And how did you come to the conclusion that “UV is not good for maneuvering fighters ?”

Not my conclusion but that of the development agency’s when they trialled UV & IR MAWS both. Basically, UV and Single Color MAWS did not meet requirements of good range, and very low false alarm rate. So, they are developing Dual Color IR MAWS. There was more on the technicalities, but these are the specific points that I have from my notes of the presentation.

Trident, you were very near the answer. Scorpion82, as to why the MKI does not have a MAWS yet, your point about them developing their own system is also germane.

From own notes @ a public talk by DARE – which I didn’t even remember.

– MAWS is essential, since its not just larger missiles but also to prevent cheap MANPADS from downing multimillion $ aircraft
-Passive systems preferred
-Can be UV or IR
-First is proven and used on most slow moving aircraft, in which case UV offers low false alarm rates, but not good for maneuvering fighters
-So IR, again 2 types, single color (fielded in few types) and dual color (in development). Single color has been fielded by several countries but has high false alarm rates in presence of clutter
– DC is way to go, which is what they are working on.
– AEWACS project also has DC MAWS

Bottom line, they were unsatisfied with current off the shelf, single color IR MAWS and are developing a better system for IAF fighter requirements and across the board. Meanwhile, UV based MAWS for slower aircraft have been already fielded, which offer good performance for those envelopes

Yudhishtir,

Per your question,

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html

Or is it that someones pride got hurt? :rolleyes:

Oh boy, now Get up, dust your butt and move-on.

If anyone claim that Tejas is a cheap copy of Mirage-2000 to avoid paying French the royalty for licence manufacture, will you accept it?
If not, get matured and don’t pollute the thread.

Apart from silly personal attacks, do you have anything to contribute bar nationalism? If not, “get matured and don’t pollute the thread”.

I disagree that the typhoon would have played with everything against a restricted SU30 in a desperate attempt to prove its worth given the MMRCA Bids. If that was the case the Indians would Know it and so it would fail to impress (hence my comment about selecting facts and ignoring others) it doesnt stand up to a logic test.

I think you are trying hard to see offence where none was implied, and then responding with in turn, eg “selecting facts and ignoring others”, and even and saying “a desparate attempt to prove its worth” etc when nothing of the sort was said or even implied.

Before speaking of a logic test, have you tried it? Look at it again. Please consider that the Typhoon, as part of the MMRCA would have seen a significant amount of otherwise classified data about its capability already passed to the Indian team.

Key details about its performance, aerodynamic and avionics would already be available to India. As part of the MMRCA, Indian test pilots from ASTE also flew it, saw weapons trials, the IAF crosschecked over 600 key parameters for the aircraft.

India, would in turn be legally obliged to protect this data and not share it with others.

So what difference would it make if the RAF crew flying it, demonstrated its performance to a wider audience including frontline IAF crew from a wide cross section of squadrons, and many senior IAF personnel observing an exercise, and who would also submit reports on its evaluation and progress, to AHQ? Why should they bother if the IAF flies a Su-30 at x% or y% capability – thats not their problem. If that limitation showcases the Typhoon better than even otherwise, so much the better.

Instead of just having the evaluation of the MMRCA team (which of course would remain the primary point of evaluation for the MMRCA), it would also help the EF team to get others in the IAF “on their side” regarding the EF performance being widely seen and acknowledged. The Dassault team already has the positive performance of the Mirage 2000 & its service in Kargil on its side. Every little bit helps.

If there was no MMRCA, things would be very different. Then, both sides would be wary of showing many key details since such details would not have been available to either.

Right now, its not that India does not know what the EF is capable of, its just that showcasing a part of that capability to a wider audience, when the deal is at a decisive phase, does not hurt.

The EF Team is even giving details about the Libya Ops, even though the technical evaluation is supposedly over, why is that, of course its about reinforcing a positive impression.

And its not like what India gets will be word to word the same as the RAF has or will have either. Compare & contrast IAF & RAF Jaguar mods. Yes, not a perfect comparison because at that time, RAF used to modernize far more frequently than India which had limited aerospace capabilities, compared to today when it can make several subsystems. But the point is both countries will customize their aircraft differently over time and hence the RAF will not be compromised operationally. The current fighters which flew against India wont have the same fit as those 5-10 years on.

Plus, it has the F-35C coming up as its other frontline aircraft.

No No and No – the typhoon is such a poor platform that it couldnt possibly be operating in peace time modes as well.

Its like conspiricy theorists, make an argument pick a few facts and disregard others as needed to suit youre argument.

The truth is either, or, or indeed both could have been handicapped the reality is we dont and wont know.

Look, I dont think anyone is saying the Typhoon is a poor platform. About the only things I would change, if I could go back in time, is put more fuel tanks in it, to get more range without f-ugly CFTs, and convince everyone to put emphasis on gung for, for quicker project management and integration of A2G capabilities, quicker. But even otherwise, re: the first, theres fuel tanks and re: the second, time can add more A2G kit.

Now coming to handicaps. Well, the point is in a normal circumstance, yes, both will be playing shy. Thanks to the contest though, I’d say the Typhoon team has everything to gain, and little to lose by showing off as much as possible. Winning a 126 (+63 option) fighter deal, is reward enough.

Last, the issue was never about the Typhoon being a poor show. I’d never say that, only that the claims that it was a generation ahead of everything out there bar the F-22 etc, as versus peers like the Su-30 MKI, was a bit of hyperbole. Today, with advanced systems proliferating fairly rapidly, a Mirage 2000 may end up with better systems eg MICA-IR than a Su-30 MKI. Or yesterdays F-15s can get CFTs, new motors and remain absolute beasts in the air. All this generation stuff is IMO meaningless, unless we move to true VLO aircraft. I like the JSF as well, but its weakpoint are its limited internal A2A weapons. 2-4 AMRAAMs, seriously?

@Teer
Thank you for your informative post and input, that’s very much appreciated.
Nonetheless some points.

Always a pleasure to read your posts as well!

I have in fact considered the overall effect of all the factors in my assessment, but probably didn’t made it clear enough. Point is I have no doubt that the Su-30MKI as a whole is a hell of a dogfighter which is without doubt dominant to most types currently fielded, taking all factors into account. But as said I don’t think that the Su-30MKI enjoys a significant edge over the Typhoon WVR if all factors are taken into account, better crew protection, cockpit visibility, much smaller visual signature and overall somewhat better performance (acceleration, climb performance, equal to superior performance at higher subsonic speeds), HMSS vs HMS and more sophisticated missiles shouldn’t be underestimated either. What I concluded is that such a WVR encounter will be dangerous for both sides and a kill largely depends on the circumstances and pilots. Both aircraft have their respective strength and weaknesses and the crew which enforces the conditions on its enemy will likely win the encounter.

Well , to restate, I am not trying to portray the Su-30 MKI as an uber fighter which is unbeatable in the WVR scheme of things, especially versus a good balanced design like the Typhoon. All I am saying is that if we consider fairly consistent results over a period of time, the MKI, with a well trained crew has a lot of advantages in WVR versus non TVC fighters, which backs up the IAF POV. What you are noting viz your specific points re: speed, acceleration also apply to certain other fighters like the F-16 and even the F-15, depending on when and where the fight is taking place, but the point I was making is, that on a consistent basis, across many exercises, the IAF has not had an issue with regards to these rivals in air to air, in the WVR arena, especially. As has been stated by IAF pilots, it’s the combination of TVC and other factors, which allows for the first point, and first shot capability. If we look at the IAF “reveal” for Red Flag, provoked by Fornofs statements, the actual details showed a near complete wipeout for the Nellis Aggressor team versus the MKI. Given these results, IMO, that is why the IAF is confident that the MKI has the edge in WVR. Will this be totally lopsided as versus earlier types, well I dont think so, but I do think it may have an edge.

Don’t get me wrong the R-73E is without doubt a good missile but it’s also more than 2 decades old still using a conventional IR seeker without imaging capabilities and smaller FoV and LOBL restricted as well. From rumours I have heared the R-73’s seeker was more prone to decoys than that of the AIM-9Li. Maybe that’s wrong but image processing can do a lot for you and the R-73 lacks that capability as it is restricted by the technology employed by the latter 1980s. ASRAAM and IRIS-T are both newer missiles employing more advanced technologies and IRIS-T was in fact developed on base of the R-73 test results from the Luftwaffe when it adopted it with the MiG-29 from the former Eastern German AF.

I understand where you are coming from, but my point, perhaps badly made was that the Russians tend to “compensate” even in original designs via some nifty fixes (which doesn’t mean that the initial equipment is perfect) and that they do modernize tranche by tranche (hey, I am using EF terminology)

I base this on the MKI program as well, where the manufacturer websites for some systems present out of date info.

In other words, I wouldn’t be surprised if the R-73E received some moderate, reliability, electronics improvements in production batches, improving its performance.

Again, does this make it as good as the ASRAAM or IRIS-T, definitely not. All I am saying is, that despite the former two being superior, when employed well & with the superior nose pointing ability conferred by TVC, the missile is sufficient.

If the IAF sees that in equipment trials, the R-73E does “ok”, and in exercise, after exercise, even against adversaries equipped with advanced missiles etc with HMS etc, the MKI still dominates in WVR, it will be happy with the existing equipment.

Which is why we don’t see them scrambling for a replacement. It will probably come as some sort of MLU, when they feel that existing R-73E stocks are declining & are timelimited, and their investment has served its worth.

Consider, the Indian Navy’s MiG-29K comes with the R-73E as well for the IN, and the only change was a French HMDS for the Sura-K. The IN knows that there are more missiles on offer, but still took the R-73E. The Malaysians, likewise. Basically, I do think, we are not fully aware of the hardware evolution on these missiles and systems, which even if not world beating or even equivalent to the “best” there currently is, have still been kept moderately upto date.

Besides which, this is hardly a platform specific problem. If tomorrow, the IAF wanted a newer missile, it could be integrated fairly rapidly.

Thank you for the info, but to cut it short there is no MAW on the Su-30MKI in its current form. I suppose there are no information about the possible addition of such devices with the new Eagle Eye EWS?

No, there is no MAWS on the current MKI aFAIK because they are apparently waiting for newer kit, better than what is on offer from assorted third party sources.

From what I can gather, the DARE (DRDO lab which handles airborne systems for the IAF) is working on a two color MAWS with IAI. This is in addition to two other MAWS, as I mentioned which have been acquired both off the shelf (from Avitronics) and locally customized (MILDS AN/AAR-60) for various programs. Based on this program, we may see MAWS for the MKI.

Coming to Eagle Eye, while it may offer sensor fusion, as even the R118 did, the key thing IMO, is the Mission Computer. That device is what will integrate all the navigation, attack, sensor data for a consolidated sensor fused view of the truth.

Given how sensitive IAF is about these things, we’ll probably get to know a few years from now

Changing in thus far that the Typhoon is not an F-15 or F-16. It’s also not known in which way such encounters were fought, were it just gun fights or simulated missile fights and were there restrictions wrt the use of the missiles…?

Agreed, the Typhoon is not a F-15 or F-16, but you would agree right, that a lightly loaded F-15 or F-16 is still a very potent threat and if a MKI totally dominates the former, it bodes well in term of equivalence versus an advanced 4.5G platform. That’s what I meant to state.

About the encounters, IAF usually structures its exercises in 1vs1, and 2vs2 engagements, which begin with BFM – close, with gun use, and then gradually working their way upto missile use. Thereafter, begins the BVR workup, large force exercises etc. Usually, all exercises have followed this set routine.

About the only change so far, is the IAF now prefers to field “mixed force packages” in LFE, when working with a friendly AF, because this reduces the “us versus them” aspect and makes the whole exercise balanced. Even so, till LFE comes about they get a fair chance to evaluate how the MKI is versus its peers.

I base this on a statement from the last Garuda exercise in France. It was stated that the Bars offers a tremendous detection range against the fighters there (M2k and F1) of around 100 nm (185 km). Other sources were more conservative (140-160 km against F-16 type) which was reportedly a spec. What has been reported however is that the original N-011 had a detection range of ~130 km against a fighter sized target vs 100 km of the original N-001. So the performance boost of the Bars appears to be considerable and is likely owed to a more powerful Tx.

IMO, and I really want to avoid this topic, but all I can say is that is a lot of the sources have been relying on misinterpretations of Russian statements, which are deliberately vague or misinterpreted because we often lack detailed data on what the range constitutes, in what mode etc.

Take for instance the N001 which you mentioned. The problem is that range is actually misleading because the N001 from the start performed in a sort of quasi-TWS mode, which automatically prioritized threats and then switched to engagement with SARH missile. And later, RVV-AEs were added. But when the Russians actually modernized the radars, and added additional modes, eg VS, the range increased significantly, as it would.

This is why they stuck to the N001 despite better radars on offer, because with limited funds, the performance gains achieved on baseline system were considerable.

The French estimates IMO, just confirm that despite what the IAF was willing to demo in France, the range was still substantial. I doubt whether they’d use everything, it just doesn’t make sense as they are not trying to sell the MKI to France, and revealing everything is counterproductive.

Also, I’d say the Bars performance owes much not just to its power, where it may actually have seen a decline versus earlier Russian radars, but the better antenna design, and processing, both signal and data. These are what have made a difference. In the meanwhile, the Russians kept working with Bars funded and derived technology, and have matured it into the Irbis program. In turn, this will feed into the Bars Phase 1.

What I don’t see is in which way “The Phase 1 upgrade offers far more than most AESAs speak of”?

Basically, its about design maturity using existing software and hardware. When we usually speak of AESAs – and this is my opinion, mind you, we tend to fixate a LOT on the hardware side of things and stuff which hasn’t been achieved yet, but is shown that its right around the corner. Eg, when the RAAF got the AN/APG-79, there were media reports that they were disappointed that the “advanced features”, eg ECM using the radar, high datarate data transferring, had not been implemented, and would take a lot of time to come about. So for all the talk of fancy LPI etc, only 2 fighters IMO have these, the AN/APG-77 and AN/APG-81 (when it comes) and rest dont have the fancy stuff yet, DEW to disable others

So its not just the hardware, per se but the software also.

Now, with the Zaslon, Bars, Irbis and now the Bars again, what NIIP has is a huge amount of experience in the P-ESA side of things, where they have fairly mature hardware & a lot of ready software which can be customized further.

For instance, for Bars Phase 1, considering the current radar performance, which compares on par with first Gen AESAs (same claim as is made for Captor-M) a doubling of performance across many key parameters is a huge boost.

What we have mostly seen in current AESAs, are production improvements and reliability vs cost improvements, but nothing so substantial in performance gains, AESA to AESA.

This is what I meant when I said the Bars Phase 1 will probably be ahead of what most AESAs currently have, in terms of established capabilities, eg range, modes (customer specified) etc.

Of course, with time, AESAs will pull ahead in terms of advanced capabilities such as adaptive waveforms/true LPI modes, and of course – hardware reliability, which even the Phase 1 upgrade will not be able to match current AESAs with. But overall, the first 50-100 Phase 1 upgrades should be very useful additions to the IAF.

Let me give one scenario. We lack AWACS, they are too expensive. Only when our local program (which I linked) is scaled up, can we meet some of our needs. But at $350M +, a Phalcon is just budget breaking (that’s six Su-30 MKIs, and operational costs, considered, much more). Hence, a Su-30 MKI with such a powerful set, will be an useful asset. A “wall of Sukhois” if need be, can be used as an adjunct to AWACs, when one is not available. Yes, it will be “visible” but they can always datalink the info to invisible shooters, and most importantly vector strike packages out of harms way.

This is actually I think a big plus when we consider the Typhoon versus the Rafale as well. That extra radar range matters.

Your arguments wrt to ESA vs MSA in tracking are valid, what I meant to demonstrate however is that ESA doesn’t automatically translate into superior performance even if the basic technology would allow for this. I suppose the tracking limitation of the Bars is owed to its back end, albeit I’m aware of the fact that Bars processors has been replaced in the meantime. But this is another area where sensor fusion may help to compensate a bit. The radar may temporarily loose contact but other sensors keep tracking the target and the radar knows where to look and can predict the targets new position at the time the antenna scans the area again.

My point is the ESA performance does confer an advantage in terms of operational benefit. Lets look at this way, what would you prefer, ability to track 20 targets with 5-10 second refresh rates, or 15 targets with/within 5?

Of course, these numbers are back of the envelope, but an ESA does have some clear gains in most scenarios. The Bars processors from India, the back end which you noted, moved TWS performance, from 10 to 15. But its not just processing, its also about the intended results. If it does not make an operational difference, there is little point in the IAF asking for DARE to make next Gen RC1, RC2 and moving from 15 to 20 or 25.

At any rate, it does not make the Bars super superior to the Captor-M, but it does mean, it on its own is a credible radar, considering when it was available earlier as well and hence does not support the RAF chiefs statement about tech., per se.

The engagement figures are largely about MCG. In theory it is possible to engage a similar number of targets with missiles as your radar can track as a whole. Limitations here are set by the missile performance and number of missiles, but the point is in order to get a good pk the missiles must be updated in flight. Engaging 4 targets insists that the fighter to missile link can not update more than 4 missiles in flight. It could also be owed to the fact that the radar doesn’t provide data for more targets to the FCC. In the end the larger number of simultaneous target engagements isn’t a really deciding factor.

Agreed, but what I meant was that thanks to scanning limits from the average MSA, to engage widely dispersed targets, MCG would require more than an infrequent update. Hence, the point about best results possible for a MSA when targets are in one sector. In contrast, an ESA can rapidly scan, and engage within its zone limits. Since track files are updated more frequently are maintained

Also, the number of targets, is also about the radar and customer requirements plus design. Personally, anything above 4 targets IMO, is PR fluff. The only way I think this could be an useful capability is against massed cruise missile attack, and even there, a competent adversary would send them from different places, different zones.

If one MKI is against eight Typhoons, then its facing eight dynamic targets, eight advanced EW suites, eight sets of BVR armament, its too lopsided and 8 engage capability will be of limited use (IMO) at best he can salvo off all his missiles as a self defence measure.

It will be difficult for sure, especially if those targets are at various different altitudes. The azimuth is not the real problem here and the radar uses scan patterns adapted to the situation, it will for example scan in a narrower pre-defined volume but will keep tracking priority targets outside this scan volume.

Agreed, but to get back to the priority target, the entire antenna will have to move, which introduces the time element. But I think we both agree on the points, as you noted, I guess we can move on.

It’s about identification in general which is crucial in any engagement. The Typhoon offers multiple means for target identification, offboard, IFF, NCTR, FLIR, emitter ID and all data are fused to resolve inaccuracies.

Agreed, but I think while this is a very useful ability to have, the Bars combo of basic NCTR, IFF, and of course, onboard ESM with own library, should be enough to manage.

That’s true, but it doesn’t change the facts.

I never said the PIRATE was not superior features and tech wise, to the OLS-30I. All I noted was does the PIRATE bring enough of a performance boost to radically change the battle scenario? There I have doubts. Also, you compared the PIRATE to the Su-35s OLS-35, there IMHO apart from the back end processing for TWS, both systems appear to be fairly comparable.

My point is that an earlier sensor can still offer decent performance vis a vis a state of the art one, and unless the latter brings radical new capabilities, the IAF may stick with the older one. Basically about marginal benefit versus radical benefit.

It’s more an estimate than an accurate measurement which will take some time and may force the aircraft to fly at a certain offset pattern. In the end it works like triangulation, not to say that it’s virtually the same.

Yes, but will a single Typhoon be able to get accurate range readings from a KR method if it does not have the benefit of time, versus a dynamic target. That is why I said, its useful and may even work in some situations but not proven or even game changing, and hence probably why the French, Russians still preferred to stick with the simpler, but more effective LRF approach. Flip side, is WVR and not discreet.

If the EW gear on your aircraft covers the frequency of the MAWS yes it would betray the position and yes it would be even worth as the laser is pointed and will betray its position only to one target whereas a radiating system transmitting into different directions would be visible to anyone within the area of covered.

Agreed, its all about pros and cons. BTW, does EF plan to replace this system with a passive one? EADS does have the AN/AAR-60 right? Cant a fighter variant be developed?

PIRATE alone won’t, but it’s as I said a weapon system is the sum of its parts. It’s the combination of all factors that counts. The OLS-35 will be more competitive to the PIRATE than the OLS-30, but that’s yet another story as the OLS-35 is not slated for the Su-30MK and the OLS-30 is the sensor available and used at this point.

If we look at the Phase1 upgrade, it says enhanced cooperation with other systems, so the “system of systems” thinking is being kept in mind and these sort of things do get covered in iterative upgrades. Also, the OLS-35 per what I know, is available for export as an upgrade.

For the MiG-29K and MiG-29 upgrade, the OLS used on the MiG-35 (air to air nose mounted part) has been used instead of the original. Again, unless it offers significant benefits, e.g. more range than the OLS-30I, I don’t think it will be incorporated, the same holds true for the PIRATE versus OLS-30I as well.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I like the imaging capability, the TWS & even KR, but basically at the end of the day, for both aircraft, if the ranging has to be done by the radar, for a quick BVR shot, and both offer roughly equivalent capabilities in terms of overall range etc, then it’s a bit of a moot point. This is actually what I meant when I said the Flankers size is an advantage. Granted, a later system like the PIRATE is ahead technologically, but in terms of raw performance, if the larger size of the Flanker fit, allows for a x% greater aperture to be mounted and it achieves a similar result, then its effective. Same as in Cope India. The Su-30Ks were systems wise, mostly behind the F-15Cs, N001 Cassegrain sets versus APG-63 MSAs, but even so, decent performance was obtained.

Do you have some info on this system, especially the Mk2 version?

I will to check for my ’05 notes.

Which itself would indicate that the RWR isn’t that accurate if a dedicated pod is needed.

Per what I garnered, no RWR is accurate enough at range, across all frequency bands. Plus this was a Kh-31P specific problem. The missile does not have a Glonass-INS fit, so you need as accurate a fix as possible, a pod offers more space to fit in stuff and larger antenna. Kh-31 PD is better.

Also, HADF modules are now miniaturized for newer ESM/ECM fits, eg: this google link (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwHf70wl1x8/TZo3Z3Ys4DI/AAAAAAAAACc/MuvwudiiVfI/s1600/Internal+EW+suite+for+Tejas+Mk1+LCA+.jpg) I would look at the modularity of the system. These are from the same design guys (DARE) who do Eagle Eye, so components can be reused, architecture may have common elements.

It also shows the rapid avionics evolution bit that I was talking about. Its hard for us to keep track of whats going on the MKI, on an iterative basis.

I mean, to give you an idea, in 2009, they were publicly talking of “3G” (by their internal designation systems) being in LRIP for testing etc and “4G” being in development (difference in G being the ECM component, one being an advanced Tx unit capable of handling multiple threats, but next being an AESA, hence a G ahead in terms of reliability etc). In 2011, we have both flying & on aircraft already. The linear transition, 3 to 4 went for a toss, and clearly they are actually both capable of meeting current/future needs, only some subsystems were different and both were developed in parallel. Now, there is yet another system for ESM headed for the AEW&C program. IMO, even that will feed into the next tranche of ESM upgrades.

I can only judge about things I’m aware off. I have not seen any sources yet suggesting that any other jammer than the EL/L-8222 is used on the MKI. And as the EL/L-8222 itself is not the latest state of the art system available and certainly a fair bit older than the DASS I don’t think that the assumption is being to far stretched. I’m open for updated information wrt jamming gear used on the MKI, if there is anything new. Maybe they are introducing new jammers in conjunction with the new Eagle Eye EWS?

Lets be clear, I am not blaming you, I was just saying you are applying the standard of information you are used to from the EF program to one like the MKI which is run differently (upgrades added but with no need to inform us, the lay public) as it is not competing for exports.

I am just saying the EL/L-8222 while a fairly useful system, is now dated compared to what’s coming on stream now for the IAF, and for which production is established. And the IAF has long had other options, eg for instance there were even Russian reports, which I didn’t archive about how the MKI now had Russian jammers better than Israeli ones. In light of these facts, I’d say the IAF has more options for its fighter fleet than the EL/L-8222 and is unlikely to talk about it as well.

Coming to when these will be introduced, or would have been, I’d say we cant necessarily say it would require Eagle Eye to be present. For instance, the 8222 runs across aircraft types with various types of RWR. The Indian jammers I mentioned (including the pic from 2005) showed that DARE designs its jammers to be autonomous but which can be integrated with existing equipment. Ie it will be Tarang compatible, but it has its own advanced Tx/Rx channels. Basically, this is a way to bypass hardware changes on the base aircraft itself (though for the MKI we have seen, the IAF has been funded enough to keep making changes). So, this should not be a problem

True but we can only deal with what is known and the dated information is still the best until something new becomes known. I’m not excluding the possibility, but I’m not going to assume too much either.

My point is this is not some stretch, saying secret info of hush hush stuff which we know nothing about. IMO, we have considerable evidence that there are significant options available for a long time, re: jamming, beyond the EL/L-8222. Ultimately, for purposes of debate, if you wish to state it is the latter, that’s fine but all I am saying is, that excludes a lot of other reasonable possibilities.

The French used arguments which might be valid for some ac types and some older TRDs. Latest TRDs are directional and not omni-directional and if properly integrated on the aircraft there are no flight envelope restrictions (one of the French concerns).

In which case, thanks for the info. I was not aware of this. Perhaps that explains why they were seeking to develop TRDs locally. It explains things, because till then, they were actually mentioning the very thing you pointed out – that they come with speed/flight envelope issues, and are easily lost, and being expensive are ineffective for their cost.

That’s why I assumed parity between the systems for the sake of a fair discussion even with no details known. I weight newness of the ODL against the experience of the MIDS designers in this field.

Balanced as always.

IIRC only the leader of a group assigns targets to others, position data and raw radar data are exchanged. I’ll have to look up again, the Su-27SK manual contains a couple of details about the operation of the datalink. It’s useful and was available at a time when the vast majority of western fighters didn’t even had a datalink, so nothing wrong with it.

The Su-27SK datalink is an earlier one, per memory. The one on the MKI is the next one which was then superceded by the one for the Su-35. This had the designation, but it no longer works.
http://articles.janes.com/extracts/extract/jav/jav_9013.html

Well googling, I found it. It was the K-DIAE datalink.

Heres stuff quoted from an archive.

POLYOT Research and Production Company produces the communications system for the Su-30 MKI, comprising:Simultaneous voice and data communication between air and ground, using HF, VHF and UHF frequencies. Automatic data transfer of targeting data. Anti-jamming capabilities. Two-position control of communications and intercommunication functions. Emergency frequency monitoring. Automated BITE.

and

The complex comprises:
# 2 VHF-UHF radios
# HF radio
# Data transmission equipment
# Intercom equipment
# Built-in computer
# Integrated control panel
# Control unit
# Voltage changer

Plus it has the INCOM 1210-A which

The INCOM-1210A is an airborne, secure, jam-resistant V/UHF communication system designed for air-to-air and air-to-ground voice/data communications. The system incorporates ECCM for tactical communications. INCOM-1210A is compact and of moderate weight, suitable for all fighter applications and compatible with MIL-STD-1553B and ARINC 429 data transfer.

I can only partially agree on this. A second crew will compensate a bit, but not that much. A computer can do things much more quickly than a human could ever hope to cope with.

I’d agree with you on a general principal, but training makes a big difference and a division of labor allows for the crew to manage, otherwise really hard tasks. Also, as I mentioned, given the kind of work, that’s going on, sensor fusion may be around already or will be around, and we are probably unlikely to know.

We can judge though whether the MKI design attributes have “carried over” and influenced policy. For instance, the IAF says a big advantage of the MKI is the two seater aspect for better battle management, and SA. If we now look at even the MMRCA procurement, again the IAF is insisting on a mix of 40 two seaters, and 86 single seaters. This is pretty much a very lopsided ratio. For the FGFA, its all two seaters. Point is, despite our debates on sensor fusion, the two seater design balances it out. And this perception has been reinforced by their own experiences.

So maybe there will be some real sensor fusion in the Su-30MKI in the future who knows. Integration of different kit isn’t easy and highly integrated systems must be integrated early on.

Its definitely not easy, but my point is they do have the ability to get it done since relevant technology is being worked on as a must have for a more complex system. Also, there is always the option of asking the Russians, since they are implementing sensor fusion on the Su-35, which has much the same architecture and derivative systems, and that aircraft is on final trials. IMO, its not such a key attribute as is often made out in discussions, since it can be implemented.

No it’s once again one of many factors which determine the overall performance of the weapon system. Flight performance in BVR can help to increase the own missiles range and decrease that of the enemy, to choose when to engage/disengage and to react more flexibly. Sure EW and radar can be upgraded more easily, but that’s exactly the point! It is true for all the aircraft so one of the distinguishing factors is the aeroperformance which will make a difference if everything else is the same.

I don’t disagree with you, but per se, if I have x money which I can spend on either better avionics and longer reaching weapons, or a time taking, intensive reconfiguration of systems, I will take the former. My point is, if you are in two platforms of roughly similar capability, with one having a few knots more speed, in a particular corner of the envelope or other performance parameters, then it serves me better to compensate or even overtake you with avionics and weapons. Of course, this sort of approach will not work when the disparity between two platforms is too great, even when trading payload, range.

I don’t think however, the Sukhoi and Typhoon are that far apart (eg performance in every parameter has the former much behind the former and vice versa).

It’s still a fact that the Russians are lacking behind in some areas, otherwise Indians wouldn’t select French and Israeli made gear for example, otherwise the Russians wouldn’t consider the purchase of the Damocles LDP etc. The RVV SD would likely level the field wrt the AIM-120C-5, but how far is this weapon developed right now, will it be purchased by the IAF and integrated on the Su-30MKI and when? My comparison was solely limited to what’s available now, not what could be available at some point in the future and I did this for both aircraft, that’s why I didn’t consider a Captor-E or Meteor for example.

The Russians are indeed lagging in some areas, but then again, who isn’t. Its their stubbornness or strategic interests to maintain an independent aerospace complex, whichever reason we choose, has them try to develop every system and be the best at it.

Ultimately, look at the Gripen versus the EF. The latter clearly has more performance overall, but in technology levels, many systems may be similar, albeit scaled down, as the former just uses whatever OEM offers it technology. That was my point when saying just because the Russians lag in one area, does not mean they lag in all, and vice versa, if they are good in one, does not mean they excel in all. The Su-30 MKI does not suffer from this limitation. While yes, we deliberately spent more time on the LCA (in terms of not using easy OTS imports) to use it as tech generator wherever possible, the Su-30 MKI uses LCA tech and whatever is available from other countries and their programs. Eg both EF and MKI share same HUMS from a South African firm.

Also, like I said, thanks to a global supply chain, avionics development takes place fast. MKI has had French MFDs now Indian. MiG-21 Bison was to get French MFDs too, but within development time itself, Russia had equivalent MFDs, and these were used. Asian LCD manufacturers supply panels to everyone.

Same way, when India took MKI, it asked Russia for EW, they were unsatisfactory and they finally procured Elta pods. Now when Malaysia chose MKM, they took French Damocles pods, true but Russian SAP pods. So Russian EW had clearly advanced.

Coming to the SD, its not a radical upgrade per se, so should be available. Its not like a Meteor with a ramjet that can actually take on multiple speed profiles etc.

I am fairly curious about the LRAAM to be honest. It seems to have disappeared from the public eye after initial talk of it being on the Su-35. Any info there

As aforementioned, I agree with this in general but we can only discuss what is known. Assumptions can be as wrong as they could be right.

If we stick to reasonable assumptions based on past behavior, I think we can infer a lot of data that is then proven right. The point is to stick to stuff which is likely as versus what we want to happen.

Now for example to “win” this debate, I may “want” the Flanker to get (say) some super secret IRST or new engines – but have you seen me pushing for either? No, my position, is that the IAF, will go for incremental capabilities, based on a mix of homegrown & OEM tech, as versus radical reengineering for technology’s sake. This, because, as they have had the opportunity to evaluate, they are ok about the baseline platform being reasonably competitive.

Avionics and weapons upgrades offer more bang for the buck, and this is the approach they have been taking so far, with less expensive local upgrades carried out periodically to boot.

No matter which fighter they get, Rafale or Typhoon, in a decades time, the next fighter will come with higher TWR, fly higher, accelerate faster and so forth, so a line has to be drawn someplace.