The USAF press statements on Cope India 04 related more to pilot skill and tactics as opposed to the capability of the aircraft operated by each air force, and Terrence Fornof despite managing to upset the IAF with his comments did still concede that the MKI was a superior fighter to anything the USAF operated barring the F-22.

Errm….not so…they were fairly worried about
– ARH on the Bisons
– Passive interception capability of the Su-30 Ks

Yeah, mostly related to the tactics but there was a worry about “grey market upgrades”….only shows the USAF guys were busy looking at the wrong set of aviation mags, because the IAF upgrades were anything but gray market.

Now you can write all this off as puff and bravado but the RAF are at the very least aware of what the MKI is capable of within the limitations imposed in an exercise like Indra Dhanush .

The second part of your statement, answers the first part IMHO.

If I were to make definitive statements as the above gents did, based on the IAF experience of the Su-30 K/MKI versus the F-15Cs or what not, that the F-15SGs would be a pushover…why? Because, being a radical modification, the Su-30 MKI is 4.5G and the SG is just 4….well, it’d be a bit tough to justify my statements.

IMO, a little bit of “chest puffing” from fighter pilots & their faith in their own kit is to be expected.

But at the end of the day, if you evaluate the systems available on respective aircraft, the Typhoon does not come across as a “generation superior” TBH. It needs a lot more investment & development maturity.

Heck, if you are willing to spend enough, like the Saudis did, you get kit that will require a future Typhoon + Meteor to counter in A2A and probably wont catch up for a decade in A2G.

Its also a fact that given the rapid proliferation of upgrade kits, third party avionic systems which can be retrofitted to platforms provided they have open architecture systems, plus better motors iteratively developed, airframe upgrades….this generation business goes haywire.

A Su-35 circa 2012 is likely to offer more capability in several respects leveraging mature systems than a then Typhoon. A few years later, its tech can find its way to Russian/Indian Flanker upgrades…we were discussing talk of sensor fusion and here we have, from 2007:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/lebourget/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=703fd128-d069-40de-813b-a73b428e169b&plckPostId=Blog%3a703fd128-d069-40de-813b-a73b428e169bPost%3a5840d1ac-07a1-4d6e-ba05-76df372cd343&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Big Fighter, Big Glass
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 6/20/2007 3:14 AM

Sukhoi’s Su-35, to be unveiled in August at the MAKS air show in Moscow, is the biggest revision yet of the company’s heavyweight fighter. On show at Paris is a demonstration simulator of the fighter’s redesigned cockpit, dominated by two 15-inch diagonal LCDs – more glass area than any other fighter cockpit, including that of the JSF. There are no mechanical displays in the cockpit, and the pilot interacts with the displays using a cursor control device on the stick and soft-key pushbuttons surrounding the glass.

The two screens are each split into four sub-windows, which are normally managed automatically according to the mission plan. Primary flight instruments are carried on the left side of the right-hand screen, with the left-hand screen being the primary display for maps and targeting information – so that the pilot can operate the screen with his left hand with the right hand on the stick.

According to Sukhoi engineer Alexey Mukhin, the Su-35 has a sensor-fusion avionics system which assigns each target a single identity – Sukhoi calls it a “passport” – and indicates which sensor or sensors have tracked it. The fighter also has an intra-flight datalink that can support four groups of four fighters simultaneously and share targeting information between them.

The Su-35 introduces integrated flight and propulsion control using three-dimensional thrust vectoring, providing full-envelope carefree handling with any combination of loads. It has electronic throttle controls and the system also manages the fuel load. One novel feature: when the pilot extends the refuelling probe, the aircraft automatically switches to a more stable flight control mode.

Missing from the new fighter is the big dorsal speedbrake of previous versions. Different combinations of control surface movements are used for deceleration, and the jet can make a 60-degree descent at a stabilized speed. Removing the speedbrake (plus some other changes) bumps the fighter’s already impressive internal fuel capacity from 22,000 pounds to 25,300 pounds. The Su-35 should be ready for delivery in 2010.

If India shells out enough money, its Su-30 MKIs could, in their fleet upgrade get much the same kit. Or even better, as avionics would have moved on.

Consider. In 2000 or thereabouts, India decided on using Thales MFDs for its Su-30 MKIs. Absolutely modern, etc etc. Now, its Su-30 MKIs are now using MFDs from a local firm which offer more features, can integrate more equipment than whats available via import. Point is, with a globalized economy (eg LCDs available from a global supply chain), sufficient effort and investment, technology advances in avionics are a given WW.

Which is why I find these chest beating statements from the RAF guys a bit surprising, given how powerful the Flanker or the F-15 family are. About the only things against both types is that stealth is the one thing they cant offer. But with modern DEWS with high power solid state transmitters, heck, even stealth may be overrated.

I’ll just add what I have posted elsewhere wrt the subject.

DACT results must be taken with a pinch of salt, especially without any known ROEs. The results of individual DACTs aren’t necessarily telling. If type would repeatedly beat another type on multiple different occassions one might get a clue.

Agreed.

I’m not going to judge about the Super-30 upgrade as long as I haven’t much information about it and as it isn’t available yet.

There is however significant information available about several salient points, namely its radar performance being drastically increased, receiving a new ESM suite & other improvements. Of course, it will not be as widely touted as the EF or Rafale, which is the point I was making. The latter two are for export, and hence every addition makes a lot of PR sense. For the MKI, its an IAF specific mod and hence they dont tom tom it, because Irkut is exporting it & now the Su-35 from KNAAPO will probably be the focus.
Russia may just come up with a more generic Flanker upgrade that will be more well known.

Just take a look at the A2G capabilities added over the years and see how the program has matured versus the EF/Rafale in several respects. Point is that information has also come out in bits and pieces & A2A is far more sensitive in some respects. IAF f.e. does not confirm/deny any key capability additions unless they are generic or part of a deliberate press meet after the fact.

WVR:
Situational awareness is the most important factor in aircombat ever since aerial battles were fought and that’s true for both WVR and BVR encounters. Close in the Typhoon as much harder to spot than a Flanker as it is a much smaller aircraft. Cockpit visibility is better as well and the HMSS provides Typhoon pilots with all relevant information irrespective of where he is looking to. Wrt SA the Typhoon pilot has a clear edge over the Flanker, albeit the second crew may compensate a bit for this. Crew protection is another important factor as high performance fighters perform better than what the human body is able to withstand. Typhoon pilots wear a flying suite which increases the pilot’s g-tolerance in comparison to conventional anti-g trousers as worn by most fighter pilots around the world, including IAF crews as far as I’m aware.
Manoeuvrability favours the Su-30MKI in the low speed regime only. At high subsonic speeds the Typhoon prevails with superior sustained 9 g performance and a higher g-onset. I arguably base this on the original Su-27 and the Su-33 (having flown in a real Su-33 simulator years back). Only at lower speeds TVC enable the Su-30 to point its nose more quickly which can be decisive, but if the pilot fails to kill his target at this instance he is at risk to become a target himself. The Su-30s ability to regain lost energy is clearly inferior to that of the Typhoon which won’t bleed energy as excessively without TVC. If TVC is carefully used you can gain an advantage, but it’s not a “win all battles” edge. Just take a look at the DACT results between the Rafale and F-22. The Raptor won only one out of six engagements and the Raptor enjoys some decisive advantages over the Flanker close in!

I have to disagree here. What you are not counting is the synergistic effect of all these factors, two crew – hence more SA, when well trained. The ability to cue HOBS missiles & the R73E, plus TVC. What this has meant when the IAF has gone up against non TVC AF’s is that it constantly outmaneuvers the “faster, more agile” planes in the maneuverability arena.

So far, from what I know, the IAF is fairly certain its aircraft get the first hit/s in & that is decisive. Furthermore, the TVC is used to fairly high subsonic speeds, again I am not sure how much of this is info the IAF wants to tom tom, even though I am only quoting what has been publicly revealed, but I dont think the F-22 was really that optimized for the WVR fight either, and nor is its comparison to Rafale germane since it lacked a HMCS & we don’t know how intensively the pilots train for the WVR angle either as versus BVR for which the F-22 is is its focus.

From what I know, so far, based on exercises with AF’s operating a diverse array of aircraft types, the WVR end result has been fairly lopsided in favor of the Su-30 MKI, so much so that the IAF i more & more looking at BVR when training with NATO AF, because they are fairly confident about the WVR doctrine and kit, and hope to pick up a bit of doctrine stuff here and there when cross training.

Again, when speaking of the Typhoon, the IAF was impressed with its energy transition capability – if it finds itself in trouble, it can cut and run better than most 4G types. But in a turning fight, they figure they had the edge.
My point is not to downplay the Typhoon, but merely to note that the MKI is fairly hard in WVR thanks to the integrated design, where it combines TVC and various other features.

What’s even more important these days are the weapons. The R-73E used by the Su-30MKI is clearly inferior to the IRIS-T or ASRAAM. The seeker of the R-73 is dated and prone to counter measures, whereas the IIR seekers of the latter missiles are virtually immune against current CM and offer a 50% greater FoV in comparison to the R-73 seeker. Add LOAL capabilities and the Typhoon can engage targets at angles greater than 90° with a greater probability of kill in comparison to the Su-30MKI which can engage targets at 60° with the current R-73.

But where do we have this confirmation that the R-73 is outdated and prone to countermeasures. Let me share a thing narrated first hand by an European gent who witnessed weapons trials of some Russian heatseekers (of a generation inferior to that of the R73E btw). The seekers refused to lock onto a variety of flares used by the service successfully for their western kit & missed. Finally, the Russians were contacted for having sold fake gear or malfunctioning gear only to be told they were criticizing a design attribute that used a lot of signal processing to compensate for seeker performance but which was capable. Finally, specific flares were passed on, which that seeker would accept. My point is the R73E, at least as far as IAF eval has shown, is a capable missile. They passed over the chance to get the Python-IV and even today, are not too worried about a replacement AAM for a Su-30 MKI. If the R73E was as bad as you note it is, it would be first up for replacement and its not like the IAF lacks funds to prioritize such a buy.

Albeit I have seen rumours indicating that the Su-30MKI is fitted with a Saab made MAW300, I have yet to see any real evidence for this. Typhoon’s active MAWS can detect missiles and initialize a counter measures response and with the R-73 seeker still being rather prone to CM there is a certain chance that a Typhoon could evade a R-73, whereas the Su-30MKI’s chances to defeat an ASRAAM or IRIS-T are rather slim. All in all I would say that with boresight limited weapons the Flanker has a fair chance to win many engagements, but throw missiles into the mix and the Typhoon might be in a somewhat better position to win. Much certainly depends on the pilot skills and circumstances and such a merge will be dangerous.

The IAF does not use the MAWs300. They had the chance to look at it, but have chosen (so far) not to go for it. The SAAB suite is instead being used for ALH – helicopters.

A domestic MAWS was developed, its basically a derivative of the MILDS from EADS, and reportedly, at least at the time of choice, picked up more threats and offered better performance than the MAWS300. This is now being used for multiple platforms, mostly transport and helicopters by the IAF.

There is yet another MAWS in development with Israel which is stated to be the definitive one and which will offer superior performance to in service passive MAWS.

But the greater point is you are missing the effect that TVC has when used with HOBs weapons and cueing sights. If the IAF sees that the R73E, brochure specs apart, is fairly ok and they have an unassailable, dominant lead in WVR fights with peer forces, who too field lightly loaded aircraft and highly skilled crew, why would they change.

BVR:
Most here have argued that the N-011M Bar is going to give the Su-30MKI an edge in BVR. But is it really going to do this? The Bars has detection range around 185 km against fighter sized targets, which is quite similar to the current Captor-M. The Bars uses PESA with limited coverage (+/-45°) with the other 25° in azimuth being achieved via mechanical movement. Elevation coverage is somewhere in the range of +/-40-55° depending on the sources. The Captor-M offers a +/-70° azimuth and +/-60° elevation coverage, but with slower scan rates within the +/-45° cone.

What you have here is an estimate of the Bars range – I really cannot go into more here, because till the Super 30 upgrade happens, this is a frontline radar. But another point, just to add given the current performance of the Bars, it just reinforces the point about the growth potential available if the Tx performance was increased. The Phase 1 upgrade offers far more than most AESAs speak of, which just reinforces what NIIP originally noted about the system being developed to only a part of its capability when originally inducted.

As mentioned before from Igorr (Russia):
2009, December
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mDvQ8xYRdSI/Sxqt2bSd2tI/AAAAAAAAAxQ/9l-vexOoPjE/s1600-h/27.08.2009+11-00-29_0021.jpg
For Phase 2
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mDvQ8xYRdSI/SpZS8vEvZLI/AAAAAAAAAL4/9lfd5CN_m9E/s1600-h/27.08.2009+9-57-35_0016.jpg

In 2010, a year later, note bit about customer agreeing to the program.
http://i74.servimg.com/u/f74/15/54/62/79/aesa10.jpg

The Captor is yet capable to track up to 20+ targets and engage at least six of them, while the Bars even with PESA technology tracks only 15 and engages 4 targets at once.

This IMO, is splitting hairs, because the point is the Bars can track its targets and refresh them much faster within the overall scan volume than the Captor can. It takes milliseconds to reposition its beam, and constantly monitor its area within ESA limits, and at longer ranges for all radars, the volume increases. The additional mech scan is hence for long airspace search, and target allocation to a Group of Flankers, then it will go to a fixed config and just track a few targets within that ESA scan limit, but faster than a MSA can.

Problem with most MSAs, and TBH even with Captor is that for widely dispersed angles, the refresh rate constantly decreases. Ultimately, for quick refresh, and making sure the beam rapidly revisits a sector, the Captor will have to fix on a particular sector.

This is the key advantage, ESAs offer against MSAs, even those advertised with high speed motors and what not. In a rapid engagement, the former enjoy an advantage at BVR in multi-target engagement scenarios.

The marginally more TWS/engaged targets used for the Captor are IMO, just marketing points same as the Zhuk MS guys and their attempts to point out that their radar, would ultimately track more targets than the Bars, “if developed”. But it does not translate to a significant operational advantage.

Note, the Phase 1 upgrade for the Bars is not just about “engaged targets or TWS”, it offers double the range, advantages in some key existing modes, and significantly more customer specified modes. The last is what the IAF would really prefer.

As mentioned previously, the engaged figures are also pretty irrelevant, if we keep these factors in mind.

If there are widely dispersed targets, the Captor will not be able to keep track of all of them and engage all 8 of them within those maximal limits IMO, without significantly compromising on time.

It, like all other MSAs WW, will offer its best TWS/Engagement performance, with multitargeting ability within a much narrower scan/sector volume.
Take for instance, via Google, a fairly modern MSA, the Zhuk M:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/Sv8w5DkQulI/AAAAAAAABN0/7cqCaL3MWZA/s1600-h/MiG-29UPG-1.jpg
Note the closely spaced targets in one sector.
This is an issue which all MSAs face. To maintain updates versus multiple widely dispersed bogies is not possible, especially those widely dispersed in height and elevation.

Bottomline, given how fights will occur, groups of aircraft A versus groups of aircraft B, backed by support sensors etc, I dont think we’ll have one aircraft salvoeing away against multiple others with any reasonable hopes of success.
The MSA will also be disadvantaged against ESAs in such respects, however, it may have the advantage of an assist in wider scan angles which assist naval fighter sin particular, since they have to scan large volumes and every bit of weight counts (slotted antennas being lighter, than ESAs).

Captor’s NCTR capability is more advanced as well due to shape recognition rather than being limited to JEM techniques. Overall even if the Bars offers a somewhat better detection range the difference doesn’t appear to be that big and in some areas the current Captor-M appears to exceed the performance of the Bars in some areas.

For the IAF, NCTR is not going to be such a challenge, at least based on the public material I have read. Perhaps, for an European AF with dense civil traffic nearby, I guess it could be an issue regarding airspace deconfliction. But with the IAF using AWACS and Aerostats to back its MKIs, plus the usual AF standard regularly modified security IFF codes, these should be enough to signify what threats its facing and how to deal with them.

Comparing the IRST sensors the OLS-30 reportedly provides a +/-60° azimuth and +60°/-15° elevation coverage and offers detection ranges of 50 km against approaching targets and 90-100 km against receding targets in optimal conditions. PIRATE scan limits are classified albeit unconfirmed reports suggest a +/-75° azimuth coverage, elevation coverage is likely similar to that of the OLS-30, possibly somewhat better in look down conditions as the sensor isn’t directly on top of the nose. PIRATE’s max detection range is stated with around 145 km in best conditions, albeit typical detection ranges are ~50-80 km. I don’t know how many targets can be tracked by the OLS-30, but the OLS-35 can track 4 targets at once according the Su-35 brochure from KnAAPO. That’s not even remotely comparable against the PIRATE’s 200 targets and the PIRATE offers many more information as well. The OLS is limited to determine the angular position of a target and the laser range finder could be used to gather more accurate data, but in such a case the Flanker would betray its own position against the Typhoon which is equipped with a LWR. The Flanker lacks such a device, but as the Typhoon doesn’t feature a LRF it’s not of relevance. The range performance of the laser is rather limited anyway and thus not a great help in BVR encounters at long ranges. PIRATE offers much more information such as range estimate (kinematic ranging), acceleration measurement/speed and whether a target is approaching or receding. PIRATE prioritises threats on base of these information and is able to identify targets using the STTI imaging mode at distances up to ~40 km.

The Pirate is clearly superior to the OLS-30. But then again, the latter is an early-mid 90’s development of an earlier sensor, but one which offers reasonable A2A and A2G functions, including detection ranges of upto 90 kms (again caveats apply) and can designate ground targets for designation as well, in a dive, the Pirate cannot. The LRF offers precise ranging, even though it is limited and not for BVR. How the thing would work is to use AWACS/OLS info for passive detection and activate onboard radar only for weapons deployment for optimal work. The IAF did much the same with its Su-30Ks against F-15s in Cope India as well.

Plus, while the more modes on the Pirate, its greater TWS targets, when sensor fused are definitely an advantage, I am not too sold on the kinematic ranging. If it was that precise at range, and suitable for BVR employment, it would be widely hyped. So far it appears as a niche, but not that useful capability. From open literature I have read, the error margins for KR are fairly high to boot and require datalinking to work, and also, the range estimates would probably be thrown out by the system in favor of radar data for ranging. So I really dont know whether thats just worth the effort, unless as a backup to a disabled radar. Thales chose a LRF for its Rafale as well.

TBH, I really dont buy the LRF betraying the capability bit, because by those standards, the MAWS on Typhoon – RF active – are worse. The former is at least in WVR. One way or the other, you are detected.

Bottomline – finally, will the PIRATE offer radically more combat capability than the OLS-30, unless the ROES are restrictive and require an imaging capability? I think the jury’s out on that one. The newer Russian OLS-35 may not be as fancy in the backend processing, eg targets tracked etc, but it does have imaging capability, and is fairly decent in terms of range etc.

The EW suits are yet another important factor. The Su-30MKI has reportedly used three different RWRs up to date (Tarang Mk1 & 2 and R118). As I’m not aware of the performance/specs of the latter I would give it the benefit of doubt and declare it to be comparable to the DASS ESM. Typhoon still features MAWS and LWR which appear to be missing on the Su-30MKI (feel free to correct me on this one with credible sources). Wrt jamming the Su-30MKI’s podded EL/L-8222 is rather old meanwhile, albeit it may have been upgrade I have my doubts that this system could rival Typhoon’s DRFM based DECM with active phased array technology, add the FO-TRD and you are likely looking at a more capable jamming equipment aboard the Typhoon.

Make that 3 or even 4 depending on how we look at. Eagle Eye is the latest RWR replacing R118 and may end up as the next standard RWR after the Tarang series, even as R118 is used for all other aircraft.

This was my point regarding the rapid hardware evolution on the MKI which has been proceeding with minimal fuss. For instance, even the MCs on the MKI have been through one change, but its not often stated.

Coming to Tarang itself, it is a fairly decent piece of kit which is on par with similar systems made WW by various OEMs. Here I am looking at coverage, accuracy and sensitivity, per public info.

Now, the bigger point about jammers – that is exactly why I brought up the RWR & other points which at least per IAF/OEM info can be discussed.

Jammers are sensitive, the IAF will not talk about them. At best you get info, after the fact from OEMs.

Take this from 2005.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/AeroIndia2005/InfoBoards/IB-ShivEWPods.jpg.html

The top pod is what has been acknowledged to be on the MKI, the HADF pod for the Kh-31. The bottom one is a jammer developed for IAF use, and per reports successful. Tell me which IAF aircraft use it? To date, there is not a single pic of the type in public pics.

Its kind of misleading to be “certain” using data from almost a decade back when India’s avionics industry is advancing rapidly and the MKI agreement allows for India to customize it as it sees fit.

What we have “figured out” about the ELTA 8222 SPJ is from the initial contract circa 2000, press reports of that time and then pictures of them being used in exercises. There is no “given” about what the current MKIs will use either, given the relatively rapid evolution in local EW as well.
That was entirely the point of showing whats on the MiG-29 UPG and LCA.

BTW both are far more capable than the ELTA 8222. Both of these are already in production. 40 kits were delivered to HAL for the MiG-27 (variant of the LCA fit, per MOD report 2010) while the MiG-29 fit is clearly visible on the first planes which have already been upgraded.
These, for fighters which are not the IAFs premier AD and strike fighter.

Point is relying on data from a long way back is no surety of whats planned for the MKI or whats on it.

Coming to TRDs, the IAF IMO is not yet convinced of their use, good to have versus essential to have etc. They are somehow in the same field as the French AF per what I have read. While they won’t mind that capability, its not something that has been on top of their list for even upgrades like the Mirage 2000 & MiG-29, where if they really wanted, they could have chosen to include such a system. However, a local system is in development, per a public document asking for partners. If they want, they’ll have an option.

I’m not sure how far the development and integration of the IAF’s ODL has progressed thus far, the Su-30MKI’s Russian made Spectre datalink is limited in functionality and capability in comparison to MIDS. Even if we assume that the ODL is available and equally capable as MIDS, there is one distinctive difference between the two fighters: sensor fusion!

ODL is stated to be in progress. Again, very little information, deliberately made available. But consider the ODL project has been around for a while and the Phalcons – for which the ODL is essential – have arrived and the IACCS, a far more complex project than the ODL, of which the ODL is an enabler has already begun deployment. This is the local IACCS.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/AeroIndia2009/yashu/IMG_0946.JPG.html
It links to the platforms via ODL.
Also, AFNET is also also under deployment. This is the backbone on which IACCS rides.
http://frontierindia.net/iaf%E2%80%99s-gigabyte-digital-information-grid-now-online

IAI reportedly got the contract two years back.
http://www.domain-b.com/defence/air_space/iaf/20090120_iai_bags_contract.html

Point is the IAF may not want to talk about ODL, let alone its capabilities or vendors but its reasonable to surmise given that the bigger picture of which it is part, is already under deployment, and that its not being ignored either.

Coming to the Russian datalinks – about the only thing they are limited in is data transfer rates, hence refresh rates. But again, they wont be sharing huge jpegs of SAR snapshots with GMTI overlay, but very optimized A2A info in kb, coded appropriately, of various A2A targets, and target allocation and aircraft information. Upto 4 groups of 4 Flanker-Hs can network. Thats sixteen aircraft.

While there is some coupling between the radar and IRST it doesn’t look like the sensor data aboard the Su-30MKI are fused at all and presented on fused displays which would offer a greater SA, reduce the pilot workload and improve the overall quantity and quality of track data. Add the most likely more intuitive and automated MMI on the Typhoon and you look at an aircraft with a clear edge wrt situational awareness. The second crew member in the Su-30MKI may compensate a bit for that, but requires a well trained crew which coordinates its actions.

Again – I’d come back to my point that a well trained crew can compensate, and fused data is available from offboard feeds like the Phalcon. However, just to show the difference in approach regarding well publicized data about capability addition versus an export driven program and a domestic one which adds capabilities.

The R118 for instance, is stated to offer sensor fusion capabilities & can fuse data from various sensors, including existing aircraft sensors. But you’ll be hard pressed to find details, for afore mentioned reason. The R118 incidentally thanks to its sensor fusion capability, is used as the core sensor, for integrating a MSWS – Multi Sensor Warning System which included both MAWS and LWS. Trials were successful and the MSWS is finding its way to different aircraft and helicopters. Again, its upto the IAF whether they want a MSWS on the MKI or not.

Point is theres a fair bit of work going viz sensor fusion in DRDO and allied labs, and there is little stopping them from offering constant improvements to their own kit, which are then inducted as part of software improvements.

Consider this system, currently being integrated on Indias AEW&C program. The Mission Controller System – you have the pic about the actual system itself. Note the bit about sensor fusion.
http://drdo.res.in/alpha/drdo/labs/CABS/English/index.jsp?pg=missionsc.html
Second link:
http://drdo.res.in/alpha/drdo/labs/CABS/English/index.jsp?pg=indian.html
(Scroll down to the 8th sentence onwards in sensor systems on the second page).

It fuses data from primary radar, iff, esm, csm, sps (which includes a rwr with maws, cmds etc)

The provider for this kit is also the one that makes the R118 and the existing Su-30 MKI MCs. They will also be providing the new Eagle Eye ESM suite and the next Gen MCs for the Super-30. Point is so far, the IAF has had no issues even in replacing hardware, for marginal gains & local capabilities in several avionics areas are on a significant upswing.

What I am trying to say is that the RAFs chiefs remarks with all due respect, do not cover how the MKI program and generally, how avionics development is happening in countries like India which have the requirements to rapidly develop and induct systems on their frontline systems.

He was referring to the MKI as a product which would remain inferior to the Typhoon because the latter had systems which could not be somehow matched (or at least thats the feeling I got) ….well thats anything but true.

Point is the IAF/DARE/HAL etc who are configuring the MKI (of course, as needed with help from Russian guys) are optimizing, upgrading systems on a regular basis.

The pros and cons are evaluated and even partners chosen, and programs are proceeding fairly quickly using both own & partner supplied technology.

Since we spoke of MAWS earlier, consider the fact that:

– DARE evaluated the SAAB Avitronics MAWS, LWS etc kit for India,elements of which went on the Advanced Light Helicopter
– Combined EADS MAWS, LWS with R118 for the MSWS for its fleet, which the IAF is now stated to be using for its choppers. 69 were ordered. The MAWS here, if my memory is correct, was the MILDS AAR60, locally customized. The same will be used for the AEW&C program and is also intended for the Mi-17 and LCH (Light combat helicopter)
– But is also codeveloping a dual-color MAWS with Israel

The IAF is not going to really publicize capabilities added as well. That’ll come out via the trade seminars, or air shows or pics taken during exercises.

Point is the RAF chief was clearly not keeping track of at least the avionics side of things.

Another factor to consider is that the Typhoon’s RCS, especially from the frontal aspect is clearly lower and while it won’t prevent the Flanker from detecting the Typhoon, it may compensate for the possibly somewhat greater range performance of the Bars and will ease the Typhoon jammer’s job in fooling the opposing radar system.

Agreed, but then again, signature management is not an area the IAF has ever acknowledged or will. But this is an area where the Typhoon should have an advantage, but the IAF can compensate with more powerful radars & jammers.

Wrt performance the Typhoon has a clear edge wrt supersonic acceleration, climb performance, super sonic agility/manoeuvrability, supercruise (not necessarily a great tactical utility, but useful in some circumstances) and possibly superior high altitude performance (19812 m vs 17500 m service ceilling). Even if both aircraft would start at the same altitude and height, the Typhoon would reach useful speeds (~M 1.6) much more quickly and could manoeuvre more effectively to separate after a missile shot or just manoeuvring into position.

But will this really make a match winning proposition given that avionics systems and many other factors , eg support, training etc could play a role. IMO, if given a choice between these (which involve significant reengineering) and better radar, EW the latter is easily achievable.

Last but no least there is the weapons question. The RVV AE is the export variant of the original R-77 with a max range of 80-90 km. I’m not aware of any upgrades this weapon has received ever since it entered service with the IAF! The AIM-120C-5, currently the most capable BVR missile integrated on the Typhoon, offers a max range ~105 km and with its less draggy fins is likely to enjoy a kinematic/range advantage while being somewhat less manoeuvrable than the RVV AE. I’m pretty certain that the AIM-120C-5’s seeker and electronics are more advanced and capable as well, based on the fact that the Americans have a lead in compact electronics over the Russians and that the C-5 model is newer than the RVV AE as well.

There is actually some thread on this forum (I used the search function) where Martinez made the point that as far as the RVV-AE was concerned it was possible that they did a lot of iterative development and release hardware, software fixes while keeping the export designation the same, since there was no significant change in airframe. Again, does this mean its better than the C-5, well no. But with Astra, RVV-SD as options, I am not too sure whether the C-5 advantage is overwhelming. Its the Meteor which is a game changer. Let me also point out another interesting bit about general perception regarding “inferior Russian electronics” in today’s world which can have many designers use COTS and then add to that their own industry knowledge. A public slide shown in a trade event by a third party organization compared a Russian seeker (available for export to them) versus its Israeli peer (same as before). What really brought home the perception angle to me (at least), was the Russian seeker, used more modern hardware & was more powerful, and almost the same size.

So in a BVR encounters there is virtually nothing which really favours the Su-30MKI, even its powerful radar appears not to be much better in performance, in some areas even less capable than the current Captor-M.

There are certainly other factors which I haven’t considered here due to the total lack of information (ECCM of the radars, ECM performance in detail etc.), so nothing is definitive, but from what is known I tend to believe that the Typhoon is clearly a better BVR platform and still can hold its own in WVR encounters, albeit the Su-30MKI offers advantages in certain circumstances in close in combat and if the Flanker crew uses their advantages to their strength they might prevail.

IMO, I think you are taking some definitive stances on several aspects of the MKI, re: its radar, avionics including EW etc which are not as clear cut as you have noted. While I can understand you are going by the “strict and narrow” definition of whats on the MKI, and there are constraints on speculation (the MKI is after all the IAFs frontline fighter and that limits my contribution regarding speculation etc), please note that what you are going on is the circa 2002 “definition” of the MKI. Its been ~9 years since then. Whereas just go look at the A2G aspect for instance, and some of the systems added in the meanwhile and for which you have public info. My point is relying on 9 year old data as definitive is not a surety.

I’m not considering future upgrades right now, but this is definitely something we can look at at a later stage.

Point is even the most public sources about MKI, eg Govt records, air shows etc are often several years behind relevant details, even in best case scenarios where capabilities are revealed. The MC upgrades, avionics additions, RWR etc – very little of this has been talked about. Basically, we are not exporting all of this, so little point I guess. Plus a lack of appreciation about good PR for local aero capabilities. Eitherways these are not necessarily “future upgrades”, but a sort of WIP on current planes, iteratively added.

I first must do some more research on the definitives of the Super-30 upgrade. There is a lot of talk about this or that, but information are often conflicting. Stronger engines are mentioned as a possible option, but I have yet to see any official confirmation. The radar is another question I’m not sure about, will it be a Zhuk-AES or the upgraded Bars?

Rule 1, ignore anything written by Prasun Sengupta, he will make the MKI look like a super star destroyer. Just bunk.

That apart, there is a fair bit of info if you tie it together. Super 30 is intended for around 40-50 planes (for sure) and even double that (if the earlier planes also use this for MLU). This is Phase 1. So overall for (~50-100 aircraft).

Phase 2, may be called something different from Super 30, if IAF so chooses, will come after 2016- my take based on reports is around 2020, after a four year D&D stage, and will begin to be applied for the bulk Su-30 upgrade (~220-120 aircraft).

So what is Super 30. Simplest answer here:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/Fierce+fighter/1/99261.html

The IAF has begun the ‘Super 30’ project to upgrade its Sukhoi-30MKI fighters with new radars, mission computers, electronic warfare systems and Brahmos missiles.

Project has received initial Govt clearance and is in pre-finalization stage with Russia, that means basically configuration etc. is being worked out with Indian & Russian firms working on key systems already, on own funds but actual contract is yet to be signed.

Cases in point, DARE (DRDO) working on new MCs, already finalizing basic configurations. New RWR decided for Su30 last year, above existing systems. NIIP noting that India has agreed to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 approach for the Bars, and they are working on it w/own money before contract clearance. There has been some tough push and pull on the Brahmos part since Russia wanted more money, India said they should pay, finally HAL has said it will do it cheaply, and India is pushing for this to be done. The usual back and forth on such programs.

The Zhuk AE reports IMO were IAF evaluating alternatives to see if it got even better deal than the Bars upgrade, but as NIIP has noted IAF has basically agreed on Phase 1-2 approach. And frankly, with the amount of growth potential in Bars and the investment in making it locally, it makes sense. Irbis as I said, has a lower gain, smaller, lighter (~900mm dia versus ~960 mm) antenna versus Bars to gain better look angles. But to compensate, it uses power far more liberally. Phase 1 upgrade (see my previous post) will more than double the range of the Bars. Its interesting to see how this went: Bars–>OSA with cheaper diode based antenna–>Irbis (using several Bars systems with upgrades to others and new tech developed )—> Bars Phase 1—> Bars Phase 2 (using PAKFA AESA)

Sukhoi has always been pitching new weapons to India and others.

I have given the links previously..hope that helps.

There has been no mention of new engines from any credible source so far. IMO, kiteflying, given IAF can always tailor the loadout for a decent TWR versus its regional adversaries.

Initial budgeting is at the order of $2.3 Bn for 50 aircraft, per DefMin so its a fairly capable upgrade.

What weapons will be purchased? The new RVV SD doesn’t look overly impressive to me, it’s merely an AIM-120C7 equivalent according the Russians and its range of 110 km (max range) looks more like an equivalent of the AIM-120C-5.

Agreed, but its useful.

For sure:
– Brahmos (already mentioned)

And I think IAF may go for:

-Kh-38 series
-Kh-31 PD
-RVV SD and MD (probably). Not sure of latter, might choose any AAM out there, theres so many.
– Any Russian LRAAM (there have been constant mentions of one for the Su-35)

So either rafale is definitely in or definitely out :p , wow that clears up the air a lot :rollseyes:

Yeah, now we know for sure, either its going to be the rafale or the typhoon. Oh wait..:p

Why do people believe that the M2k upgrade speaks against the Rafale? Shouldn’t it be the other way round? Buying possibly some Rafale technology for the upgrade (MDPU, LINS etc.) as well as weapons compatible with both aircraft it is in fact a strong argument for the Rafale and not against it. Though the policy of diversity is certainly in favour of the Typhoon, but does the Indians want a diversity at such scale?

Scorpion, well the EF guys have 4 things going for them

– AC is a hotrod interms of aero performance appealing to the IAF jocks who value air to air and tend to think A2G can always be added later, ie as on MKI, Mirage 2000 itself. you can add more fuel via CFTs as well.

-Big radar dish etc helps it in terms of growth potential versus worst case future possibilities and compensates to some degree for current lack of enough awacs for all out 2 front war (only 8 ordered so far, while aerostats are enough for pak, they are not effective versus PRC thanks to mountains)

– political push and offsets from EADS group are possibly more than can be offered by dassault which is a very profitability focused smaller, firm eg speaking out on tough indian offset reqs, not compromising on mirage upgrade price, not competing in japan (wont be a rabbit for japan etc)

– india has already ordered scorpenes, thales lltr (19) and mirage upgrade from france but only hawks from UK and almost nothing from germany which is really pushing for orders

OTOH
– dassault has mirage 2000 lobby in india AF who wield a lot of influence, plus mindshare in terms of senior guys. “mirage 2000 is second most important aircraft in iaf next to sukhoi” – ex IAF Chief, FH Major, an ex chopper pilot (to support second point)
-common logistics, weapons

imo, the EF is a frontrunner but it all depends on L1 and offsets. i dont think the weapons will necessarily be factored in since india tends to negotiate packages for each acquisition separately. eg lca, mirage upgrade, jaguars all got separate programs.

btw guys, about the life being only good for 20 more years, i think thats a sort of minimum guaranteed thing by the OEM, not a definitive thing. because the mirage is fairly sturdy. and if IAF/MOD have any brains, the $500m for HAL includes tot to remanufacture airframe components since the mirage 2000 line in france is closed down circa 2007 per reports

from the excellent georg mader.. the comparisons to other aircraft eg mki etc from a technician are a bit hyperbolic since the mki was not there at kargil and is significantly more multirole (kh-31 for antiship/antiradar, kab-500, kh-25, kh-59me for air to ground plus litening, elta sar pods etc) but the important part is the bit about airframe fatigue.

http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=253&Itemid=47

Called the ‘Vajra’ (Thunderbolt) in IAF-service, the single-seat Mirage 2000H (serials from KF101 on) and two-seat Mirage 2000TH (serials from KT201 on), the bulk of the planes were acquired in the mid-1980s. According to sources on site, nine (8+1 trainer) have since been lost or severely damaged in accidents. Now over 20 years old, all Mirage 2000s airframes like the six present on Feb. 7th were explained to ACIG as already in their second inspection- and overhaul cycles. The two operating sqdns. at Gwalior would usually send the fighters to HAL every 12 years or 2000 flying-hours, but so far all IAF Mirage 2000s have undergone overhaul and modernisations only after the calendar, not because of reaching 2000 hours.

HAL’s shop-personnel was proudly pointing to the fact, that even in the second cycle, “pratically no fatique or cracks are discovered in the very robust blended delta-structure, not the same case in the Jaguar-fleet for example.” Despite with the standard Thompson RDM-radar the ‘Vajra’s does not offer multi-target capability for their SUPER 530D and Magic 550, “that does not take anything away from Mirage 2000 as its an excellent and beloved aircraft in India and by far the best purchase made by the IAF, even better than the Su-30 MKIs when you look at flexibility, performance and availability of the French aircraft, for example in the Kargil-conflict”, a technician expressed of course his personal views to ACIG.

ACIG learned that when the Kargil conflict broke out in 1999 after Pakistani infiltrations in Kashmir, the Mirage 2000 performed remarkably well during the whole hostilities in the high Himalayas, even though their air-interdiction capability was a brand new asset. Right before the conflict, 38 remaining 2000Hs had been upgraded at Bengaluru with local flare dispensers and with the integration of LGBs. Their capability to drop PGMs – as well as conventional unguided bombs – was hastly made operational and the two squadrons flew a total of 515 sorties. In 240 strike missions they reportedly dropped 55 tons (120,000 lb) of ordnance. According to the HAL-personnel, easy maintenance and a very high sortie rate made the ‘Vajra’ one of the most efficient IAF-assets in the conflict.

comparison to jags is germane because unlike mki (which are made, serviced at HAL nasik, maharashtra state up northwards) jags are serviced at HAL Bangalore itself so the maint guys would know immediate details and indeed as georg mader writes the jaguar is in pretty ok shape airfame and systems wise (hence the IAF deciding to upgrade it with drdo/HALs darin-3 and new engines). check the link for more.

HAL’s ‘Overhaul Division’ is the approved repair agency for carrying out all major servicing of Jaguar aircraft and its engines, components and systems. At the time of visit, about 10 airframes of all the three versions Interdiction-Strike (IS), two-seat Trainer (IB) and Maritime-Strike (IM) were undergoing major servicing and upgrading, shown in different stages of disassembly. HAL technicians said the company already has indeginised about 520 items into the original Jaguar-IS, including the spoiler mechanical block, throttle box, front/rear canopy frame, excitation/demodulation unit, bottom panels and canopy beams.

Only each 5th airframe is reportedly showing issues of fatique or cracks, when they are inspected about every 10 years. That is seen as “an encouraging fact, given the stresses of mainly low-level work they are used in” a shop-manager underlined to ACIG. Not stressed beyond 8g with a design maximum of 12g, airframe-life was originally calculated at 3.000 hours for single-seaters and 6.000 for two-seaters. “Therefore it makes truly sense to invest in further improving and upgrading of the Shamsher”, the engineer said.

hal got TOT for jaguars and can remanufacture the airframe for extra life.

so the will last for 20 years thingy could be an underestimate, and the 20-25 years mentioned by some reports could actually be right. in which case, the newest mirage 2000’s acquired in 2004, would be the last to go for life extension. assuming the first mirage 2000s get upgraded next year with a total of seven by 2013, another 20 years would give them till 2033. ok, i guess.

also iaf is sooopper efficient in procurement versus army…i mean artillery, cough cough..
here the iaf has ordered over 100 radars, several 100 planes, choppers, started digitizing its nw….army is slow in comparison w/archaic processes

So far what we know of Mirage upgrade cleated by CCS headed by shri mumble mumble singh

– extends life by 20 years
– for 51 planes
– 2 in france, rest in india
– take 9 years for full delivery, ergo till 2020
– $500m for assembly at HAL, ergo TOT involved
– $700-900m weapons package, including 450 micas, which even at $550m leave significant amount for a2g munitions
-overall cost $4billion
– iaf didnt like israeli option
– mirage also significant as it has n deterrence role
– upgrade includes new radar, new ew + countermeasures, new cockpit avionics and other gizmos eg new navigation systems
-30% offset which means, $800 m bonanza for local companies including SMEs

Also IAF now at 34 squadrons versus 32 last year, and 39.5 sanctioned strength:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/2-4-bn-Mirage-2000-upgrade-approved/H1-Article1-720763.aspx
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/new-article/articleshow/9214176.cms

You did not talk about avionics alone in your previous posts – but rather gave chapter and verse why the JF-17 was not as good as the block52 – something which I had never claimed in the first place – and that was the point.

So we are agreed then on the facts that the JF-17 is not the equal of the F-16s Block 52s whether it be in terms of payload and range or avionics…I already quoted your statement which equated the two, and its pretty clear they are not the same class of aircraft. As long as you are open about this, I don;t think there is any argument.

No its nothing like saying SU-30 is a joint project – the little difference being that the JF-17 is actually and officially a 50/50 joint project and SU-30 is not.

India funded the Su-30 MKI, and contributes systems to it of its own design & manufacture and is increasing the same. Even so IP of the basic platform rests with Russia, since it did most of the work for the Flanker series and has access to it. Same as with JF-17 and CATIC. Can PAC tomorrow make a Super JF-17 without CATIC assistance or only 50% workshare from CATIC?

If not, all you are saying is semantics.

As matter of fact, the Super-30 upgrade will increase the Indian contribution to the aircraft in some areas. I am yet to see any details even in the AFM article of Pak contributing heavily in terms of systems to the JF-17, it mostly talks of licensed assembly and TOT from CATIC to PAC. Chinese engineers going to Pakistan setting up the assembly lines and so forth..

A better comparison would be PAKFA — using your logic will India be at a disadvantage when compared to China’s J-20 when it comes to upgrades? PAKFA being a joint project and J-20 being self reliance?

The PAKFA is Russian. What you are talking of, is the eventual FGFA.

Of course India will be at a disadvantage when compared to the J-20 if the metric was only one – self reliance, which is why the FGFA alone cannot compensate, and which is why India has the AURA and AMCA programs as well to round it off.

Problem is you are comparing a licensed assembly & customization program like the JF-17 to being equivalent to full blown capability development, this when you don’t even have deep TOT for systems like the engine (which too can only go so far in making your own systems).

Latest AFM states that various major upgrades for the JF-17 are already planned including IRST and in flight refuelling probe. I don’t see how it just being a joint project somehow puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to upgrades.

Its fairly obvious that unless you produce your own systems, having limited funding puts you at a disadvantage & reliant upon your partner to step up and share the burden.

Regards planning – surely, there is a difference between planning & actually going ahead. How many F-16s had the PAF planned for in the 80’s?

As one other poster mentioned, both JF-17 tranches depended on Chinese financial assistance, how long do you think that will last if the program keeps adding complexity and cost. These are things you have to pay for yourself.

India is not running to Russia for integrating third party kit onto the Su-30 MKI. They are adding it themselves via own avionics rigs in India & paying for what they want. In contrast PAC is yet to achieve these capabilities and nor is it as liberally funded.

I would be happy to list what the ‘fairly successful’ LCA and IAF continue to rely on from foreign sources but this is not the thread for it. Lets just say it’s a long list. Just remind who they are dependant on for upgrades to Mig 29 and Mirage 2000 despite their ‘inhouse expertise’.

So you are unable to admit the point again. India sources select systems from abroad when it requires them, but can produce other systems on its own.

The MiG-29 Upgrade – has HAL furnished nav systems, has an Indian EW suite, will have other gizmos including the IAF specific ODL.

For the Mirage 2000 upgrade, it will have the DRDO/HAL OSAMC to tie into the system. As mentioned in the IAF thread, Dassault pointed out that if Indian systems were to be included, cost of upgrade would rise due to integration complexity, for just fifty airframes India decided it would just choose the OEM fit & put in its own OSAMC to add more systems and weapons as it wanted.

Where are the PAFs examples of Indias DARIN3 or MiG-27 Upgrade?
This is actually an example of what India can do thanks to its own flexibility. Tell me where PAFs own RWRS, SPJs, Open Architecture Computers etc for its aircraft?

The MIG-21++ comment is a direct quote from the ACM and not journalists interpretations. IAF is lumbered with LCA – the thing has taken up so much time and resource that outright rejection is just not an option – hence as one Indian article put it the ACM’s ‘left handed compliment’ in calling it a MIG 21++.

The MiG-21++ comment being in context of the LCA, like the JF-17 being a 200 -300 odd NM mission radius aircraft and payload wise, being a 7 odd pylons as versus a 12 pylon aircraft and when looking at ranges, compared to a maximal mission radius of almost double the amount (depending upon the payload) like the Su-30 MKI.

The ACM clearly complimented the LCA as well, which flies in the face of journalistic interpretation of “left handed compliment” and the like. Irrespective of what reasons you ascribe, its fairly evident that the LCA is here to stay & that the IAF is aiming for many squadrons of the type.

Good to see that such sobering comments from the IAF’s own ACM have forced even internet fans to be more realistic in what the expect from the type.

Serious commentators have always known what the LCA is & note the programs progress. In fact, the real internet fans apparently selectively deny the IAF ACMs positive comments about it, cannot admit that comparing a licensed program like the JF-17 to another like the Su-30 (which in fact has deeper TOT and more local content) is germane, cannot admit that economic troubles may not make off the cuff estimates of high production values of the JF-17 with all sorts of yet to be ordered gizmos mentioned only in mags materialize..I do hope they become more realistic over time & sober up.

Ofcoarse PAC remains reliant on CATIC for many aspects – but they have a roadmap to increase indigenous input towards 100%. Lets hope they do a better job of absorbing the technology than India has done with the billions it has paid for licenced production and technology transfer. Was MKI deal not meant to be complete tech transfer? If they had absorbed its entire tech – I wonder why they don’t make their own MMRCA instead of buying from others.

Roadmap towards 100%?? Care to point out where exactly the PAC will set up factories for the raw materials, items like the ejection seat (down to its firing cartridges – since its 100%), or even other stuff like cockpit transparencies. Or is it “towards 100%” wherein it could be 30%, 50% etc?

As compared to India & the MKI, a pretty unrealistic and amusing wish to be sure, that they’ll do “a better job than India in absorbing the MKI TOT”, as India is already on Phase 4 of the aircraft manufacture and this year even achieved a landmark in engine tech, with the first HAL made AL-31FP (from local systems) successfully completing its long test.

India has several licensed production programs and is already onto JVs and D&D. This is Pakistan’s first fighter assembly program from tech tranfer and it has nowhere near the same industrial capability.

As regards the MMRCA and the MKI – you missed the point again, perhaps, this is why you don’t get what TOT means as versus rhetorical flourishes of 100% and the like. TOT is mostly process knowledge for manufacturing & enables local support, it does not transfer detailed design capabilities which can be put together like a lego kit for a different class of aircraft (besides which there are IP restrictions). Bottomline, if you are expecting 100% indigenization for the JF-17 and making a MMRCA out of it, expect CATIC to have some words about the matter..

Equating the ‘imminent’ in Jf-17’s BVR role (being integrated now) to the imminent in MMRCA’s BVR (first aircraft not due for delivery until 2016) and the ‘imminent’ in FGFA’s BVR (first aircraft not due for delivery until 2018) — betrays skewed thinking. I would suggest that 6-12 months is a reasonable ‘imminent’. Bizarrely you seem to think 5-7 years is equally ‘imminent’.

LOL, and where is the evidence that the entire capability is to be “imminently” operational on the PAF’s JF-17? A couple of pics & its imminent in 6-12 months (where did that come from?) and how many JF-17s will there be at that time. Play with words as you like, but when you suggest that the “imminent” induction of BVR in the JF-17 can somehow counter the not so imminent but already operational BVR capability on far more IAF fighters, its positively “bizarre” and reflective of skewed thinking… somehow your own words seem to apply best to your own statements..

‘Capability’ does not mean quantity and it does not mean how many years you have had something compared with someone else and it does not mean how many more you are going to get compared to someone else – look it up in a dictionary if you don’t believe me.

Again, more word play. Well, since you are so much into this stuff – have you heard the phrase, quantity has a quality of its own?
Even if you operate F-22s, they can only operate in one place at one time. And the PAF does not operate F-22s and is actually behind its regional adversary in numbers and technology, ergo capability.

What ‘capability’ means is – the ability to do something – in this context – that you could not do before. For example IAF had BVR, Air refuelling, AEW – the PAF did not have these – now the PAF has these and hence they have closed / are closing the ‘Capability’ gap as acknowledged by the IAF’s own ACM.

The capability to do so, when in an inferior manner to an adversary, and which can be countered, translates to a limited capability at best.

Considering alternatives has started to cost money? ‘logistically’ and ‘logically’ it makes no sense to you that the PAF would consider all available options for key systems before deciding on the best cost / benefit option? Them looking at any alternative product automatically makes the Chinese option sub standard? Amazing ‘logistics’ and ‘logic’.

Or the PAF could go for only what was available to it, despite previously choosing kit and then being denied it as per the public statements of a senior defence official from the supplier nation. Despite their internet fans trying to dismiss this point via statement about “amazing logistics and logic”.

So you comparing JF-17 / its abilities with the likes of the Rafael – to prove that it is ‘just not good enough’ is ok. But the same question for the LCA is a –tut,tut- ‘classification blunder’. Always good to know it’s a level playing field.

Its Rafale – not Rafael. And a conflict is not going to be a level playing field, unless you think the PAF ACM will complain to the IAF ACM that the latters not playing fair for committing all three types – Su-30 MKIs, Rafale/Typhoons, LCAs to the conflict. In which case, I wish him luck.

As far as the PAF goes, its going to face all these, apart from Mirage 2000’s and MiG-29s.

In case you are still not getting the point, the IAF is fielding a heavy-medium-light force structure to counter the PAF & PLAAF.The medium types being of the latest gen in production (e.g Rafale/Typhoon) can actually bring capabilities to the fight equal to the heavies. In counter, the PAF has ….the JF-17, a handful of F-16s and a limited number of force multipliers. Do ponder on whether that strategy constitutes deterrence.

The PAF has always been at a disadvantage in terms of numbers due relative size of the two countries so no shockers here. Consecutive PAF ACM’s are on record as expecting 36 FC-20’s by 2016.

And how many FC-20s are on firm order? When will they be delivered by?

As for equipment fits capability – read up on expected abilities. If you have any lingering doubts about how capable it will be – remind yourself that the same manufacturer is currently flight testing a 5th generation type.

Of which 5G type we know pretty little about capability, what specific attributes it has, and when it will be in production by. This is not evidence.

With the quantities expected there can be no doubt that the JF-17 will be the PAF’s BVR workhorse, backed up by upgraded F-16’s / Block 52’s and topped up with FC-20’s.

Here we go again….terms like “BVR workhorse” …”no doubt”, this when the JF-17 is yet to be made operational w/BVR (oh wait, thats “6-12 months”), the first FC-20 is yet to fly in PAF colors. Heck, even the F-16s are likely to be in trouble given the US pressure in recent days..

And vice versa – so the point is disputed – as I already said.

Wherein the evidence is to the contrary..

s already stated the PAF has always been at a disadvantage in terms of numbers due relative size of the two countries so no shockers here.
Regardless it is amusing how you skew the figures to suite your argument.

No skewing the numbers from my end…only the facts as they are, as versus “no doubt” etc.

‘40+ F-16’s’?? – The PAF had 31 + 14A/B’s from the U.S. + 18 block 52’s – do the maths.

And how many of these have been delivered and have BVR capability? Do the math..

50-60 JF-17’s’? – they’ve already signed up for 100!!

And here you were saying the recent reports about the JF-17 were not clarified? In which case, you concur that the recent JF-17 buy was with PRC financial assistance?

So while IAF ends up with virtually all its fleet BVR capable — what do you think will happen to the PAF fleet – with Mirages, F-7’s being replaced by JF-17’s, F-16’s and FC-20’s???

Again, no firm orders placed yet for FC-20 ? JF-17 orders nowhere in sufficient quantities to replace ~400 Mirage and F-7s and F-16s (taking your own count) coming to 63. This when Pak economy is yet to sustain a production run without Chinese assistance.

Thanks for pointing that out but the ‘closing the gap’ remark remains valid as a stand alone statement since he did not say anything afterwoods to retract this.

…”but they will not catch up”…oops.

Errr …… where did you get that from? So where did I say the JF-17 is equal in capability to SU30MKI or the MMRCA??

But it will face both types…irrespective of whether it is their peer or not. IMO, the PAF would have been better of investing in the J-10.

Posting part of his statement also showed what he said. No big deal? Really? So wonder why I’ve had to defend myself for posting his words for the last half a dozen posts.

Only posting part of what he said without pointing out what he said thereafter did not show what he said in entirety…

You make it sound like you’ve convinced me with your well-structured arguments – the reality is I never said otherwise.

Whatever floats your boat..

Well on the way with JF-17’s — with 100 already signed up — upto about 30 delivered – PAC is building 2 a month – do the maths from now until 2016 – I think 150 is bang on target sometime in 2016..

100 signed up with Pak requesting China for financing & kits.. do you think this will continue? And if PAC is building them, why go to PRC? Your projections depend a lot on an optimistic estimate of a best case scenario given current issues..

F-16’s – 18 block 52 on line — I’m sure that if there was a single report anywhere in the world to confirm a delay to the upgrade programme you would have posted it by now.

Eh, I asked you to post any report to the contrary, all you have had to say is wikileaks is not credible (this when Bill Sweetman references it for DTI) and you seem to think making jibes about anyone pointing out the reality suffices for an argument..

Basically, what you are saying is that jibes apart, you don’t have any evidence to counter what wikileaks noted about Pak having economic issues and hence delays occuring to the F-16 program already..

45 being upgraded as per PAF ACM’s statement earlier this year.

Thats the 31 original plus the new A/Bs..
But the original plans in DSCA called for sixty airframes:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/26/18468870.php

So I was right in that the program is not as ambitious as originally envisaged, wikileaks notes lack of airframes and financing troubles, they were evidently right.

PAF chiefs continued confirmation that FC-20 is on track with induction around 2016.
So overall – no not ‘incredibly optimistic’ at all — more like realistic.

In light of having to seek financing from PRC for the less expensive JF-17, no evidence so far from your end of firm FC-20 orders and capabilities therein, repeated statements around US being upset w/Pak, I’ll have to go with optimistic..

I asked for a source confirming actual delay in the upgrade programme which you were alluding to – especially given that the PAF ACM has confirmed ongoing upgrade of 45 F-16’s in Turkey only a few months ago. A few years old statement in wikileaks saying that Paf had issues financing the upgrade – with no source to confirm that an actual delay occurred as a result – in all the time that has lapsed in between —— is nowhere near cutting it.

So a delay is only a delay when you agree it is a delay and till then it is not a delay. Great.

Comments / conjecture about how many upgrades have been contracted / Fas not updated to show payment received are speculative at best. If the programme had been delayed you would have seen appropriate reports accordingly — of which there are a grand total of zero.

So the reports of earlier delays are “speculative” because you dont agree they were delays and that PAF had issues finding financing. Ok..

In terms of details of the upgrade contract – I’m sure you can find reports covering signing of the contract between Pakistan and Turkey and associated schedule – Until someone posts a source for the revised schedule or delay – I think the sensible position would be to believe everything is on track. In the meantime – please see the picture attached showing PAF F-16’s being upgraded in Turkey – this picture was taken a long time after the wikileaks cable you refer to.

Sigh..I never said the upgrade was not going through. Reread what I said. I said the problems in financing the PAF F-16 upgrade are symptomatic of the problems in attempting to modernize a force without having a significant economic capability to support it. Thats just borne out by recent events.

Here, try to rationalize or deny this report as well.
http://pakmr.blogspot.com/2011/05/pakistans-f-16-program-at-risk-of.html

Wikileaks..

The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) has approached the U.S. with a request to use Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to help pay for Mid-Life Updates (MLU) on its existing fleet of F-16 fighter aircraft. This request would require the modification of the original Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) that sanctioned the deal and notification to Congress of the change.

…..

The F-16 sale was primarily built around three separate Foreign Military Sales cases that had a potential value of $5.1 billion. The 2005 Kashmir earthquake and subsequent financial constraints caused Pakistan to reduce the number of new planes purchased from 36 to 18 lowering the overall value of the deal to $3.1 billion.

IOW, Pakistan had financing issues regarding the F-16s, approached the US to pay for the MLUs out of US aid, and had to scale back on the program itself

And in recent days US aid is tied up:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/10/us-pakistan-aid.html

Well China has offered easy terms / free goods to Pakistan since the 60’s – so don’t hold your breath for any major change there. Despite a policy against outright aid – cheap financing of mega economic projects and defence purchases are of equal benefit freeing up resources for other purposes. Reports suggest that the second batch of JF-17’s are FOC, and details of how Pakistan is paying billions for its AWACS, submarines, frigates, naval helicopters etc from China remain vague — although you’ll be glad to hear that there is no report of any delay in any of these projects.

Point is that PAF or PArmed services rarely if ever publish any audit reports of delays or problems or otherwise, so its not as if we’d get any statements admitting to delays. But you are seriously off track IMO, if you think China is just going to act as Pakistans sponsor for the latters military needs and open up its wallet.

Of coarse and regardless of China’s support – Pakistan has to make economic progress – but detailed debate on that / IMF etc is not for this thread.

Sure, economics is not for this thread, when even a cursory reading shows that your statements about the PAF being on track with some expensive programs are likely to be affected thanks to a weak economy.

Bottom line – despite its current economic constraints the PAF continues to be a viable component of ‘minimal credible deterrence’ moving forward.

If you say so…but evidence suggests otherwise. Namely the PAF is lagging in terms of modernization and capability & its the PA which has more of an equivalent capability at least in some areas versus its peer.

I believe I’ll do a quick focus of my points also. Despite current Pak economic issues, I find it likely that PAF will continue to get the kind of capabilities it needs to adequately deter the IAF as a vital part of an overall military position of ‘minimum credible deterrence’ — due mainly to Chinas support, developing PAC industrial capability and good foresight by PAF of which JF-17 is a good example

Yes, you believe it likely, but so far the evidence does not bear it out. In fact the overall military position by the Pakistan establishment, that of focusing on its military spending to the detriment of building up a sustainable economy, has hurt it.

Over the years PAF’s main obstacles to maintaining deterrence have been – 1. Financial constraints – 2. Lack of reliable supplier of modern tech. Chinas rapid emergence in military aviation is a real game changer for Pakistan. The lack of reliable supplier issue is becoming history and the financial constraints issue is made much easier.

So basically, exchange US for China, and alls well. China will make up for Pakistans financial constraints and reliably supply its best kit, which happens to be expensive, and all this at Pakistans terms as and when the latter wants. Very realistic, to be sure.

As for over reliance on the ‘largesse of a benevolent supplier’ – seems to work well for Israel.

Israel is a technology powerhouse, and has products the world wants, and if push comes to shove, can still survive without an external supplier. Is Pak in the same position?

Your continued and repeated focus on how many more the IAF flies compared to PAF and comparing the two forces missile to missile despite the completely unequal size of the 2 countries — assumes an old fashioned all out war scenario– which is out of the question in a nuclear backdrop.

Thats a pretty big assumption on your part, that there won’t be an all out war scenario and even otherwise, in a limited conflict, the IA will not use its number and technology pluses to its advantage.