@Rayrubik,
thank you for the images about the Kh-59 on the Su-30MKI.

@Loke,
NSM has been stated in combination with the Typhoon, maybe they were proposing an air-launched weapon back then, while it didn’t exist, before they started development of the JSM version for the F-35.

@Quadbike & Swerve,
that images dates back to 2002 or earlier. It’s just a number of weapon options proposed, but that’s it. What weapons will be integrated depends on the customer’s requirements and it’s certainly possible to integrate all of those, albeit it’s more than unlikely that we’ll see all of them. Possibly a fraction of that.

@rayrubik,
agreed this (weapons) could turn out to be one of the weak spots for the Typhoon. It’s of course possible to integrate more weapons afterwards, but that’s up to the IAF whether it requires full capabilities from day one or whether it’s able to live with a stepped approach. I could imagine that weapons integration could be accelerated if the Typhoon would be selected. At least the Brimstone and Storm Shadow.

Btw. does the IAF really uses the Kh-59M? I’ve never seen it on any Su-30MKI.

@Eagle,
I don’t think that the length of the production run is the biggest issue here as long as all are in production in the required time frame. More important is the question of whether other customers will sustain operations and whether the customer base is large enough. I think that the Super Hornet and Typhoon are best positioned here, followed by the F-16 and Rafale. The MiG-35 and Gripen NG score worst here from the current point of view (no orders for both). I might add that I talk about the partially very specific versions of the aircraft being on offer, the F-16IN, Gripen IN and MiG-35 in particular. Rafale, SH and Typhoon are more close to the configuration which is on offer for the IAF with the SH and Rafale probably taking the lead here.
Broadly agree with the rest of your assessment.

@Ken,
to my understanding the designation Su-27PU was never used and is reported to be a media/journalistic invention probably derived from the internal designation T-10PU. Time to browse through my material again, According this page it’s indeed the 596:
http://www.mars.slupsk.pl/fort/sukhoi/su-30-ru-lii.htm

BTW all the Aerobatic teams aircraft (Su-27RV former Su-27PD and the 2 Su-30RV) were shaved off their operational equipment and reportedly fitted with IACO compatible radios and navigation systems.

@Aurel,
you have to take into account that the MiG-27 & -29 as well as the Jaguar and Mirage 2000 are rather old right now. Even with life extension their useful service time won’t be much longer than 2025 at best. With the AMCA being a couple of years away from operational service it’s quite likely that the MMRCA will in fact replace the above mentioned types in all their roles. I think the Rafale would fit neatly in. At the end it depends on the IAFs true requirements and priorities as well as the weighting of other factors such as ToT, costs etc. Depending on the weighting every contenders have their pros and cons and could be considered as ideal.

MiG-35:
This aircraft could benefit from established links with the OEM and synergies with other Russian made fighters operated by the IAF/IN and it’s the cheapest to procure, but most likely not the cheapest though not necessarily most expensive aircraft to operate. Political benefits would be close to non existant and while full ToT is offered there isn’t much the Indians could gain, especially if you consider their involvement in the FGFA.

F-16IN:
A proven and mature weapons system with a lot of weapons options, it’s rather cheap to operate and quite competitive wrt price. The US is most likely the country to offer the greatest political gains, but ToT might be an issue. The F-16IN shares little commonality with other F-16 variants in service and the large customer base is subsequently not a given advantage as no one else, spare the UAE operates a similar model. The types growth potential is limited as well.

F/A-18E/F:
The same pros and cons wrt ToT and political gains as with the F-16IN. Certainly a mature, highly advanced and very flexible aircraft. An attractive plus could be the offer of an EA-18G Lite. The airframe offers limited performance however and the carrier related stuff is further hampering performance on an aircraft which would not be employed from carriers in the first place. The size and related operational costs are another problem. The availability for carrier ops might be interesting for the IN, but let’s not forget about the MMRCA being an IAF programme.

Gripen NG:
The Swedes often offered lucrative offset and ToT packages in the past, though the contents of foreign technology is high and issues might arose from this. The political gains are minimal as Sweden is no country with a great political weight on the international scene. The aircraft as possibly the one with the lowest LCC which may add some weight to it. The aircraft is advanced and continues to evolve, though there might be a rather limited customer base which may be problematic and it is one of the least developed contenders entailing a certain development risk (that’s not a must have).

Rafale:
The potential political gains are moderate, not as high as that from the US, but better than those from the Russians or Swedes. Dassault appears to be keen to offer an attractive ToT package to secure that deal. The aircraft has a robust roadmap, offers a lot of growth potential and is relative mature by now. The development risk is subsequently close to null. What’s speaking against the Rafale is its price and the fact that there is “only” France operating this aircraft.

Typhoon:
The political gains are most likely 2nd only to that of the US and the proposed ToT & offsets look pretty good as well. The aircraft offers a good customer base, excellent performance and great growth potential. But there are a couple of things which aren’t yet available and this might drive up costs, which are the greatest issue of this aircraft here anyway.

So my feeling is basically in line with what has been reported, the Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet are the most likely contenders for the short listing. Which aircraft would best be suited depends on the requirements as stated above.

If the IAF wants a cheap aircraft to be operated in large numbers and if costs are a major concern I would opt for the Gripen.

If political gains, ToT etc. carry more weight and the IAF intends to operate an aircaft not too close to the Tejas I would opt for one of the three other contenders. Depending on the weighting of AA and AG requirements I would either opt for the Rafale or Typhoon, though the SH has its own merits.

But that’s just my humble opinion on that matter.

Thanks Ken, the other one was 598 IIRC?
Is it known which numbers are worn by the Su-30s of the Russian Knights team or are they in fact Su-27UB? Can’t remember to have seen a Su-30 in Russian Knights colours.

Quoting myself

That the Rafale can engage AA and AG targets simultaneously is yet another topic as different sensors can be used to do so (i.e. SPECTRA/Damocles to target AG targets and RBE2/OSF to engage AA targets).

That’s what I said. The bolded passages are of relevance and they mean the following:
1.) Simultaneous engagement of AA & AG targets doesn’t need the radar to operate in AA & AG modes

2.) Different sensors are used to acquire AA & AG targets

3.) If my english skills doesn’t fool me i.e. means the same as “for example”, so it is an example! NOT MORE, NOT LESS!

How you can interpret this (your post)…:

OOOh! Wait, I just got it. You’re so very right!
The RBE2 can’t designate targets to the AM39!
We use only OSF so we just don’t shoot Exocets on rainy days!

Darn! How did I miss that!

Good day all.

… is beyond me. I have by no means insisted that the RBE2 has no SEA mode, that’s your self invented issue and by riding on it you just show your utter incapability to deal with what’s being discussed, you are essentially leading a monologue with yourself!

Maybe you take a minute more next time to make sure you actually understand what’s being said and if you don’t understand it, either don’t reply or ask what’s meant.

Thank you in advance.

Tay,
it would help if you spare us such sarcastic/ironical comments as they don’t contribute to the discussion.

You are posting a lot of links and stuff, but no link actually answers my question! So the last time, because I’m getting tired of repeating my self over and over again:
The RBE2 CAN INTERLEAVE SOME MODES/FUNCTIONS. It can do scan here while track there, it can combine TF and TA modes to generate a 3-D map permitting the aircraft to perform terrain contour flights and simultaneously track AA targets.

AGAIN my question is:
Can the RBE2 acquire a fixed ground target or a naval target at the same time it searches/tracks aerial targets? It’s actually not that difficult is it?

That a GMTI/T mode isn’t available yet has been confirmed and that the UAE demands more interleaving between AA & AG modes has been stated as well and that’s why I’m asking these questions.

US AESA radars can simultaneously track AA and AG targets, including moving AG targets and they can overlay the GMTI/T contacts over a SAR map etc. The potential offered by ESA, especially AESA radars is known, the question is what’s being implemented in reality, what’s planned and with what schedule etc.

@inkworm,
the arrestor hook is for emergency situations only, in the case the aircraft fails to slow down by other means (wheel brake failure for example etc.). There were some occasions where arrested landings were conducted in emergency situations. The arrestor hook is not designed for carrier operations however, if that was your question.