[shortbread]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

All things aside, the recent incidents continue to "kick in the pants" the general lethargy for acquiring high quality weaponry in high priority.....Somebody must be accountable for this.
India has 500 billion plus USD of Foreign exchange reserves. Even 10% of that could be used to equip all three services with high quality equipment.

My assumption (completely an arm chair critic... not pretending otherwise) is that the massive fighter deal has become a global diplomacy bargaining chip for India.

I think this is India's trump card (no pun intended) vis a vis the India US trade talks or an ice breaker for a new Biden govt. I feel the entire purpose of re starting the tender and keeping it in slow burn for eons is precisely this.

I wouldn't say just the US, France has been a steadfast ally and a larger Rafale order is still in play. The euro fighter is out now, Germany and Merkel are ready to place their bets on the chinese and UK looks lost.

The mig 35 looks like a good deal with previous platform experience and far better value. Russia a powerful neighbour is crucial as well. Yet there will be a heavy price to pay as the western powers will hate such a deal.

Regretfully, I forsee the current govt. keeps kicking this down till the next US election.

[fhdowntheline]

I hope that India is able to keep the prospective US powers in good humour, because PAF continues to get F16s with AAMRAMs which cannot be countered yet by IAF unless we get the Rafale+ Meteors soon enough.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

I hope that India is able to keep the prospective US powers in good humour, because PAF continues to get F16s with AAMRAMs which cannot be countered yet by IAF unless we get the Rafale+ Meteors soon enough.

I believe, and I may be wrong, that we field the Russian Novator KS-172 and the Vympel R-77. While the R-77 is well known and has been in widespread use the KS-172 was developed specifically against an IAF order to arm the Su-30MKIs -- BVR 200++ kms.

Beyond just textbook capabilities BVR is an extremely difficult asset to use in a half peace half war scenario where your skies are crowded with both potential aggressors and civilian neutrals and you cannot be sure that aggressors will come from only one direction. IFF despite everything is not perfect. And as some of us including me have said earlier air defence is a whole lot more than ranges of a few AAMs.

[shortbread]

Speak of the devil, US arm twisting begins despite the desperate scenario India finds itself in.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...er-procurement

I think there needs to be clarity in the India US relationship, and this is nigh on impossible with the current US president.

A big example is when US forces the UK to use their special forces and capture an Iranian tanker, the gullible British obliged. Soon after the Iranians responded in kind and captured a UK vessel and crew, the British were left to deal with this by themselves and simply returned the Iranian vessel and crew in exchange for their own. Or right now Canada is facing chinese pressure for detaining the huwaei executive, while simply following instructions of their 'ally' America. At the same time the current US government is busy negotiating a trade deal with the chinese, which is supposed to be a highlight for the current incumbent government before elections. The chinese knows that and are simply taking their own sweet time. What is the point of having an ally like the US when all they want to do is look out for themselves!

Dealing with the Russians means procuring lower quality equipment while attracting Western ire, French are reliable but have negligible global influence, the Americans are influential but unreliable.

[locusjag]

Originally Posted by shortbread

Dealing with the Russians means procuring lower quality equipment while attracting Western ire, French are reliable but have negligible global influence, the Americans are influential but unreliable.

Just a word about the French - they withdrew from NATO long ago (over a fundamental disagreement, can't remember what it was) and since then, they have held their own counsel. They can't be dictated to by anyone, as far as whom to sell and not to. Thus it comes to be that they have sold to India and to Pakistan and many other nations with no regard to their orientations.

[Joxster]

Originally Posted by locusjag

Just a word about the French - they withdrew from NATO long ago (over a fundamental disagreement, can't remember what it was) and since then, they have held their own counsel. They can't be dictated to by anyone, as far as whom to sell and not to.

This is not entirely correct. France is still very much part of NATO, however, they have chosen not to be a member of NATO's Nuclear Planning Group. Here's the history behind the French NATO involvement.

In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle decided to withdraw France from NATO’s integrated military structure. This reflected the desire for greater military independence, particularly vis-à-vis the United States, and the refusal to integrate France’s nuclear deterrent or accept any form of control over its armed forces.

In practical terms, while France still fully participated in the political instances of the Organization, it was no longer represented on certain committees, for instance, the Defence Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group. This decision also led to the removal of French forces from NATO commands and foreign forces from French territory. The stationing of foreign weapons, including nuclear weapons, was also banned. NATO’s political headquarters (based in Paris since 1952), as well as the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe or SHAPE (in Rocquencourt since 1951) moved to Belgium.

Despite France’s withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military structure, two technical agreements were signed with the Alliance, setting out procedures in the event of Soviet aggression. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, France has regularly contributed troops to NATO’s military operations, making it one of the largest troop-contributing states. It is also NATO’s fourth-biggest contributor to the military budget.

From the early 1990s onwards, France distanced itself from the 1966 decision with, for instance, its participation at the meetings of defence ministers from 1994 (Seville) onwards and the presence of French officers in Allied Command Operations and Allied Command Transformation structures from 2003. At NATO’s Strasbourg/Kehl Summit in April 2009, France officially announced its decision to fully participate in NATO structures.

Source

Cheers

[DIY410]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

I believe, and I may be wrong, that we field the Russian Novator KS-172 and the Vympel R-77. While the R-77 is well known and has been in widespread use the KS-172 was developed specifically against an IAF order to arm the Su-30MKIs -- BVR 200++ kms.

The KS-172 is for slow moving targets like AWACS, tanker, transport aircraft, sub sonic bombers etc.
R-77 export versions are inferior to the ones fielded by Russian air force, unlike the US AAMRAMs which is the same for all nations.

So taking that into account our current R-77 has inferior range against the latest versions of AAMRAMs such 120C fielded by PAF.

To counter this, under emergency power last year IAF ordered extended range versions of R-27 which should match the 120c, further more our in house DRDOs ASTRA missile can match or surpasses the 120C.

The meteor missile is reserved for china who may have fielded the PL-15 missile.

[DrPriyankT]

Sir, the KS-172 is a heavy long-range AAM is meant for slow lumbering force multipliers like AWACS, Air to Air refuellers and ELINT aircraft. They are not as manoeuvrable as the fighters they support and hence a relatively lesser manoeuvrable missile like the KS-172 which is derived from the Buk SAM is used to knock them out. It is the heaviest air to air missile ever designed. They have a longer burning rocket motor which grants them long-range, and they have a bigger warhead to knock out bigger aircraft in one shot. Due to their primary targets being lesser manoeuvrable, less emphasis is placed on their manoeuvrability, when they were being designed. As a matter of fact, if this missile is fired at a highly manoeuvrable target like a fighter at long range, there are chances that the missile may be evaded by the fighter by simply using evasive manoeuvres and quick acceleration. The development of these missiles was bankrolled by India to arm our Sukhois, however, the current status of the missile and whether we have it in our arsenal is unknown. The Russians have however developed the R-37M for their Mig-31BM interceptor for a role similar to the KS-172. A funny fact is, the longest range missile currently in use is the American AIM-54 Phoenix missile, used by the Iranian’s on their F-14’s. Its also suspected that a bramhos missile variant is being developed as a long-range air to air missile.

The world of BVR combat is highly complex and the BVR tactics in use by air forces globally are closely guarded secrets. The so-called advertised range of many missiles is a marketing tool. The max range as depicted is under standard testing conditions, much like how cars give maximum fuel efficiency under standard ARAI testing conditions. Many factors like height of the firing aircraft, its speed, its angle, height of the target, its speed, its manoeuvrability, its EW system, air temperature, wind speed and even humidity affect actual BVR range. For example, an R-77 fired by a Sukhoi-30 at 55000 ft, when flying at Mach 1.5 will have a range almost 30% higher, than a similar R-77 fired by the same plane, if it were flying at Mach 1 between 30-40000 feet. The lower and slower you fly, the lower is your range of firing. From OSINT resources, it is claimed that our Su-30’s were flying at around 15-20000 feet when they were intercepting the Pakistani F-16’s flying at higher altitudes. Due to their higher height, the PAF could fire their AMRAAMs, whilst the firing computers could not calculate firing solutions for R-77’s and R-27’s from the Su-30’s due to their height disadvantage. The PAF and IAF missiles didn’t have a big difference in firing range, however, here altitude at which they were fired played the clinching role in deciding who fired and who didn’t. Due to these conditions, please don’t think that the Meteor is a silver bullet which can shoot every aircraft it’s fired against. Yes, it has the best no escape zone amongst all missiles currently and it’s going to be the best AAM in Asia, yet it too has its firing limitations.

Due to these limitations which all missiles have, pilots are trained to fire their BVR’s under optimal conditions as far as possible to attain a kill. But, mind well of the fact that BVR fighting is a very very fluid, kinetic and tricky. At a range of above 100 km with multiple planes in the air, no amount of IFF can 100% determine whether the target is an enemy fighter or a civil/friendly aircraft. You, cannot fire till you are 100% sure it’s an enemy plane. Yes, in today’s day and age, ground-based radar and AWACS can give a clearer picture, but nothing is better than the Mk 1 eyeball. The Americans in Vietnam had advanced Semi-Active Radar Guided BVR’s for their time, but they avoided shooting down opposing planes for the fear of a blue on blue kill. Hence a majority of the American kills in Vietnam were WVR kills with many of them being good old gun kills. Now, in today’s scenario in a contested environment with massive EW deployment, the chances for a friendly kill increase.

Also, pilots are trained to avoid the use of their own radar as much as possible to detect enemy fighters from a long-range, as it will require them to use their radar at max power, which will expose their position to enemy passive radar sensors, and it will give the enemy vital ELINT of our radar signatures. Theoretically, a Sukhoi can detect enemy planes at around 300 km with its Bars PESA Radar, however, it will entail it giving up its position and making it vulnerable to jamming as all its transmitting frequencies will be known to enemy sensors. Hence long-range scanning is mostly always done by bigger and more powerful AWACS or ground-based radars. They pass on tracking info to friendly fighters, who then use it to fire their active/semi-active missiles. Fighter radars are used only intermittently for short bursts to calculate the final firing computation before missiles are fired. Due to all these factors, nowadays frontline fighters are using better and better passive infrared and UV sensors to detect enemy fighters, without themselves being detected.
Coming to missiles. The Meteor is considered the best in its class mainly due to its Ramjet propulsion, which enables it to be powered for a longer duration of its flight as compared to rocket motor powered missiles. The longer duration of propulsion enables it to actively manoeuvre without bleeding energy when engaging manoeuvring targets, thereby increasing its lethality and no escape zone. A rocket-powered missile like the Astra/Amraam/R-27/R-77/Derby is powered by its rocket motor which burns out in 20-25 seconds post-launch (hence due to this short life, absolute speed of the launching aircraft becomes important in determining range). Post the burnout, the missile glides towards its target, and if the target manoeuvres, it bleeds kinetic energy to keep up with the target, hence reducing its velocity and range. Hence nowadays ramjet-powered missiles are in vogue so that the range becomes longer due to longer powered flight time. Ramjet powered missiles are expensive, hence dual pulse solid-fuel rocket motors are being used to lengthen the range. In case of dual pulse motors, the initial phase is powered, followed by an unpowered glide, followed by a second powered phase during the endgame phase, so that it can keep up with a manoeuvring target. As an example, our own Astra Mk1 is a single-phase rocket motor-powered, with an advertised range of 110 km in the head-on chase and 20-30 km for tail chase mode. The solid fuel ducted ramjet and dual pulse motor-powered variants of the Astra are now under development.

As per OSINT sources widely available online, IAF follows a dual missile launch philosophy, with one radar-guided missile and one IR guided missile like the R-73 being fired at all targets to maximize kill probability. The radar-guided missile of IAF’s choice is the R-27 as it has a slightly longer burn time vis a vis the R-77. The newer variants of the R-27 are equal in EW capability to the R-77, and in the emergency purchases done post balakot, we purchased the newest most capable variants of the R-27 to arm the Su-30 and Mig-29. For the M2K we have both IR and Radar guided versions of the MICA missile. Now with better datalinks, IAF will develop the co-operative engagement capability similar to the Indian Navy, wherein a missile launched by one aircraft can be guided to its target using targeting data acquired by other platforms. Navy has already demonstrated it by using a Barak-8 launched by INS Kochi was guided to its target by using data from INS Chennai.

At the end I would like to state that our future AAM inventory will be one of the world’s best with the Astra’s forming the bulk of the radar guided BVR missiles ably accompanied by the R-27’s and Meteors, and ASRAAM’s, R-73’s, MICA’s and Python’s forming the bulk of the close engagement missiles.

For anyone interested in reading more, this is a lovely article.
https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

[R2D2]

I just saw this NewsX clip on YT, apparently, the US Senate has moved a bill to sell the F35 to India. Quite a message being passed on to China.

US's F-35 jets to India

[DrPriyankT]

This is nothing but a geopolitical move and much-needed sabre-rattling by the Americans against the Chinese. It's sort of a modern-day redux of the Soviet submarine fleet sailing into the Bay of Bengal to counter the US 7th fleet during 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. How times have changed!

I personally hope we do not move ahead on the F-35 and we stick to more Rafales. French are way more reliable strategic partners than Americans. Our AMCA which thankfully will have heavy private sector participation can actually match the F-35 in a few categories.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

This is nothing but a geopolitical move and much-needed sabre-rattling by the Americans against the Chinese. It's sort of a modern-day redux of the Soviet submarine fleet sailing into the Bay of Bengal to counter the US 7th fleet during 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. How times have changed!

I personally hope we do not move ahead on the F-35 and we stick to more Rafales. French are way more reliable strategic partners than Americans. Our AMCA which thankfully will have heavy private sector participation can actually match the F-35 in a few categories.

Agreed this is just a message being sent to the Chinese about the US's support for India.

I am not sure if the IAF would ever be interested in the expensive F35 which I read is a white elephant of sorts to fly and maintain. Then come the integration issues with our Soviet/Russian supplied mainstream fighters and other equipment. Defence aviation experts please correct me if I am wrong.

And yes as you pointed out how times have changed from '71! France and the EU and of course Russia are indeed more reliable defence equipment suppliers than the mercurial US over the long term.

[PGA]

Interlude from a heavy discussion...on the lighter side atleast one Rafale is already here

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by PGA

Interlude from a heavy discussion...on the lighter side atleast one Rafale is already here

A real ground attacker!
May their tribe increase.

Sutripta

[shortbread]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Agreed this is just a message being sent to the Chinese about the US's support for India.

And yes as you pointed out how times have changed from '71! France and the EU and of course Russia are indeed more reliable defence equipment suppliers than the mercurial US over the long term.

The chinese know that US is no India ally under the current administration. A masssive order of soya/corn/pork by the chinese that will make Trump's agricultural vote base happy, will mean that they will switch sides in a jiffy.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

A funny fact is, the longest range missile currently in use is the American AIM-54 Phoenix missile, used by the Iranian’s on their F-14’s.

This was a great post! I'll add that the massive Phoenix missile was basically the raison d'etre for the Tomcat, in the same way the A-10 Warthog came to be as a vessel to lug that giant GAU-8 Avenger gun on it's chin and not the other way around. The Phoenix was basically designed to be the biggest long range projectile the USN could lob at marauding Soviet Backfires coming through the GIUK gap and firing off anti ship missiles at the US carrier groups. IIRC this was a significant plot point in Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy.

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

I personally hope we do not move ahead on the F-35 and we stick to more Rafales. French are way more reliable strategic partners than Americans. Our AMCA which thankfully will have heavy private sector participation can actually match the F-35 in a few categories.

Originally Posted by R2D2

Agreed this is just a message being sent to the Chinese about the US's support for India.

I am not sure if the IAF would ever be interested in the expensive F35 which I read is a white elephant of sorts to fly and maintain. Then come the integration issues with our Soviet/Russian supplied mainstream fighters and other equipment. Defence aviation experts please correct me if I am wrong.

I did a double take at the news there's a Senate resolution even proposing India be allowed near the F-35. That's essentially the most valued of walled gardens the Pentagon has. So on a messaging front this really is a pretty hefty statement by the US directed at China.

Realistically though I remain unconvinced we'll ever see it with an IAF roundel. There are too many preconditions with F-35 usage that won't jive with existing defence infrastructure for India, chiefly the large quantities of Russian gear at every level. This would require a colossal disentangling of Russian origin equipment at every level of the Indian defence establishment, something patently untenable (if we're to use the same sad boat the Turks find themselves in as precedent). India has maintained a fluid outlook to the vendor nations it sources defence equipment from through time, I see no reason for it to so drastically change tack, instead the existing thinking must be that it was and never will be an actual offering on the table. The staggering JSF programme costs aside, the true unparalleled strength of the F-35 is it's sensor fusion. If India was serious about acquiring that, it's best bet would be to utilise a low observable UAV platform as the sensor node that provides that high resolution and high fidelity digital battlespace image to all Indian assets. If indeed the next big evolutionary step in the combat air arena is the transition to unmanned platforms as a purported 6th generation wouldn't it make sense then for India to directly skip the 5th generation and apply it's energies to get closer to this next paradigm, one which can be moulded to be applied in concert with the 4+ assets we'll likely still be operating. Furthermore, our posture is chiefly defensive in nature, (Cold Start et al notwithstanding), thus we don't exactly need manned assets that would be expected to penetrate deep into enemy air defence zones when we can relatively cheaply achieve that with an unmanned platform instead which then in a quarterback role vectors in stand off munitions launched from those 4+ gen platforms to hit those targets. To that end, admirable as your sentiments might be regarding the AMCA, sadly I remain justifiably cynical of promises made by HAL and I'd be hesitant to hope of the possibility it achieves qualitative parity with the F-35 on it's sensor capability, let alone other fronts, and crucially within a respectable time frame (what use is achieving that parity in time for little old me to be seriously thinking about my pension - and let's not kid ourselves, HAL and ADA have proven they operate at that sort of timeline for frontline fighter programmes).

My worry is this fanciful idea of potential F-35 acquisition does become more than a pipe dream and takes root in the heads of some decision makers. Because if it does, it'll rob momentum for the totally tenable projects in the current framework that above all are needed and in keeping with the reality of our fiscal and operational conditions. This momentum will be lost from a legislative mindshare perspective and a bureaucratic processing perspective. As all of us are wary of, these latter issues are frequently a spanner in the works. Let the F-35 be a fun parlour game for those with an interest in Indian defence and nothing more. That's the simple reality. I'll eat my hat on this forum if there's an honest to god F-35 in IAF colours.

To those arguing over the purely self serving nature of US diplomacy, I remind you of a principle passed down from the likes of Chanakya to Machiavelli, Metternich and latter day practitioners like Kissinger (and I'm probably paraphrasing): nations have no permanent friends or enemies, only interests. Ultimately we can't fault the US for behaving the way they do considering this has always been a fundamental tenet of the realist school of political thought through time immemorial. For the French and defence sales, they have a transactional philosophy; meanwhile the Americans utilise their defence sales as a vehicle of furthering their strategic agenda. Hasn't India through it's history used defence procurement too as a vehicle in service of wider diplomatic goals?

Anyway, that's enough of me harping on.