Please share the joint reports (or confirmation from SAF) that the MKI comprehensively beat the F-16 once you find those. Im not aware of any

It is immature to think that RSAF or the IAF will officially trumpet/admit loss/officially confirm who got what.But there has been some other reports which provide indications.Like this.(original link apparently gone)

NEW DELHI: India need not lose sleep even if Pakistan manages to acquire more F-16 fighters from the US. After plastering American combat pilots in an exercise earlier this year, IAF top guns now have another reason to be gung ho: their top-notch mean machines have proved more than a match for F-16s, the much-vaunted ‘fighting falcons’.
Russian-origin Sukhoi-30MKI jets are apparently outgunning American F-16s on “several aspects” at the ongoing Indo-Singapore air combat exercise in Gwalior.
“Our Sukhois are doing very well against the F-16Cs (of Singapore Air Force) in terms of manoeuvrability, sophistication of avionics and weapon systems. Similarly, our MiG-29s and Mirage-2000s are also matching up to the F-16s,” say IAF sources.

Acig says

At least one Su-30MKI and one Su-30K participated in joint exercise ‘SINDEX’ with the RSAF at Gwalior. Having noted the one-sided result of Cope India, the Singaporeans did their homework and came fully prepared. The result was a more balanced outcome, although one Russian magazine had noted that the F-16 was totally outclassed by the Flanker.

Also lets not forget CopeII(F-16) or Istres(M2K5) where the Su30Ks performed very well.
BTW..lets not obfuscate the issues with bringing in strawmen arguments like “combat proven” and “systems integration problem” which were your original contentions,why do you think that the MKI wouldnt be at a distinct advantage over the F-16 with superior range,payload,avionics and sensor package supermanouevrability and comparable air-to-air weaponry?

The results of exercises are ofcourse used to improve specific tactics. But to hold those results as the true capability measure of one system against the other is false

That means the results are nullified!?!So as you are saying they are used to improve specific tactics,so on what basis would you improve your tactics since the results are nullified?On what basis would some airforce try to develop specific tactics for/against specific aircrafts since they do not give any indication about the capabilities of different aircraft against each other,their strength and weaknesses?
How-ever much you want to downplay it(which is quite understandable;) ),the results are not at all nullified and they act as a valuable tool for the commanders in planning and fine tuning the principles/procedures by which aircrafts engage each other in a future conflict.

As i said, if i was flying a plane in combat, id rather be in one where the integration of the components has been tested in real-use scenarios and over a long time over multiple theatres and where the vendors have a history of working together and integration is done by an experianced team.
I trust the guys at LM as they have been doing this for the F-16 for ages now and have access to all they need inhouse and from within the US. There are no IP and security related barriers they have to overcome and the system has been proven in active combat to work by multiple airforces. (USAF, PAF, IDF and others).

So that means you would rather be in a Mig21FL with all components tested in real-use scenario and all of them accessed inhouse during production than a Su30 just because its systems come from different vendors.Thats ridiculous.At least you dropped the “tested in real combat” excuse when pointed out that nothing of that sort ever happened.;)

Forget the Erieyes.I think PAF is in a very bad state now with all its F-7PGs and the ROSE upgraded Mirages grounded due to problems with integration of systems got from various vendors.:rolleyes:

Is there a report from singapore that details the results of the exercise? Or even a joint report by the two airforces?

I am talking about Cope 2005 at Kalaikunda AFB.And there are plenty of reports on that.About SINDEX there should be reports I have to look.

The thing with exercises is that you can limit the exercise parameters and that nullifies the whole result of the exercise. That is way proven war performance is so critical.

Are you joking?It “nullifies” the whole result?If you cannot use the exercises to get feedback and improve then why have exercises at all??:rolleyes: btw..the parameters limit the performance of both teams and not only one side.

Integrating software and hardware from various vendors from various countries that have never worked together ( and without access to source code from each other) impacts the performance and is an integration nightmare. This is true in all systems.

Total BS.So you mean to say that the upgrades being done with equipment from different vendors have problems and dont perform as per potential? Almost all of IAF fleet now include subsystems from various vendors and work just fine.

And the system that has been tested in a real use scenario (ie war) is much more trust worthy in my books then one that isnt.

What real war scenario are you talking about where the Blk-52 F-16s have faced 4th generation opposition of a well established opponent Air force?

Wrong. The same display is featured on the MKI..

Ah well..!It is present in the MKI it seems.Couldnt see it on the pictures I had.Thanks.

Yes, instead of El-Op SU967, a model made by Thales is installed.

Yup.

.

It has a data-uplink.

From Janes Missiles and Rockets.(thanks to JCage @BR for posting that).

DERBY

Type Medium-range, active radar-guided air-to-air missile

Development

In May 2001 Israel’s Rafael ended years of speculation and rumour when it unveiled its advanced Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air-to-air missile for the first time. Developed in great secrecy during the late-1980s and 1990s, the new missile has the Israeli service name Derby – a randomly generated codename of the type allocated by Israel’s Ministry of Defence to any classified national defence programme.

Over the years various other project titles or codenames have been associated with the Derby programme in the press, such as ‘Project 5’, ‘Python 5′, `Alto’, ‘Firefly’, ‘Glory’ and ISRAAM. With no details available of the missile’s development history it is impossible to say whether some or any of these programme names have any basis in fact – either as part of the Derby project or other AAM missile developments. What is clear is that the Derby shares a common development history with South
Africa’s R-Darter active radar BVR missile. Developed by Kentron (Denel) the first public details of the R-Darter were also released early in 2001. Both the Derby and R-Darter are almost identical, with imperceptible differences setting them apart. The collaborative portion of the development programme undertaken with Denel may have been code-named ‘Alto’, but the Israeli and South African programmes
are reported to have diverged at some point during the 1990s.

Rafael is marketing the combination of Python 4 and Derby as a total air defence package, that is unhindered by the export restrictions applied to the latest generation of US air-to-air missiles. The Derby has been designed so that its own ‘no escape zone’ overlaps that of the Python 4. An unconfirmed report stated that the missile entered low-rate initial production in July 1998. Rafale has already spoken
of a possible dual-mode seeker option as a future upgrade. Discussions were previously reported with Raytheon for dual-mode seeker technology and Raytheon may have reached an agreement to this end, with Rafael.

Description

The Derby is an active-radar, all-weather, all-aspect air-to-air missile with a BVR capability. It has a look down/shoot down capability, and missiles can be fired against multiple targets simultaneously. The Derby joins the small and exclusive club of the world’s operational active-radar homing missiles that includes Raytheon’s AIM-120 AMRAAM, MBDA MICA and Vympel R-77.

The Derby is based on the same basic body design as Rafael’s Python 4 agile dogfight missile, using many of the Python 4’s internal components and a variant of the same rocket motor. The two missiles have the same diameter of 160 mm. Derby weighs 118 kg, and is light enough to be carried on the wingtip pylons of an F-16, for example. The Derby is smaller and lighter than the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

The missile is tipped with an active RF/IF seeker, behind which are mounted four triangular pitch-and-yaw control fins. These are mounted unusually far forward, when compared to other AAMs of a similar configuration. Immediately behind these fins are two additional rectangular roll-stabilisation control vanes, which are symmetrically offset in relation to the four fins. The two square-cut control surfaces are similar in form and function to those found on the Python 4. Positioned in the turbulent airflow from the forward main control vanes, they provide enhanced manoeuvrability and control, particularly at high angles of attack. Behind the seeker radome, located sequentially in the main missile fuselage, are the Derby’s RF/IF unit, forward servo unit, seeker electronics assembly, missile electronics unit, inertial measuring unit, proximity fuse, warhead and rocket motor. At the rear of the missile are four squared-off fins. These are described as ‘wings’ by Rafael and so presumably must contribute some aerodynamic lift over extended-ranges, as well as providing basic stability for the missile. The rear fins are also actuated, on demand.

The Derby is fitted with an active radar seeker, with a compact gimballed antenna, developed by Israeli Aircraft Industries’ MBT Division. According to Rafael, the missile has advanced ECCM (electronic counter-countermeasures) capability, that is programmable and adaptable according to a customer’s request – or upon the emergence of new threats. It is known that the missile’s seeker underwent extensive test and development at Rafael’s SEMMEL simulation facility, where trials on the missile’s guidance laws and seeker ECCM capability were undertaken in the anechoic test chamber.

SEMMEL uses a three-axis moving platform, on which the seeker is mounted, with a range of target simulators and an antenna array to generate a hostile EW environment. The experience gained at SEMMER was used to cut down the number of flight trials needed.

The Derby has two basic operating modes – Lock-On-After Launch (LOAL) for medium range engagements, and Lock-On-Before-Launch (LOBL) for short-range engagements. In a LOAL engagement the Derby would be fired using cues from the launch aircraft’s fire control radar, or perhaps other onboard sensor such as an infra-red search-and-track system. The missile would fly out using its inertial navigation system for guidance until closing to within radar range of the target. On reaching that point, the missile’s radar seeker would go into an active search mode, locking up the target for the terminal homing phase. For greater accuracy over extended ranges, the Derby has a datalink update capability – referred to as the ‘Derby uplink’ – that allows targeting data to be transmitted from the launch aircraft to provide more accurate mid-course guidance. This is particularly important against fast-moving or manoeuvring targets. The missile also has the ability to receive datalink updates from other platforms besides the launch aircraft. This would permit a ‘stealthy’ missile shot whereby the launch aircraft does not need to activate its own radar to locate a target – thereby reducing the risk of its own detection.

Over shorter ranges it is possible to use the Derby in a ‘fire-and-forget’ LOBL mode, by designating a target with the missile’s own radar seeker prior to launch. When used in this way the missile is most likely to be cued by a Helmet-Mounted Display (HMD), or boresighted through the aircraft’s HUD if a HMD option is not available. It can be assumed that the Derby is already compatible with the Elbit DASH HMD system, in service in Israel and elsewhere.

Rafael has released a few outline performance figures for Derby. If launched at M0.9 at 25,000 ft against a head-on target the missile has a range in excess of 35 nm (63 km), however its maximum range, or an its effective seeker range, remain highly classified. It must be assumed, in the light of the company’s demonstrated Python 4 experience, that the Derby has substantial kinematic performance and ‘end game’ manoeuvrability.
Operational status

Israel’s air force, the IDFAF, was closely involved in drawing up the requirement and system definition for the Derby missile. Captive carriage flight trials and test launches were conducted by the IDFAF, and ‘dozens’ of missiles have reportedly been fired in the process. The Derby uses the same launcher as the Rafael Python 4 and so it is available for use on any aircraft capable of carrying the Python 4, with the appropriate radar and databus connectivity. The Derby’s light weight also opens up a wide range of potential launch aircraft, though so far it has been shown almost exclusively fitted to the F-16C/D.

Integration work is also understood to have been undertaken with the Mirage/Kfir and F-5E. According to Rafael the Derby is not in service with the IDFAF, but is in service with one foreign customer. It is unclear if this is a reference to South Africa’s R-Darter missiles which are understood to be operational on SAAF Cheetah Cs (heavily upgraded Mirage IIIs). Rafael has released a photo of a Derby-class missile mounted on a aircraft that shares the Kfir 2000/Cheetah C configuration, but the exact type and
operator of the aircraft is not clear from the view – which has been deliberately chosen to hide such details. Press reports during 2001 stated that the Derby had been offered as a weapons option to Chile for its new Block 50 F-16Cs, which were ordered in December 2000. Chile has requested the AIM-120 AMRAAM for its F-16s, but the US State Department is reluctant to release the weapon for export in South America.

Chile already operates IAI-upgraded F-5E Tigre IIIs, which are armed with the Python 4 missile (and equipped with the EL/M-2032 multimode radar), so the addition of the Derby into the FAC inventory would seem like a logical step. Israeli press reports have alleged that Brazil has selected the Derby to arm its upgraded F-5s (along with the Python 4). Other reports in mid-2001 credited a Rafael representative as confirming that the Derby is already in service with an F-5E operator.

The IDFAF says that is currently has no available funds to procure the Derby for its own aircraft, and the service has instead been working hard to win AMRAAM export approval for its F-15 and F-16 force. Nevertheless senior IDFAF officers have stated the need to have both AMRAAM and Derby available to the air force and Rafael does expect to win an order in the near future.

Specifications

Length: 362 cm
Body diameter: 16 cm
Wing span: 64 cm
Launch weight: 118 kg
Warhead: n/a
Fuze: proximity
Guidance: inertial mid-course, with datalink updates, active radar terminal phase
Propulsion: solid rocket motor
Range: over 35 nm (63 km)

Contractor
Rafael Missile Division, Haifa, Israel.

Sounds like they decided to go with the 2032 then. Interesting they didnt go down the M2K-9/Mica route. However the 2032 gives the IAF the ability to upgrade to the AESA 2052 in the future with out to much difficulty if they so desire.

Yeah..Israeli partnership is going on for sometime now,but now it seems like that partnership is going to cost the French.

Reasons probably are 1.commonality 2.better/similar capabilities at lower prices 3.already existing co-operation on several levels;) .

Whats the latest status of the 2052?It would have been much better if they went in for the AESA right now.The M2Ks will soldier on till at least 2025.So they are putting 2032 now,when will they put 2052 again?

But this is not right, whats so sad about a Mig 35? If not anything I bet they can deliver them faster than any other birds.

Cmon mate lets not start another MRCA debate.You feel 🙂 and I feel 🙁 .Lets keep it at that.

If that doesn’t help you feel better, then think about the alternative – Teens in IAF colors 😮

If Rafale is truly out then I will think about Typhoon to keep myself feeling better:diablo:

BTW, I’ve seen R77 engagement ranges for 5sqm targets @ 70km.
Regards,
USS.

I dunno..Rosoboronexport says 50 km(max) against fighters and 80 km(max) against bombers..and Tactical Missiles Corp JSC(manufacturer for Ru armed forces) says 80 km max from front hemisphere.

But anyway..that is sufficient for the moment.

70nm for a fighter sized target = RDY Mk2

70 nm..could be RDY-2,but Israeli weapons make me think could be 2032 also.

Weaponry- Israeli- Derby,

What?I cant believe this.. Derby instead of Mica?! That could mean Rafale is out of the MRCA race..:eek:

Although popeye is good..but then no scalp.They previously considered the popeye for the MKI didnt they?

4 Derbys + 2 Python + Bombs/missiles = Mirage 2000 V style 9 pylons.

Yup..9 pylons..but why would they carry 4 derbys and 2 Pythons with bombs and missiles…in AD missions 4 BVRAAM +2 WVRAAM +say 2 2000L tanks in A2G role probably only 2 WVRAAM or at best 2 Derbys also…LDP(Lightning) and tanks.

French fit on the Mirage 2000 and how good is it?

EW fit is IMEWS(Integrated Multimission Electronic Warfare System) on the 2000-9 from Elettronica and ICMS 3 on the M2k-5 mk2 from Thales..afaik both are pretty comparable(and pretty capable) but IMEWS has a more powerful jammer than the ICMS 3

This is an old report of UAE getting M2K-9s which states..

The Mirage 2000-9’s integrated multimission electronic warfare system (IMEWS), developed by Thales and Elettronica, is characterized by French engineers as a targeting-capable system, with more precise and faster range measurement capabilities than the Rafale’s Spectra, allowing the aircraft to perform defense-suppression missions.

ICMS

The Integrated Counter Measures Suite (ICMS) is an integrated, internally mounted EW suite for the Mirage 2000/2000-5 family. This is a highly sophisticated modular system, where detection, jamming and decoying are linked to a central interface and management unit. The latest version, based on fully digital technology, offers the choice of new built-in options such as real-time 3D covert situation awareness, high precision covert targeting, ESM and technical ELINT in addition to standard self-protection functions.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/aerospace/militarymissions/systems/electronic_warfare/1_178_207_65.html

Also this:

• The ICMS integrated countermeasures suite
Mirage 2000s delivered to overseas Air Forces are equipped with the ICMS
countermeasures suite developed by Thales, which incorporates high-sensitivity detection,
electromagnetic jamming and deception functions.
Mirage 2000s currently on delivery are equipped with the ICMS Mk3, which is all-digital and
uses advanced jamming techniques tailored to today’s electromagnetic environments. ICMS
Mk3 also incorporates passive ELINT and high-precision localisation functions

Thales produces the electronic warfare planning tools associated with the ICMS Mk3