You have to consider that a Flanker will start using up fuel from the very beginning as well, once on a patrol quite some fuel is used. In a Typhoon the external fuel will be used so the reserves might be easily identical when the Typhoon drops the tanks.

AND

Ehm from where does the 4500 km range figure come from? The Su-27 had a range of 3680-4000 km on internal fuel that’s widely recognised. The Su-30MKI has the same fuel load, identical fuel consumption besides the engines, yet it is draggier and heavier. All sources I know give the of the Su-30MKI with 3000 km. What is the point about long endurance patrols?

AND

I highly doubt the Su-30 which is much heavier and draggier than the Typhoon yet using engines with similar or higher SFC and being stronger = more consumption will achieve a greater range than the Typhoon with similar fuel. It is just unrealistic wishthinking and I have no idea from where these data come, but they are nonsense.

The data for the su-30 comes from sukhoi.org, fas.org and bharat-rakshak.com. before dissing whats written as nonsense, please try to understand it. I never said that an MKI will have greater range than a tiffy with similar fuel, the point I made is, an MKI will have greater range than a tiffy with a similar percentage of fuel carried (60%). IOW, while @ 60% fuel capacity, the EF-2000 will carry ~ 2600kg, the MKI lands up carrying ~ 5200kg+ of fuel. The range and therefore combat radii difference @ these weights is obvious – 3000km+ vs 1300km (range), 1500km vs 650km (combat radius). these calculatiions are of course, approximate and perhaps the tiffy has slightly better figures. Still not enough to match the MKI. Also remember the figures for the MKI are not in clean config, its carrying about 750kgs worth of missiles for this 3000km range! At full internal fuel, the MKI ought to be able to do over 5000km range (fwiw, wiki, fas and BR confirms this). Btw, the MKI carries 250kg more fuel than the vanilla su-27.
this brings us to the point that the ef-2000 needs ~ 3X1000lt EFTs or full internal fuel (4900kg?) to match the MKI’s range @ 50-60% fuel. What does this do to the Ef-2000’s twr, drag coefficient and flight performance and RCS values (esp. if EFTs are indeed carried)? All of these are seriously compromised.
So for the EF-2000 in terms of A2A you are always looking at a tradeoff. If it lugs the EFTs (giving it the option to drop ’em), it pays the price in terms of RCS, drag and TWR; if it carries full internal fuel, it pays the price in terms of TWR; if it doesn’t carry the additional fuel, it simply does’t match the MKI’s range/endurance.

regards,
USS.

All OLS figures I see/saw give the 50 km/90 km figure but no of them specifies AB or non AB.

Upgrading an aircraft with so much composites is almost impossible, except you built a new airframe. Many of the “upgrades” are indeed no upgrades but a new airframe. Most of your upgrades are done, where is the future potential. How much lighter is the Su-35 in reality, no data has been disclosed… CFTs are a possibility to increase range if required.

It definitely works, F-22+AN/ALR-94+AIM-120C to give a hint. An IR missile can’t be launched at very long range with LOBL. Hence it will guide itself towards the thread using INS before acquiring the target with its seeker very much like any ARH AAM which receives no MCG. The problem here is pk.

Yes, I forgot about the raptor. however, my focus was mainly on the mrca birds – has the c5 even been integrated with the typhoon as yet? btw, iirc most MRAAMs use MCG, i’d think longer ranged one’s would need it even more.

For the Typhoon it wasn’t an afterthought, but not a great priority.

for the rafale otoh, it was definitely a strong area of focus and that should make some difference.

Interesting here would be to know what Dassault offers and what the IAF would require.

As of now little more is known apart from what i’ve posted (at least to me, more informed members are welcome to chip in)

Ehm just wonder what exactly is so surprising about the Zhuk-AE or MKI?

Just that they have fielded an AESA in double quick time. Similarly with the Su-35 as well and thats despite what folks on internet fora have been yelling about the russkies being under a cloud of the 90s turmoil. Don’t see the europeans despite the “better” economies churning out upgrades that quick.

Well those AWACS killers are not available for any Flanker, yet they are proposed since 15 years or so. I would like to see such weapons before I become more concerned.

don’t think you’ll have to wait long. 10-15 years ago, a flanker with such a radar did not really exist.

What bothers me is that people seem to believe that these missiles will achieve the brochure performances in any conditions against any target.

Not very different from tomtomming vaunted EF-2000 capabilities when hard facts are virtually unseen.

Sorry but I highly doubt any Flanker will be able to launch such a missile from 300-400 km at an advanced fighter target.

Perhaps not 300-400km, but 250 ought to be good enough for an irbis equipped flanker.

There are a lot of claims about the Typhoon’s RCS some sound more some others less impressive. Who knows how they are in reality. I agree that the RCS will rise with tanks and other stuff, but while tanks can be droped a huge airframe remains a huge airframe.

Yes, but what if your position is already compromised by then? First look makes a lot of difference right? still further, what happens to your endurance and operating radius when you drop the tanks? Can you still match the flanker in a cat and mouse game? Also, if you are going to lug those jugs to try and match the flanker’s range, what does it do to your flight performance? I’d agree with you that a clean config EF-2000 is more nimble than the flanker in certain supersonic regimes, but what happens when it starts to lug EFTs to match the flanker’s range?

Especially the MKI is a very heavy and also compareably draggy platform given the Flanker style twinseat tandem configuration. Add yet that the engines are still in the same thrust class as for the less draggier and lighter Su-27.

IIRC, the tvc is used to trim drag (even supersonic and if not at least in the high subsonic)

Well the problem is to find compareable “figures” for both aircraft to judge. BTW just being interested, has the Su-30MKI an internal jammer or not? As I understand it it has a high band component of the EL8222 internal and a low/medium band podded jammer?

Correct. Recent news reports do indicate a newer version of the tarang, mk3 i believe.

Yes, but only if both crew members act effectively as a team and the second seat means more weight, less fuel (or same fuel but even more weight), higher drag (at least in the Flankers case) and higher costs, especially operating costs.

err, don’t see why the mKI pilots wont be acting as a team. IAF training and tactics seems pretty uptodate it seems. Less fuel – the MKI still boasts a range of 4500km on internal fuel and an endurance of 4.5 hours. With IFR, the birds regularly fly sorties that are literally mind boggling: pune-jodhpur-tezpur-a&C islands-pune endurance of 10 hours. Simply not possible in a Tiffy – the pilot will probly lose his mind!

Could you elaborate on it?

We had some pretty interesting posts in the EF-2000 thread, compare the specs with the OLS-30 on the flanker. not much difference, esp. in terms of range.
the pirate is supposed to detect @ about 56-90km under normal circumstances, the OLS otoh, detects @ 50 non afterburning targets and “several times that” for AB targets!

In specific situations, especially simultaneous engagement of AA and AG targets a second crew member is definitely an advantage, if not a must. Nonetheless I don’t see what should be a disadvantage about sensor fusion. You may mean a to high degree of automatation leaving the pilot with a lower freedom of actions?

i think it has more to do with the amount of information a single pilot has to deal with at a given moment. the bloke simply might not be able to process all of it!

The MKIs range is just superior on internal fuel, once external tanks are loaded the range is quite similar, with the difference that ETs can be dropped…

Hardly, with EFTs, the tiffy’s range is still a good 500km less iirc (4500km:3700?).

The VLRAAM is nice for high value asset attacks, yet it would be interesting how such a weapon will perform over a very long range without MCG.

why no MCG? Also, I assume the seeker will be bigger than a normal AAM and oughtn’t to have too much trouble keeping track of a slow moving AEW a/c.

For airsuperiority such weapons are of limited use for various reasons.

Possibly, but still it is a capability (A2A) that the Ef-2000 does not have.

Huge airframe doesn’t mean that much more space to deal with. A lot internal space is consumed by the larger tanks, larger systems to scope with the larger and heavier airframe. Every engine has its limitations in terms of thrust for its size/weight. You can fit stronger engines to a Flanker so you can do on the F-16, Rafale, Typhoon or whatever smaller airframe.

Agreed but you can make the MKI lighter using composites (being done already, also check the 35), something that you can’t do much with more recently designed eurocanards. you can further increase the range of the flanker by adding EFTs, can’t do that with the others either. You can have bigger conformal AESA arrays with the flankers, can’t do that with the ef types either, you can have a tail sting radar in the flanker, again can’t do the same with the eurocanards etc. The Su-35 variant is an excellent example of what the MKI could be upgraded to (but not limited to). It turns up having everything most eurocanards offer and more to spare. All said and done i simply don’t see a fully specced tiffy or rafale going toe to toe with a Su-35 type. The Irbis (or a massive AESA) ought to provide first look to the flanker.

Furthermore especially sensors can’t be retrofitted that easily. A lot depends on how much space is left and more importantly if you can fit them to places where they are useful.

they seemed to have succeeded quite brilliantly with both the MKI and the 35don’t see why the can’t continue considering how technology progresses.

regards,
USS.

This EF-2000 vs MKI debate is quite interesting. All said and done, I’d favor the MKI in both A2A and A2G. A2A simply because despite all the hoopla about tiffy sensors, the MKI has it all with the exception of fewer acronyms. Plus it has been in service for quite some time.
by the time it gets an MLU, you are looking at a massive AESA or Irbis type with VLRAAMs like the kS-172 and lraams like the izd-180 (meteor equivalent or more). In effect, it can have the ability to cause some serious problems for any EF-2000 since their AWACs cover will immediately become susceptible to the VLRAAMS. After that, taking out an ef-2000 becomes much easier.

In terms of the MRCA contest, I’d prefer the Rafale to the EF-2000. Even A2A. Despite claims to the contrary the nose size on both the birds looks very similar, I’d expect each to carry an AESA with about 1000-1100 trms. the Rafale however, has the distinct advantage of launching an IIR mica entirely passive. With its lower RcS (based on eyeballing the birds and a small lit review), i’d rate the rafale a seriously dangerous a2a customer and under certain circumstances better than the much vaunted tiffy.

A2G, the Rafale is ahead and will continue to be so in the near future it seems.

Against an MLUed MKI, all the MRCA birds will eat dirt imho and by the pintful too! A massive AESA (or even an irbis), huge endurance (makes a good difference in BVR), TVC, no EFTs, VLRAAMs etc simply puts it out of reach for the MRCA types. There is simply no such evolutionary prospect for the other birds. However it must be said that the rafale again offers the best prospects in terms of MLUs as well despite being a small airframe. The designers were smart in incorporating stealthy characteristics in the airframe (unlike the other MRCA) thereby lending to dramatic improvement by changing other things like engines or avionics etc. There is precious little that the others can do to make the airframe more stealthy. An upgrade path to the rafale looks pretty tempting – AESA, M88.3s or Kaveri, CFTs etc. Plus, i’d wager that it is cheaper than both the Shornet and the EF-2000 in terms of man hours and esp. economy. Overall the best bang for the buck. Unfortunately, it is here that the Gripen NG really takes a blow thanks to the small frame. Nice bird, but can’t imagine it doing anything fancier than a souped up Tejas 25 years down the road. The F-16IN is by far the worst of the lot – offers little of note in any of the critical criteria (cost, peformance, future upgrades/evolution, commonality with IAF fleet).

The rafale therefore is a nice complement to the MKI. The IAF needs a bird that can perform a number of roles and has flexibility, the Rafale does this nicely without having pretensions to Air domination, which the flanker provides beautifully.

Regards,
USS.

4.) Not necessarily, the missiles seeker has to be able to lock onto the target. Hence acquiring the target with an onboard sensor doesn’t mean you can launch a missile at it. Most missiles provide LOAL capabilities, still the problem of acquiring the target by the missile seeker is a different issue.

IMHO, thats where the Rafale/Mica IIR/OSF combo has a serious A2A advantage. IIRC the Rafale tries to remain totally radar silent, while using the IRST to detect and identify and then letting loose the MICA IIR mainly using its datalink to guide the missile until the seeker achieves lock. Also, correct me if i’m wrong, iirc the mica does have LOBL.

It becomes increasingly clear what the frenchies mean by discrete. they’ve always said – not totally LO as the F-22 but still “discrete”. very nice capability. A lightly loaded Rafale with about 4-6 Mica could really do well sniping when directed by AWACS or GCI or even bigger partners like a Su-30MKI.

regards,
USS.

USS and Nick,

Sorry for the delay in replying to this. Lots of chaff in the way from our new friend with the recurring cat theme in his persona.

No worries. Yeah, we need a Sher Khan type mod on this thread ASAP 😀

Where are you getting the crew figures from?.

From BR.

The crew of a Cavour is less than 500 personel – why does IAC require more than double or even triple that…even if you figure in flight deck personnel you are only adding a couple of hundred extra hands at most. I cannot conceive of a need for 1200 crew on IAC unless something is seriously amiss with the spec of the ship.

The cavour must be highly automated. Even the IN’s latest destroyers (P15) are estimated to have close to 300 plus crew complement. the shivaliks are at 250 plus crew.

The original price solely for the refit of the Adm Gorshkov was released as US$700mn. That price alone has now raised by, if reports are correct, an additional US$1.2bn. So we have $2bn near as damnit for the free carrier to reach Indian service entry.

Fair enough. Catch at least an extra $ 1.5-2 billion for an IAC built in Europe. $ 4 billion perhaps?

That is before we look at whole-life expenditure which is the real factor of note as it will, rapidly, outstrip the initial build cost of the vessel itself. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Gorshkov averages out at $300mn per annum in ops costs – considering an RN CVS tips in at about half that figure I’d say its good enough for ballpark. Its going to cost triple its acquisition price again by the end of a 20yr service life.

I don’t get it, the USN Nimitz class super carriers cost around $ 160 million (FY 1996, lets say $ 300 million as of present) to operate annuaylly, why should the Gorky cost that much?

Whole life, including the new sticker price, you are looking at $8bn to keep what will be a modest number of unproven Russian fighters at sea. Without the costs of the fighters themselves.

$ 8 billion sounds high in view of the FAS figures, but you probly have a much better idea. So for the sake of convenience, we’ll stick to your figures for now.

So what you are looking for is a better solution than Gorshkov with a whole-life budget of US$8bn. If you can acquire a modern and efficient hull you shave $100mn off that operations cost a year. Remember CVF – 2 hulls aimed at ops costs of £200mn (US$400mn) or one hull, roughly, $200mn USD per annum. 20 years at $200mn -> $4bn in ops budget.

Even going by your figures – $ 300m for Gorky & $ 200 m for european built IAC, a difference of $ 100 million per year, the Gorky turns out a much cheaper deal. Now, the Gorky costs $ 2.7 billion including a 16 MiG-29k airwing, while the cost of an IAC built in Eur, would cost about $ 4 billion according to your estimate, plus lets add at least another 2 + billion for the a/c (probly rafales). So you have a difference of 3.5 billion $s just in acquistion costs! That Sir is a LOT of upfront dinero AND it’ll take a damn long time to even out.

for the same whole life cost, with an economical hull, India could’ve spent $4bn upfront on a carrier – present $4bn to Izar, DCN or Fincantieri in 2005 and they would have come up with a very nice vessel for you.

Not exactly. Let see, $ 4 billion (acquisition cost for ship) + $ 2 ++ billion (acquisition of Rafale types) = $6+ billion in just acquisition costs! Add to that $ 200 mil per year operation costs and you have a cost of $ 10 billion over a period of 20 years.
Compare this to the Gorky. $ 1.9 billion (acquisition cost for ship) + $ 750 million (acquisition cost of Mig-29ks) = $ 2.7 billion in acquisition costs. Add to that $ 300 mil per year operation costs and you have a cost of $ 8.7 billion for 20 years.
Despite going with your numbers, the gorky turns out a good $ 1.3 billion cheaper!

This isnt the end of it either…with a modern design in Gorshkov’s place there is a ready made template for IAC, so, India licenses the original design and carries it through for three or four hulls indigenising along the way. So your IAC spend is suddenly shrunk to the license fee and you have full commonality throughout your carrier fleet!.

No argument there, I’d rather they’d have gone the European way and maintained a single type of carrier fleet too.

They can still opt for MiG-29K and STOBAR as easily as the existing IAC has with Italian input so the ‘expensive fighter’ argument need not be relevent either. Unless the Russians would’ve pulled out of the MiG sale without the Gorshkov strings….who knows?!.

The deal I believe was ahem, “packaged”. Not only the fulcrums, but even the Akula/s. And it is the last bit that makes bickering with the Russkies really worthwhile imvho. 😉 Also, its not just the russians to consider, i doubt the IN would’ve chosen the Fulcrum at all had a Euro-IAC been chosen. It’d have been the Rafale (which was its preference) or at least a Flanker (which might’ve required the tonnage and associated costs of the ship to go up further) As a sidenote, the costs might have inched up if the russians had to test the Mig-29k on a totally new platform (esp. a european one). IIRC, they already had some worthwhile experience when it came to using the Gorky and the MiG-29k on their own boats. I presume such experience comes into play when trying to save valuable $$s.

Bottom line this is all fairly basic defence procurement procedure. No-one, not even the inept clowns in UK MoD, stop reading at the upfront costs because, as was alleged, you cant get away from whole-life costs – no matter how many attempts are made to ‘fudge’ them. You pay for the maintenance or sooner or later the the ship is tied alongside mission ineffective. Even the USN are in the process of relearning this lesson.

Aye, I’d agree but thats hardly practical. Upfront costs and capital are ALWAYS a huge factor, be it the cash strapped IN/GOI or a cash strapped small business. If as you say, “first world”, rich G8 nations like the U.S and U.K find it difficult to deal with upfront costs, what to say of a “developing” nation like India?

Make no mistake India, and its govt officials, knew that Gorshkov was a gamble every bit as much as the Indian Navy did. They couldnt have NOT known what the year-on-year expenses were likely to be….what they were banking on was that the inital $700mn price wouldnt move which, given the level of refit even as it stood in 2005, was extremely unlikely to be the case. Everyone knew that it wasnt enough money and the provided service entry schedule was a work of fiction. Still – thats why they call it gambling right?!.

Perhaps, but there is also the distinct possibility that they knew exactly what they were getting into and still found the Gorky preferable to a Euro built IAC.

regards,
USS.

The latest version of this graph is available on Ausairpower.net

IIRC, Carlo’s latest work puts the Apg-79 slightly higher than the Bars in terms of detection ranges (negligible though). And yes, most of these figures are for the Bars are for the mk1, the mk3, might have some surprises.

What i’m really itching to find out is how the last 40 MKI ordered directly from Russia turn out. they are supposed to be delivered by 2010-11. Should be interesting.

Regards,
USS.

All the data published about NOIIM BARS or NIIP IRBIS are peak values limited to a narrow beam against targets high-up under standard day conditions, no clutter or jamming with a probability of 85%.
Looking into the practical values. The BARS offers a look-down detection of 140 km (RCS 2m² target) in a narrow beam. The engagement range is even lower. That does make sense, the related AAMs and their practical ranges in mind.

And what about the Captor figures available on the net? Are they similarly acheived in ideal conditions or are the euros always understating their products’ performance while the russsians are always exaggerating, very convenient this argument.
Frankly if i’ve ever seen anyone do a simply stupendous job in exaggeration, its got to be the typhoon PR dept. What with all those claims on amazing stealthy features (despite having obviously non stealth characteristics) or the one that I really love -“next best after F-22”, or the oft quoted ahem “study” where a lovely tiffy is chewing up 4.5 flankers for breakfast and similar nos of Rafales for lunch etc :rolleyes:

The more capable, but still in development, IRBIS will offer a max engagement range of 150 km.
Ground based radar or true AWACs do offer compared to that much more capability. Less restricted in related power supply and the similar rise in cooling demands.

Perhaps, but having a couple of Irbis types providing top cover in enemy territory for a strike package is a lot safer without having to think of losing a slowy moving AWACS. the Su-35BM with long ranged detection and missiles can provide this type of protection, the Eurocanards simply can’t.

Fighter radars have not to work as a homing-bacon. Even the most advanced are limited in power and the related processing power to be a substitute of even a modest surveillance radar. Fighters are guided into an area of interest and do scan a given sector utmost. They are thankful of every support from something like a CGI-network. Data-link is the name of the game in modern warfare.
When someone has an idea about the true nature of different radars, how it will be operated and keep both sides of every coin in mind, some advertisement data and claims are no longer that thrilling. 😉
A second thought may give someone a real idea, does it make sense to fit a 100 mio € Typhoon with a limited radar to field it against the most modern Russian fighters f.e.. Neither the people from EADS nor the military customers are such fools. The other way around, the Russians realized, that their fighters had to face semi-stealth opponents to deal with. To compensate for that one solution is to fit more capable radars to rise the own chances. 😉

good grief! talk about a skewed way of looking at things –
“powerful fighter radars are homing beacons” (only if they are russian, typhoon is naturally equipped with the most perfect radar ” to easily detect and chew up Russki a/c
“Typhoon is semi-stealth” and what exactly is that? Carrying fatass EFTs must do something to your RCS sig, no?

A fighter alone does not win a war or even a battle. :diablo:

So, lets all use simple Mig-21s with datalinks shall we? damn those americans and their Raptors, stoopid investment wot?

USS.