uss noviceComing to the radar.
In exercises within India, there are clear reports, of the IAF using a limited number of modes in the exercise vs Tornados and the same would have been done with the Typhoons later. With due respect to all those who believe the IAF would use its kit liberally, that too in front of OEMs who supply systems worldwide including to a regional adversary, I’d disagree, as the IAF has no compulsion to reveal such details.
Otoh, it could be that the Tiffy folks were under no such compulsion. Their compulsion, was one of selling -. perhaps led them to use the Captor and other systems to full effect. Would explain the “thwacking” that the MKI got I s’pose.
No denying that the EF is a super bird, however, how well an AESA equipped EF does against the Super 30 or Su-35 or RSA Eagles is another question altogether. V.v.tough opponents indeed.
USS.
uss novice@USS
the 15/6 figure was the specified figure for the original N-011 which reportedly failed to achieve this. The 20/8 figure for the N-011M was the figure specified, but once again not achieved. BTW Captor has tracked targets at said distance, Not just detected. On top of that antenna size doesn’t mean powerful, the Irbis has two TWTs based on that of the Bars with a total power output of 20 kW. That means the Bars has a power output of Not more than 10 kW. It’s even stated that an “earlier” variant had a 5 kW transmitter! This could explain why the reported range figures for Bars and Captor aren’t to dissimilar as the latter is possibly more powerful while the aperture is smaller. Antenna gain is yet another factor relevant for range performance.
Couple of points here:
1) There is reason to believe that the 20/8 “unachievable” figure had been achieved circa 2009, and the 20/6 figure before that date. The possibility that such figures were unachievable I believe, were restricted to the 90s and possibly early 2000s. There is a reason the Bars comes in mks 1, 2, and 3. Consider also that even the comparatively plain jane N001 on the Su-30K provided the flanker first look over the F-15Cs.
2) Re. the TWT, hard to say, there are reports that provide a range of output figures (4.5 – 8 kW). I wouldn’t be surprised if you find an Irbis type 10kW in the newer MKIs.
3) As far as the Captor is concerned, there are no real figures to go by, the best I could get was peak output = 2X Apg 65 (iirc ~ 4.5kW), makes it closer to 9kW for the Captor. This does not translate into the kind of ranges that are suggested, 240-250km detection ranges for 5msq size targets or 180km “tracking” ranges.
My whole point though, and this goes for EELightning as well, is that even though there may be some points in which the Tiffy is ahead, there is too little to make a comment that suggests a “generational” difference between the two a/c. The Tiffy is not a Raptor, and the MKI is certainly no vanilla MiG-23 or even 29.
USS
uss noviceA bit of research wouldn’t hurt though.
F-35A and C variants.
Once again, Scorpion82 has just explained it better than just about anyone of us could.
Fair enough re. the JSF variants – forgot about ’em. But still, the a/c primed for A2A seem to prefer tvc (F22, Pakfa, J20?).
As far as Scorpion’s detailed description goes, it only further highlights my point that assuming a tech superiority for the Tiffy, this supposed superiority is hardly a “generational” difference – the difference is marginal at best. And surely, we don’t know what that translates to in terms of performance. Not as though the MKI was facing a Raptor!
Also, there are limitations to any analysis, even one as good as Scorp’s. There are too many unknowns:
I for one, find it unconvincing that a mech scanned array, which is decidedly smaller (0.78msq vs. 0.38msq – almost a difference of 2X in area) is going to have the same/similar power as a PESA of the same era, which has certain natural advantages to boot. Too many unknowns for sure:
There are references to the captor having detected a certain f4/mig-29 (5msq) bet 160km and a bomber type target (100sqm?) at around 370km as per a recent post.
By the same token, a Bars supposedly detected a flanker (15msq) at ~ 340kms.
Again, while declared TWS/engage figures for the Captor are ~ 20/6, Bars figures range from 15/4 (since the 90s) to 15/6 and as much as 20+/8 in more recent times.
Go figure.
USS
uss noviceI can’t wait for the Indian reply to this and the RAF Chief’s justification/clarification of said statement.
In either case, the comment(s) was not a good idea as some have said before – delicate egos all over the place could get frayed – bad for business imho.
USS>
uss novice@USS,
You seem to forget which Tranche Typhoon is on offer for India. You’ll win a cookie if you can guess which one. You’ll get an extra special cookie if you can guess what it comes with!
Well, I kinda sorta gave up on that tranche thing a long time back, ditto with all those flanker variations damned M, SM, MK, MK2, MKA/I/M, UB, SK, 35, 27, 30 WTH! At least the frenchies have ’em down to something my modest brain can get a wrap around – Rafale F1, 2, 3, 4 etc. So I guess no cookie for me 🙁
And since when TVC was “next generation technology”?
True, not exactly a new thing this, but iirc, only 5 gen birds (apart from Flanker variants and the venerable Shar) tend to sport it as a norm. I mean, what gen 5 bird doesn’t have TVC?
So in a sense, the current MKI does sport certain tech that is decidedly ahead of the current Tiffy – somewhat contrary to what the good Chief said (MKIs were whacked because of obvious tech superiority of the Tiffy in the exercises).
My point is that the supposed technological superiority of the Typhoon over an MKI is not exactly obvious.
Also, as far as India getting new tranche tiffys goes (with AESA etc), this is hardly a big deal, their Su-30 upgrade is also slated to get similar stuff, heck so is the LCA in its newer avatar (ala Gripen NG).
IOWs, IF the Typhoon in its current form or future variants claims to have a tech edge over existing or near future IAF inventory, this advanatage is marginal at best. Not as overwhelming/obvious as the Chief’s comments suggest. Surely nothing “next generational” in that.
I think Teer might have hit it on the head – if the MKIs were playing with the Bars in a restricted mode, I can see why they would get “whacked”, however, it seems a rather a tall claim otherwise.
USS.
uss noviceErm, what on the Typhoon qualifies for “next generation technologies” compared to the MKI?
My guess:
Engines and possibly PIRATE.
Otoh, the MKI certainly has certain next gen technologies compared to the Tiffy, namely a PESA radar and TVC. Doesn’t it also have an HMS, which the Typhoon does not?
So, IAF MiG-21 bison and MKI > R/USAF f-16s and F-15s (CIndia + Simbex). BUT
Tiffy > MKI (INdradhanush), BUT
Rafale > TIffy (ATLC, UAE), BUT
F-16 > Rafale AND Tiffy [HAF/PAF supposedly beat RAF tiffys & MN RAF(ales)].
I say the MiG-21 Bison is the best – never got beat! . Didn’t that colonel chappy say that it could give the F22 a run for its money? 😀
But I’ve got to say that this MRCA deal is sure bringing out some crazy statements from the Tiffy folks: wasn’t there one about how the Tiffy was better than the Rafale in A2G? Now this. Jeez, I smell desperation.
USS.
uss noviceCan you fit an RD-93 into the fuselage of a J-7 (Mig-21F13 derivative)?
Dunno, but iirc the russians did offer to stick the rd 33 in a MiG-21 upgrade prog.
uss
uss novicebetter comparison might be with the MiG-21 variants. The IAF Bison will prolly last till 2018. However, I reckon HAF phantoms might go past that date.
USS.
uss noviceWhy Asraam? Might buy IRIS-T (already integrated on Typhoon), or even AIM-9X, or integrate something Israeli. Rafale would also imply Meteor, BTW. France has ordered it. Or just integrate Astra. If it’s good enough for Indian-built aircraft, why not?
Whether Asraam or IRIS -T/Aim 9X, my point is that this will add considerably to the weapons supply chain issue. I mentioned the Asraam because it was indicated as that this might be the SRAAMs for Jags.
I mean how many SRAAMs does the IAF want/need – R73, Asraam (for Jags), Python, R73SD?, mica IIR.
but the mmrca delays made the upgrades essential which means instead of the mmrca quickly replacing ALL the obsolete medium weight types, a significant number have had to be upgraded and will soldier on. plus is we are getting better kit than originally planned mirage 2000 and now aim to replace upgraded medium weight types with a stealthy AMCA
Yes, but the M2k upgrades will start coming in AFTER the MRCA is inducted. Why not just do an inhouse/LUSH type and order a few extry mrcas in the bargain.
I am so not convinced about this outrageous deal –
1) Super pricey
2) Super slow/late
3) Super pedestrian – no AESA, no IRST, no new engine. WTF!
They better be subsidizing the Rafale with this. Buying a goldplated typhoon at another insane price would be crazy –
1) Tiffy not as convincing in terms of multirole
2) Tiffy not convincing against J20 (irrespective of mft claims). Not even v. convincing against AESA equipped J11s (whenever that happens).
3) Tiffy not convincing in terms of logistics and parts commonality
4) Tiffy not convincing in terms of further development opportunity
5) Tiffy fly muy muy fast but cost muy muy grande.
5) Tiffy no good 🙂
USS.
uss noviceCrazy bloody price, but what is with 9 years!!! It is not like Dassault is doing this for the first time. May be they put an RBE Aesa, plus Spectra, plus new engines – kinda mini Rafale. Increase commonality with Rafale as MRCA.
IF the Tiffy wins, I see lots of cons too – for one, IAF will be tinkering with 3-4 different weapon sets – Mica (IIR/EM), Amraam?/Meteor, Astra, R77 (and derivatives), R73, Asraam.
Fighter inventory around 2020 would be: MiG-29, Mirage 2000, Su-30, LCA mk1, LCA mk2, Jaguar, MiG-27?, Typhoon, Pakfa. Sh*t!
They had better be doing things to alleviate the logistics nightmare that this probly involves. Rafale would be a step in the right direction. India can always be involved in developing future upgrades, if development is what it is seeking. possibly commonalize with AMCA in terms of engines and other aspects.
If this is being done to placate Fra, they could have used a far better alternative by giving them the submarine tender. Placating OEMs makes little sense imho – no strategic value, whenever India has done this (in case of MiG for ex), it has been out of a deg. of squeezing by Russia and lack of better choices. This here does not seem to be the case. By giving deals to both LM and Boeing, India might mollify the US, there is no need to placate either OEM – what leverage do they have over India? Nucking futts – still can’t get over this crazy price!
USS.
uss novice$ 4 billion for M2k upgrade??? 😮 My guess:
1) Rafale is out of contention for MRCA and Dassault/Fra have been given a consolation price. OR
2) Rafale is in and this $ 4 billion is being used to subsidize it. How else can 126 Rafales (w. weapons, support etc) fit in a $ 10-11 billion budget?
USS.
uss noviceYes, i believe the main S300 radar has degradation at low altitude, that’s why it has the low altitude radar for helping out. Shorads if they have a clean horizon are very quick to reply to low flying targets. But they get saturated too…
Thing is the window of opportunity for a Shorad vs. a brahmos type at low level is v.small. First, the incoming missile is much faster. Two, it is coming in at low level, which means degraded acquisition 10-15km (10 odd seconds), three it may actually do some maneuvers.
The shorad can probly engage such a fast inbound missile only head on (interception), tail chase would not be possible as the target might be faster than the SAM. Perhaps the brahmos can designed to get shorads as well, a shorad system afterall, costs about 10 times the brahmos.
USS.
uss noviceHmm, the Super 30MKI upgrade is probably the likely candidate for the AL-31FM2 @ 14500kgf. Isn’t salyut responsible for MKI AL-31FPs?
USS
uss noviceWhere are you getting that from? The 400km missile for the S-400 might well be delayed, but even that isn’t completely certain.
Hmm, you may be right perhaps it was the longer ranged S400 missiles that had me confused. Btw, how are these missiles guided at such insane ranges – 200-400km? Definitely not radar or do they carry a powerful seeker onboard?
I do feel though that really fast missiles with ranges between 100-150km on a low trajectory would stand a decent chance.
An airlaunched brahmos might work if it follows a hi-lo-lo trajectory. I believe its range is sacrificed at lower altitudes though. Still, if launched at around 200km+, it might cause problems if it can manage to get into its lo trajectory within 80 odd kms (about 45 seconds?) and manages the remaining 120km at low alt. I suppose the S300/shorad radars will experience a level of degradation at lower altitudes, which might mean that only Shorads would have a chance. But then they have to detect and launch at a v.fast, low flying target in a v.short time!
Still, this too would not guarantee results, and a brahmos is bloody expensive to throw at shorads
ARMs are a good idea too but could be detected/engaged at long ranges considering they normally fly at high altitudes (?).
Best option seems to be the stealth one – allowing engagement at super speeds and shorter ranges. The hypersonic version of a brahmos (with longer range) might also be interesting.
USS.
uss noviceS-300 MPU1: Search radar: 300km, missile engagement range: 150km (source: HAF’s website).
PMU2: engagement range: 200 Km.
Did they ever get the missile with that kind of range figured out? Last i remember they were having a time of it with the 150km ranged missile.
IMHO, to kill the S300, you have the following options:
1) Stand-off ammunition fired in excess of the S-300 engangement’s zone capable on locking to the S300’s radar position. Enough ammunition to saturate S-300’s own missiles (since they have anti-ballistic ability too) and eventually SHORADS that protect it.
This is the safest bet imho.
2) If you lack ammunition with so much range, go in flying very very low. Because the performance of the main radar degrades on lower altitudes, hence why it is used as auxiliary the 76N6 low altitude radar, which though has lesser range than the main radar. So one could try to fly very very low, preferably take advantage of mountain cover up to a point, gain altitude, fire the missiles to saturate the S300, drop low down again and flee. It would probably imply losses, but the target should be destroyed. Or, you can fly at below 30 ft, which is the minimum engangement altitude of the S300 and drop an iron bomb on it without the S300 being able to respond. :p
Suicidal mission but worth a try. IIRC, IAF jags are specially focused on such low level heroism. They are very confident/pleased with what the Jag can do – hence the $ 2 bil tag to upgrade the engines. IIRC, Jags did exceptionally well in exercises conducted with the USAF and USN.
3) Soft kill the S300 with so many large numbers of aircrafts that will force it to hide and wait for an ambush opportunity (one of the reasons that the low altitude radar is a mast-like 33m high radar, is to allow the S300 to get into the woods and use the 76N6 radar as its only radar, above the tree line).
* Precautionary step: Take out any other main air defence radars in the wider area before going after the S300. Just in case they play “smart” and use the main radars for surveillance while keeping the S300 with radar switched off on “stand-by” and before you know it you are inside the engagement zone of the S300 that you *thought* was elsewhere. This will force the S300 to emit with its own radar and reveal its position.
Tough proposal – you’d need a few growler types in there i’m guessing – that is one big ass radar system, and the missiles are command guided (arent they?).
You forget one option – use stealth a/c 😀
USS.
Sign In
