side most likely, rather than the user, who benefits from secrecy..even there one bureau may diss the other…no clear answers.

Since its a ramjet its taking its propulsion stage all the way through the terminal phase making it a nice big fat target. BrahMos is a low RCS target compared to what….a Flanker?. Compared to a small kill dart stage its a barn door!. BAE’s Sampson radar is credited with the ability to track a golf-ball RCS sized contact at 60km doing M3.0, so, how low-RCS is the clunking great BrahMos again?. In a decade that will be baseline performance from any number of AESA naval radars on the international market.

I am quite amused over here….are you privy to the Brahmos RCS figures? So what is the “barn door”….1 Mtr square, 3 ? At what height can the SAMPSON (and its marketing data is perfect viz. the PR of others ;)) track the “golf ball sized target”..?

Lt Gen Nagra states re:the Brahmos: Due to its low radar
cross-section, it is difficult to detect the missile during flight..Given that the Navy/ defence establishment has a lot of test facilities to corroborate the above, before stating it, I’d take him at his word..

While every system has advantages and disadvantages, I do think that you are indulging in a bit of hyperbole yourself mate. 😉

Now heres the thing, when it comes to Brahmos vs the Club, having talked to my fair share of Navy folk, and weapons developers, all agreed that the Brahmos was far superior to its alternatives, including the Club! Rather contradictory to your statements.

No it does not I’m afraid Austin. The large supersonic missile, for antiship, is a dinosaur that you Indians have let out for a bit of a walkabout. You are looking now at modern Inner Layer Missile systems like SeaWolf, Aster, VL MICA, ESSM, Barak, god-knows how many Russian types, etc easily having the engagement envelope to catch supersonic skimmers 10,000 yards off.

Modern generation larger-calibre gun based antimissile capability like the 3P rounds for Bofors Mk3 guns and Contraves Millenium with AHEAD have the capability to throw up a time-on-target wall of flak 2,500 yards off the vessel.
OTO Melera are taking that the step further with guided DART rounds for their Davide weapon system. Once these kinds of defences are activated, getting through them is going to mean saturation fire, not individual missile performance. Supersonic just isnt worth the price unless its coupled to tactical suprise.

The same holds true for most types, including the Club, even with its teensy weensy dart etc. If the Brahmos has an all the way supersonic profile- then thats tac surprise right there.

Thx, I assumed they’d try and reduce the number of airframes when the M29’s arrive, but then looking at the Indian Armed Forces, it was a crazy assumption 😮

India doesnt throw anything away as long as there is some life left in the kit- developing country syndrome plus totally ‘effed up bureaucratic delays at the MOD level.

As you mention its been stated that it fast enough to interleave functions:-

Its been mentioned as a hypothetical, and several radar engineers I know of shake their heads at the description as a sort of marketing white lie which is all too common in the industry worldwide..eg the Russians when they sell Zhuks tom tom it as amongst the best European radars…but when they sell AESAs they lay out the laundry list of SA issues..

As you say you can be skeptical, but isn’t this feature unique to a mechical scanned radar, so it deserves some Kudos. and captor has a much wider FOV than a AESA, so does it only have to engage 8 targets within an AESA’s FOV or engage 8 targets across its extended FOV?

The point is whether the feature has been achieved to begin with, and whether the Captor can do so for extended periods of time (for instance)- without affecting (for instance) its MTBF, its rotational assemblies wear & tear etc. In contrast ESAs by their very nature can reposition their beam (millisec.) within their FOV leading to very fast updates for track files..this is not slamming the Captor, which is undoubtedly a fine system, merely pointing out all systems have their pros and cons..!

Coming to FOV, a slotted array radar has an advantage in the F-Pole, its gimbal can position the beam even as the aircraft is on the “verge” of turning to avoid the enemy’s BVR shot, but its also true that within scan limits, an AESA/ESA can reposition its beam in a fast manner and hence update its track files, as well as maintain engagement status with multiple homers.
Now the question you asked is the million $ one- can the Captor engage 8 targets across its entire FOV and support them simultaneously? I think not. If that were truly the case- then I can assure you most customers – even worldwide, wouldnt really ask for an AESA on the EF. I am quite sure that the Captor has excellent ECCM, good range, and a well rounded out set of modes and with the Meteor it can make a formidable A2A platform…but an ESA it aint..whereas it is a very creditable SA design.

An equally valid question is can an AESA target 2 targets at the limits of a Captors FOV at the same time?

An ESA could possibly engage at the 60 deg limits which are common to the ultimate developmental aims fo the ESA ..but they can only engage beyond that with mech scanning…but too many ARHs too many positional updates…that becomes an issue!

Hmmm interesting – thanks

Cheers

My pleasure..

1.) N-035 Irbis is neither operational NOW, nor is it AESA
2.) The APG-79 did not exist in 2001/2002
3.) Captors range is claimed to be superior to that of the APG-73 too
4.) Arcording to my information the N-011M is able to detect 20 targets and engage up to 8 of them (with mk3 radar computer), in comparison the Captor can track at least 20 targets (probably even more) and engage 6 or maybe even 8 of them within full azimuth coverage with its MSA only

The N011 can detect > 15, track 15 and engage 4. These are reasonable figures and coupled with the radars range, make it quite useful. But it can TWS, and engage 4 targets all within its full 40 by 40 field of regard. An extra 30 degrees to either side is provided in azimuth for tactical situation build up, ie Situational awareness.

I truly wonder whether the Captor can engage all six targets within its full FOV, or it, as is common to most mechanically slotted arrays, breaks it up into bars and slices..within which it can TWS and engage, and I know of the PR about fast motors etc- but I really dont buy it unless theres an explicit statement about the Captor able to do what an ESA can do..so in that sense, the Captor would be at a marginal or substantial disadvantage (depending on your POV) vs a Bars whereas we can then say that the Captor tracks 5 more targets even if it is within a narrower FOV etc etc…anyways, neither a MKI or EF will fight without AEW&C/AWACS etc – and even loadouts are similar, so all these comparisons are academic.

Jackonicko,

First good on you for a well written and polite response. I shall endeavour to match the same.

Coming to the grist of the matter, I still think you are being a tad subjective here and it has to do with your personal preference in the matter.

DVI is all well and good, but it is definitely not the be-all and end-all of the matter and how good it is, is still a matter of debate. Voices can vary in pitch and tone, and even the most sophisticated of software can have issues matching to customers who are not of the country of origin/s. Secondly, nor is it some sort of silver bullet that the Rafale team would be that hard pressed to incorporate. Lets be serious here, is this a technology that is (say) akin to some sort of APG-77 in combat effectiveness, involving billions of USD in terms of manufacturing ability, technological edge viz algorithms and software and finally overall integration ability? Hardly- most countries with a well developed aerospace industry can develop one. If Thales were asked to do it, they’d deliver a prototype within a year or two and if it were a priority, it would be done even faster. So the bigger question is, why does France not think it is such a priority, if customers wished for it, do you think they wouldnt have gone for it?

So it does seem that you are really clutching at straws here. Also who are these umpteen pilots who have flown both platforms and ranked the EFs as comprehensively superior? If the EF was indeed such a war winning package then why did Singapore plump for the F-15 then? Ah, but that was politics. Then in that case, why object if the Rafale camp says the same about Saudi Arabia, especially when the UK arms deals to Saudi have been nothing but the epitome of political wheeling dealing (and yes, everyone does that- I agree, but the point is about equal treatment).

Lets go to the displays then. So these same pilots whom you talked to dont like color displays? Or dispute the value of the same- ok, some rationale, however much one may question it, but they have a POV which we must respect and I agree. But, the world over, every company worth its name is pushing for and integrating larger and larger integrated displays with full color imagery as and when they can squeeze it into the cockpit. Why? Because their customers want it. Somewhat of a contradiction dont you think?

If the EF features sensor fusion, and the Gripen does too and every fighter program the world over is having it, why would the Rafale be an exception?

Also, you say that PESA is a dead end. Well, so is the M-Scan on the Typhoon. Despite all the claims made by its supporters and the Typhoon consortium itself over its pros (while endeavouring to avoid mentioning its cons), they themselves are rushing as fast as they can, to get an AESA into service, even as the developing Govts themselves dont feel the need to spend more coin on it. The choice of PESA by Rafale was a considered decision, and according to several authors, the Rafale uses the RBE-2 along with its low signature to get the first look, first kill advantage.

Then finally, you state that a Jaguar downed a Rafale. Are you suggesting that tactical mistakes by a pilot cannot occur? What were the conditions in which the aircraft was flown, by which pilot and what were the circumstances.

We have seen HUD imagery of a F-22A from a F/A-18E/F (and it was not representative of a real situation), another F-22 was lost in a “mulligan” where a fighter was ignored by a F-22 pilot– does this reflect on the aircraft?

Frankly, while the EF may be a capable aircraft, the issues you claim superiority on are doubtful. A Rafale supporter may well claim better signature reduction, better radar (on the basis of E-scan) & so on and so forth. They could also point to issues of the EF FBW or it skidding famously on the runway recently to say how many bugs remain, or say that the Qinetiq reports about FBW issues point to how buggy it is and etc.

But you use the same thing to say that the F-22 test and eval program is not good enough. But by the same standards, the EF does not fare much better. At least the EF has federated systems- the F-22 has a revolutionary CIP concept which from the engineering point of view is much harder to develop and implement.

Hence, I say you are being subjective on this matter.

Nick is that a video camera fixed on the right side of the cockpit? kinda like how shower is fixed..

Probably is. Its a useful tool for test flights.

and as per acig, LCA is getting a new Voice Command Unite for Advanced Cockpit (last pics of the LCA page in acig),, which one will be the display for the voice commands?

They can either link it to one of the existing displays or use it as it is. If you see, the DVI processing unit/ LRU has a LCD strip display.

Nothing is getting cleared, any idea which datalink it is getting?
by datalink i mean to act as command post as well as to transmit/recieve from awacs/sat/etc etc

I would say look at the CABs AWACs. When they state 64 Kbps V/UHF datalink, that extends to whats locally being inducted. I think Rakall on BR had mentioned BELs Link-2. Go through Arun S photographs and it is shown as well. Apparently, India has chosen to go for its own datalink rather than Israeli/ Russian/ US one..good for security, and am sure they’ll keep upgrading it.