I think that there are valid arguments on both sides. I would nontheless suggest that we move on, because everyone is just speculating and it already begins to run circles which is never good.

Some spares and stuff which are part of every acquisition, as well as acquisition of the equipment needed to operate the aircraft. Whether it also includes infrastructure building for example is not known and operating cost (fuel, consumables, personal costs etc.) are not included in that 40.69 bln €figure. But such costs for 25+ years of operation are included in the 37 bln pound figure by NAO.

Check out figure 8 at page 26
http://lf5422.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/typhoon-project-audit-1011755.pdf

It’s still an estimation which is subject to change, it could increase or decrease, albeit the latter is often the case.

Whatever your comparison was unfair in the first place if you don’t know what the costs you were talking about include

I suppose you intended to quote and reply to someone else as this was my first post here in this thread..

What you sincerely ignore is the fact that the ID 2007 exercise was conducted before any RfP was even sent and included block 2/2B Typhoon’s only anyway. If you believe that anyone is showing full capabilities you are mistaken. There are ever restrictions not to unveil certain capabilities, even if a country is potentially interested. They may have demonstrated more during the 2010 exercise, but there is still no reason to play all stuff vs no stuff. That’s not beneficial for the exercise at all and the RAF was exercising there not selling the aircraft.

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

Minor improvements are in fact not unusual in general. Albeit one shouldn’t mistake the Indian approach to the Russian one. Considering that Russians often use different designations for even slightly modified gear, I wouldn’t expect any major improvements.

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

Agree.

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

.

Integration of weapons itself might be another issue. How many MiGs or Sus have you seen with western made weapons or the other way round. Sure this has been done, but it’s rather rare and as you say possibly not worth the cost, especially if you consider commonality with existing systems.

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

Agree

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

I have my reservations about the “sensor fusion via RWR” part. This might work with compatible equipment, but integration isn’t easy and I agree that it’s more about the MC than anything else.

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

I indeed agree, but the same could be said about the Typhoon. The general consens is that the Typhoon dominates the F-15 and F-16 by a fair margin, which doesn’t mean that it’s ever winning, but on the large scale Typhoon’s appear to win the majority of DACT encounters against them. There have been some talks about recent DACTs conducted by JG 73 Typhoons against F-16s from the RNLAF, BAF and USAFE a few weeks ago. The results were reportedly loop sided in favour for the Typhoon. The Americans reportedly resorted to fly clean against the Typhoons but that didn’t change the results. The Typhoons were carrying 2 tanks during these encounters.

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

That’s quite often the fact. Range figures are usually mentioned without many details about modes etc.

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

According what I have read the range performance of the upgraded N-001 has been boosted by 30-40% over the original N-001 which is indeed quite an improvement.

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

I understand. But it would be naive to believe that those AESAs aren’t maturing as well. Even without data transmission or EA capabilities they offer performance levels and capabilities the current Bars may not be able to compete with. Mode interleaving, resolution etc. are all quite good right now and some of these systems have been around for some time now.

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

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

Agree

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

It’s for sure not bad and should be sufficient.

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

Agree, albeit it wasn’t the point here.

Yes, but will a single Typhoon be able to get accurate range readings from a KR method if it does not have the benefit of time, versus a dynamic target.

The accuracy is limited, it may be improved is correlated with ESM data if possible or if another source (radar or datalink) provides an initial ranging. Against time critical targets it’s probably of limited utility, but it would be to far stretched from me to come up with further assumptions without known details.

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

There is a fighter variant dubbed AN/AAR-60v2 MILDS-F which is fitted to RDAF F-16s (integrated into a pylon). Diehl has pitched PIMAWS as a possible option, but it has not been adopted. Eurofighter has studied UV and IIR based systems. PIRATE reportedly offers a MAW capability within its FoV. Eurofighter is proposing a passive MAWS for the Eurofighter 2020 proposal. We’ll see, a combination of both would be the best solution IMO. The active MAWS provides several advantages and if a LPI type would be used it would be even better, albeit I have no idea what kind of technology is used by the current active MAWS. It could be that it is already an AESA system.

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

It’s not exactly the same, the MiG-29K uses the OLS-UE, while the MiG-35 was offered with the further developed OLS-UEM which offers imaging capabilities.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I like the imaging capability, the TWS & even KR, but basically at the end of the day, for both aircraft, if the ranging has to be done by the radar, for a quick BVR shot, and both offer roughly equivalent capabilities in terms of overall range etc, then it’s a bit of a moot point.

If the reported stats are to be believed PIRATE could offer a clear range performance advantage. It has its limitations, but appears to offer more capabilities and performance.

I will to check for my ’05 notes.

Thx in advance.

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

I acknowledge that limitation.

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

But shouldn’t we have seen a different jamming pod on the Su-30MKI then? Aren’t there any spotters in India who might figure this out?

Ultimately, for purposes of debate, if you wish to state it is the latter, that’s fine but all I am saying is, that excludes a lot of other reasonable possibilities.

Fair enough, as said I’m not excluding possibilities and keep them in mind if there is some reasonable reasoning behind it.

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

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

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

A second brain and pair of eyes is certainly not bad to have, as said it can compensate to a certain extend and in some situations a human is definitely more flexible and capable than computers, so it’s not a one trick pony. When it comes to provide the FCC with reliable data fused from different sources it’s still something a human could hardly do in any timely manner, that’s the reason why such tasks are automated. One problem I see with the Su-30MKI is that much of its equipment was off-the-shelf and that from various sources which aren’t even remotely connected. Integrating all that stuff is difficult and there might be limitations as the systems have not been designed as part of a whole system. With the addition of more indigeous equipment these issues could be solved to some extend and time and work on the existing gear may have yielded improvements as well, but it’s not as easy as one might think and the Su-35 has the advantage of using an avionics suite which is new and designed from the start with such capabilities in mind, it’s not necessarily possible to achieve the same results on the MKI by porting some stuff over only.

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

Agree

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

In some areas the performance difference is certainly marginale in others it’s probably it’s not.

Eg both EF and MKI share same HUMS from a South African firm.

That would be news to me and I don’t think that the Typhoon uses a HUMS from SA.

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

This is the approach everyone is taking these days for good reasons. You just need a good base to begin with.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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:

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.

Agree

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.

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

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,

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

The top pod is what has been acknowledged to be on the MKI, the HADF pod for the Kh-31.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

@toan
Not according the IAF which will base its decision on the lowest bidder with the commercial bids to be opened soon.

Scoprion makes quite a few assumptions and some of the technical claims are suspect (as they should be, none of us have exact info about all the systems), but it is an altogether decent (if pro-Typhooned biased, IMO) write up. I don’t want to get into a Su-30-Typhoon pissing match, but suffice it to say, one makes a good match up with the other in a2a.

Of course, the Su-30 is not the best “eastern” thing in terms of a2a out there…

Feel free to elaborate on what you find suspect. As I have said there are a lot of unknown variables which may have a more or less significant impact, so my assessment is not a definitive conclusion and reflects my view based on what I know about the two types only. A Su-35S would yet be another beast in comparison, but that wasn’t the topic here.

Well Eurofighter insisted that the aircraft could carry heavy stores on the inner wing stations in the past so it is not to unlikely that these can carry heavy weapons.