TeerI am not an expert on the mki so I’ll be glad to learn about those new upgrades.:) I personally never heard about it.
The IAF has developed an opaque method of adding systems and capabilities. They give obscure program names and then go ahead. But these occasionally come out every now and then. Eg, there was talk of SAR pods for the MKI – nothing was revealed thereafter, but when a few MKIs landed at a base newly designated for them, they had operational pods. Similarly, there have been substantial developments on the avionics front & others.
It is true that the rafale used the link 16 when the mki could note use its own datalink. But I think that the rafale pilot took it into account as he of course knew this limitation. I bet that they had access to SU30 cockpit and IAF pilots to have an informal briefing in the cockpit while being on the tarmac. I know that Idian pilots had a brief of rafale capabilities during red flag. Would be quite logical to have the same kind of brief.
The problem is that without access to the AWACS data, and their EW fit (SPJ) not available, the IAF guys SA was drastically reduced. Basically, they were just flying weapons platforms with a detuned sensor (much reduced functionality) and flying “alone” with only verbal cues. Even so, they did ok in BVR.
Current MKIs are receiving a new passive system which brings sensor fusion capabilities. And the IAF is also in the process of operationalizing a brand new Datalink which links all their aircraft and GS together. That apart, there is a new EW fit in the works which is far ahead of the current system(s).
TeerSu-30MKI has exactly the same airframe as the ordinary Flanker (except canards etc.).
When did I say different (and actually, you’d be mistaken about the airframe part, especially internally). However, reread what I wrote, and consider Bill Sweetmans notes about what ITAE managed to achieve with the “ordinary Flanker”.
Simply put, assuming that all Flankers out there, including the H, have received no signature improvements at all, and disregarding the improvements made to their EW fits (purpose procured for mitigating the adverse affects of their signatures) is misleading.
TeerI forgot to mention that this rafale pilot took part in red flag in 2008 along with the mki. He clearly stated that the mki doesn’t provide the same SA because of the sensor fusion and MMI. Indian pilots (whose professionalism was praised by the rafale pilot like I saw in many reports) had much more work to perform in the cockpit to understand what was going on. They lost precious time because of that when the rafale pilot enjoyed the a much better understanding of the tactical situation at a glance.
I don’t think the mki is getting a new set of sensor (AESA, optronics etc) but I am perhaps wrong.
Arthuro,
We are already a couple of years ahead of 2008, and those MKI’s passive systems may well not be the same on the current batch, in production which is now of a new standard & designated as a new family. Which btw, may end up being replaced by yet another “integrated” system recently asked for by the IAF. So the pace of progress is consistent and exists, even as it passes by relatively undocumented!
That apart, one of the key issues for the MKI in Red Flag, despite which it managed, was the lack of N/W centricity. It did not use its datalinks for certain reasons, including operational classification. The Rafale did as far as I know (please correct me if I am mistaken) and that would have also contributed to the SA aspect. But when operating in the Indian context, the MKIs wont have that issue.
TeerI think so too. It’s just not believable. I think the difference might be even greater. Few AAM, each with an RCS of ~0.01 m2 plus few pylons etc. I think that the Rafale + AA load might be close to 1 m2. Su-30 has an RCS of ~20m2.
A non signature treated Flanker may, have a signature of that order. But then whats the point of comparing a treated Rafale to that. If comparisons are made they need to be made apples to apples. And the issue here is, nobody is going to talk about the Flanker-H improvements as the IAF has not, and most probably will not, making these comparisons misleading.
TeerIt is not only about the meteor teer…It is also about sensor fusion, MMI and lower RCS. This combo will put the mki at a great risk against more advanced platforms. A point that was risen (MMI and Sensor fusion) by a rafale pilot that I met in Paris for the century of french aeronautics.
Again Arthuro, there is an assumption there on your part, that the MKI is not receiving improvements to its sensor fusion, MMI and signature. While your Rafale pilot would doubtless know about the capabilities of his own platform, I’d point out he’d know a limited amount about the exact capabilities of the MKI and the systems on it, not on it et al. The thing is that since the Russians are now pitching the Su-35 for export, they no longer need to hardsell the MKI, and the platform has been developed, matured in relative silence. The EF, Gripen, Rafale all have aggressive export campaigns and hence their capabilities are and have to be, well known. Let me just give one example – all of you can even point out the “secret” ASMP trials on the Rafale or exact AASM qualified or which pod etc. No details of the sort, are currently available for the MKI, but they exist and have a habit of popping up every now and then. The IAF has a new habit of creating vague project names for systems and then integrating them on its aircraft. 🙂
TeerI understand what you mean Teer, but you forget some parameters to get the full picture :
With higher level of sensor fusion and modern RWR the “brute force approach” as you call it is a deadlock. You can pick up radar emissions well before you will be detected. Using your radar is like becoming a beacon is the sky and provide all the datas necessary to be shot. During ATLC a rafale managed an entirely passive interception using only spectra and thus without having to emit…
Problem is Arthuro, you are not looking at the big picture yourself. How do you know that the Flanker H is not receiving equally comprehensive upgrades offering similar, if not exact, capabilities of its own?
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mil_aircraft/20100626_fighters_oneView.html
The point of mentioning Red Flag was to show that despite significant system constraints, the Flanker did all right and it would do better, with full up sensor, datalink and EW fit enabled.
Furthermore, in fact, what you are doing is dwelling on fighter versus fighter. .
And forget the individual fighters, look at the system, which even the MKI was never able to get new sensors and iterative improvements of its own, make a substantial difference.
The Flanker-H, Rafale etc all will operate with the backing of powerful sensors and airborne battle management platforms, which do their own sensor fusion.
If a Phalcon, flying x km behind the MKI, uses its AESA radar & comprehensive ESM fit to detect, track all emitters, and then transmits that sensor fused data to the MKI on the new IAF ODL, which the MKI WSO & pilot can dedicate a MFD to, the MKI too has good situational awareness.
Thats the point. The Rafale is good, but its by no means the only approach to solve the problem.
And as the Rafale adds capabilities, so do its peers. And I’d also add an important caveat – thanks to publications like A&C, and the relative transparency of the French Govt., and passionate & friendly folk like you, who share the data, we are quite aware of all the overall (not specific) capabilities that Rafale has added, weapons, systems etc. I’d just point out the Flanker-H fleet has been through its own updates etc but simply put, that data is not publicized for better or for worse. But they are occurring. For instance, the Super-30 Upg is only the phase 1 MLU. The rest will receive an even more advanced fit as newer tech becomes available.
TeerAs an addendum, the one decisive thing that the EuroCanards are slated to get, which the Flanker-H does not have a clear counterpart to, at least publically 😉 is the Meteor. Its range, profile makes its lethal and it outranges all RVV-AE variants by a fair margin. Its “weakness”, is its reliance on a radar seeker. If that gets spoofed, the missile loses.
But its still a substantial advantage over current day MRAAMs like the RVV-AE or even the AMRAAMs.
TeerKramer,
You are mixing up things. It is not because a more radical approach was chosen for the F22,F35,PAKFA that RCS reduction is irrelevant in other cases.
Why would the rafale, typhoon, gripen, SH, SU35, tejas feature RCS reduction if it was not relevant when loaded. Of course it has an impact on all configs. Better have the smallest RCS as possible rather than the RCS of a B52 !
Because you can then rely on more discreet power managed jammers and sensors. Otherwise, you have to rely on the brute force approach. But both work if you can pull it off.
To Sign : the RCS of a clean MKI is certainly closer to 10m2 or 15m2 than 5m2. An F15 has already an RCS around 10m2 and a mig29 is around 5m2. Imagine the RCS of an Mki !
The RCS of a clean, non signature treated MKI perhaps. That’d be an assumption that all MK(I/A/M)s are likewise.
TeerAll eurocanads are rated more or less at 0,1m2.
with AoA ordinance this will be alot less rcs than a 5m2 MKI.
i dont think you can argure with that…
Problem is the range differential using the 4th square law between a 1 (fully loaded EC) and 5 Sq Mtr RCS, gives you a 33% range advantage, not double, not triple. For 1 and 6 Sq Mtr, its pretty much the same. If I have a sensor which has 30-40% more range, I am in the same ballpark as you. We can both detect each other and engage, depending on our armament.
The situation becomes even more fluid, given the aircraft are (mostly) optimized for X Band FCR, and the airspace is full of S and L band AEW&C, AWACS systems. Both fighter groups may remain silent to receive the better, longer ranged sensor feed, but may end up as visible on the opponents display panels, anyhow.
Kramer is right – to get a huge, war winning tactical advantage, internal carriage or covered carriage is the only way, unless you have a super duper EW and radar system that totally outcompetes your rivals, and that is unlikely, every one is running hard in this race, with so much cross industry collaboration (Italian Jammers on the MiG-35, Russians making newer DRFM jammers etc etc)
TeerThe 20 Sq Mtr figure is for a clean, non treated Flanker-H. The assumption in taking this number would be that the IAF Sukhois have received no signature improvements. Thats a big assumption. Even if taken as true, the combination of RCS & EW needs to be considered. Here, the IAF Flanker-H carry the Elta EL/L-8222 SPJ which is also carried by Israeli F-15s, Australian F/A-18s and German Tornados (if my memory is right). Clearly, this is a jammer capable of protecting large airframes.
Now as to what happens to signature when extra weaponry is carried. A rough thumbrule, I once read about X Band FCR, was something of the order of a tenth of a Sq Mtr for every pylon and another, for a missile (smallish one like an AMRAAM not a Phoenix) frontally.
So a Rafale, “clean” ~0.5 Sq Mtr (Assuming PAKFA level) would get 1.2 Sq Mtr thanks to 6 AAMs and 6 pylons, and another 0.4 say, thanks to two fuel tanks which can be jettisoned. So overall, 1.4 Sq Mtr.
That goes from 0.5 to ~2 Sq Mtr RCS.
Similarly, a Flanker with 20 Sq Mtr would go to 22.
However, the increase in Rafale RCS (making it easier for opponents) is of the order of around 3 times, whereas the increase in the Flankers is a tenth.
A fighter radar would now detect the Rafale at approx 40% more range.
Whereas for the Flanker, it would still be detected at approx the same range.
These are clearly back of the envelope, inexact figures, but do depict that fighters like the Rafale lose a fair bit by carrying stores externally. Ultimately, if you want real stealth, you just have to carry stores internally or have purpose “stealth” carriage.
The value for the Rafale is that with just a 2-5 Sq Mtr level fully loaded, its Spectra need not pump out so many trons keeping enemy emitters at bay. Thats a plus. Its a space optimized, compact airframe.
The MKI is a different approach. It makes no bones where it is, but carries a humongous sensor, and a jammer to break the kill chain, and by all indications will receive an even more capable and powerful sensor and EW fit than it currently has.
The IAF Flanker H’s did fairly well in BVR at Red Flag, with the primary sensor in training mode (significantly reduced range and functionality), no active and passive countermeasures (no jammer, no chaff & flares), and no datalink.
So the Flanker H is not a pushover.
Both the Rafale and Flanker, get the job done, their own way.
TeerI am no fan of Aroor and his sensationalist garbage style reportage “blistering attack”, “thundering display” etc and the sort of tricks he pulls, by taking industry presentations and putting his blogs name on them.
Having said that, the above by Prins is a direct quote & even Aroor wont have the guts to fudge up such a story about an international firm, which has a well established media department, capable of dispelling cooked up stories. It rings true, and LM pitching the JSF is a a good competitive play.
TeerHi Teer, but isn’t the seeker technology one of the fields where the Israelis are leading and if the technical evaluation proved that Spyder SAM is superior to MICA VL, than why join for a co-development for the inferior missile? If TVC would give clear advantages, why was the Spyder SAM was chosen?
These are the questions, that confused me from the very beginning!
Its very hard to say that the Israelis are superior to MBDA in seeker technology. Its not as clear cut as that. There are so many variables to consider that with open data, its next to impossible to make such determinations with certainty. In fact, check out the MBDA portfolio, its wide ranging and world class.
Next, nor can we say that the SpyDer was superior to the VLMica for sure. The decision could have been made on several factors, namely the overall cost (L1 factor) plus the offsets, if the Israelis offer better offsets they could have swung the deal. Again, as you can see, its not black and white. Even if the SpyDer itself was said to be superior, was it the missiles or the overall system? Remember, we are seeking MBDA cooperation in just a handful of specific areas. The rest of the system will be developed inhouse.
TeerIll try to explain how i came to these conclusions.
Avionics & radar = The americans have more experience. The Russians have AESA’s only in prototype form. The US have had many airborne AESA’s operational and are experienced with it. They have matured the technoloy.
RCS = The USAF claims the F-22 has an RCS in the range of 0.0001m^2 compared this with the PAK-FA’s target of 0.5m^2 and its clear which one is better.
Pilots and support = The USAF have many more support systems such as AWACS, JTIDS etc. Their pilots also fly 280+ hours a year compared to the 20+ hours Russian pilots get.
Price = we all know the PAK FA will be much more affordable than the F-22
Missles =The AMRAAM is combat proven. The Adder isnt…
If you feel i made any mistakes please feel free to comment. I’d be happy to discuss.
That 0.5 Sq Mtr RCS refers to an untreated, clean PAK-FA airframe, as the 20 Sq Mtr similarly refers to a Flanker in similar conditions. The Su-35 notes dramatically reduced RCS, w/treatment, in fact several times less.
Also note the Russians have the advantage of being the second comers and seeing which technology suits their needs the best, and making extensive use of COTS systems and products, both in R&D and manufacturing.
TeerIAF gets feel of latest Pak fighter aircraft
Not exactly accurate..Singapore has brought its advanced Viper variants to India for exercises before.
TeerAs for the rest of the post about JVs & maitri, I think it is weak. Why the seeker cannot be modification of Barak-2 seeker. If Israelis are not giving seeker tech then why did we enter into JV with them? All these issues remain.
When all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails, as they say.
You have created a chain of thinking based on flawed precept – ie, India is only looking for seekers, hence seekers are required, hence this must be about seekers, when it is pointed out it is not so linear, you call it weak.
Problem is technology flows from mission requirements and program risk has also to be lowered. All these together build up to who is chosen and why.
First, why compare the Barak 2 program (is it only a missile or something else?) to the SRSAM which is something else entirely in terms of complexity and who contributes what. That is the first mistake.
Second. Why would you put all your eggs in one basket and why would you do things sequentially, ie develop Barak, and then build something based on it for another purpose? What happens to program risk.
Barak2, the first naval LRSAM (something never attempted before by Israel or India) – has an element of risk attached. You choose a developer who is experienced and has a ready solution to go for the other system. The Maitri hence goes with MBDA, who too are willing to offer what is required.
I have given you the answer but you are not seeing it.
The Astra comparison is not germane, as it will take another 4 years to develop, with hardly any time left to then run a next VL variant for S2A use to meet current requirements. However, in the future, Astra variants could end up being developed as well as the next series of cost effective SAMs.
Simple fact is time drives JVs as much as technology acquisition. You fail to take into account how much money and capability these bring back into the economy and industry when you note: “I really dont think that Brahmos, Shakti engine, MKI, Barak-2, CLGM etc are much of JV ” – first MKI should not even be in the list.
Second, the Brahmos, Shakti and Barak2 all have a substantial local component in their subsystem count, even if the rest was all imported (which it is not, since Barak2 is not Brahmos, it involves much more codevelopment as there was no base Yakhont design to leverage/improve).
If there was no JV, India would just buy:
– Off the shelf Tomahawks – with all the attendant firecontrol, C4I, TEL
– Off the shelf Ardidens, with no 20-30% design work done in India (money lost to India, knowledge apart)
– Off the shelf SAM system with limited TOT (with no money going back to Akash/ABM derived tech)..assemble usual russian SAMs with no value add
My point is JVs buy India time to acquire develop technology while using that of the partners for the current system, while leveraging what it already has, even if there was no TOT involved. In this manner world class systems which meet Indian services requirements are available at relatively short notice. Otherwise, they would just import ALL of it
Out of the thousands of crores spent on Brahmos, the majority in production value has gone to India, as Russia has only provided the missile propulsion and seeker, and all the rest of the missile system (30-40% cost) and remaining systems are all from Indian companies. Each Brahmos goes with TELs, with launchers -all computerized, handled from MCPs and BCPs, again very expensive, linked together by a C4I net. This is the complete system.
Otherwise, all the thousands of crores would go for assembling other countries systems.
This is also partly the reason why Russia, despite the agreement is reluctant to buy the Brahmos system, while it has made money on the missile, the rest of the system infrastructure adds upto a whopping bill, and the other onboard missile avionics are Indian. They would rather subsidize their own industry. But for us, we have a worldclass missile system & have also picked up a lot from the program.
That is the true value of JV. Not just TOT or acquiring x technology.
Sign In
