[chaudh2s]

One of the major reasons for not going with Typhoon was that the parts for it come from many European countries including Italy, Turkey, etc with whom we donot have very good relations. So, in case of emergency these countries might block spares, critical parts availability.

[airbus]

Originally Posted by chaudh2s

One of the major reasons for not going with Typhoon was that the parts for it come from many European countries including Italy, Turkey, etc with whom we donot have very good relations.

Transfer of technology would have been a problem as multiple countries are involved. Another reason was that Eurofighter Typhoon does not have a naval variant. From Wikipedia

As of 2011, the navalised Typhoon remained only a proposal but there has been some interest expressed by other nations, such as India, in adapting the Typhoon for aircraft carrier operations.

In February 2011, BAE debuted a navalised Typhoon in response to the Indian tender. The model offered is STOBAR capable, corresponding to the Indian Navy's future aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant. The changes needed to enable the Typhoon to launch by ski-jump and recover by arrestor hook added about 500 kg to the airframe, however this is now thought to be substantially more given the Typhoons's "unfriendly" design in terms of adapting the airframe to suit sustained naval operations. If the Indian Navy pursues a catapult launch carrier, the Typhoon is completely uncompetitive against tender rivals (e.g. Rafale and Super Hornet) since meeting " catapult requirements would add too much weight to the aircraft, blunt performance and add substantially to modification costs".

[whitecloud]

A beautiful write up, considering the jarring TV debates when the five Rafales reached India on 29th July.

We Indians need to understand that good things come at a price and are worth waiting for. Rafales are expected to be highly capable against the adversaries but we need to digest this information with a pinch of salt especially when we consider China. According to media reports, S400 Triumf regiments have been deployed by China in Ladakh. Any Plane or Jet landing or taking off from the Leh airfield or even within the range of S400 could be under threat in case of war.

Adding further to this, according to Defence Expert Ajai Shukla, India had paid 1.7 bn Euro for capacity enhancement in the Engine to ensure take off from smaller runways like Leh. But the five Planes brought to india do not have such capability as of now. Hence not of much use as of now against China. Furthermore, the Chinese have developed a >300 km A2A missile named PL 15 which is being used to arm the PLAAF & JF 17 planes to counter Rafales.

In the end we could definitely come to the conclusion that the acquisition of Rafales is s good beginning although 5 to 7 yrs late. India needs to ramp up the acquisitions, research and defence production at a war footing to ensure some kind of parity with China in the coming decade.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

ads11 sir, we need to develop turbine engines domestically as we cannot be dependant on foreign suppliers for something as critical as an engine for something as strategic as a jet fighter. Also the gains of developing a jet engine for a fighter can rub off in development of naval gas turbines. For becoming a world power, along with development of space tech, nuclear tech, advanced electronics and genetic research, we need to also master the art of developing a quality turbine engine.

The naval turbine aspect is an obvious corollary and it would really open so many other doors. I just don't know though, if the Chinese with all the weight of their industrial apparatus (and the help of their state sanctioned industrial espionage) hasn't made much headway in this regard, I don't reckon it's something that for practical purposes India can manage either, and even if it Could, it would take a long long time. It's why I think we just have to bite the bullet in some regards and if possible maybe get the license to building some relatively competent engine as a starting point from which to iterate and build up, rather than laboriously going for a clean sheet effort. At least that way even if it's a license built engine, if you have the entire manufacturing chain in country, with all the ancillary support and tooling, you somewhat obviate the risk of potentially being left hamstrung by a foreign vendor due to diplomatic pressure.

Originally Posted by whitecloud

Adding further to this, according to Defence Expert Ajai Shukla, India had paid 1.7 bn Euro for capacity enhancement in the Engine to ensure take off from smaller runways like Leh. But the five Planes brought to india do not have such capability as of now. Hence not of much use as of now against China. Furthermore, the Chinese have developed a >300 km A2A missile named PL 15 which is being used to arm the PLAAF & JF 17 planes to counter Rafales.

So on the topic of the India specific upgrades turns out there's a test spec Rafale in France undergoing all the certification. Integrating all of the features post certification would have delayed arrival so they'll be made After India gets the full consignment of the order.

The Indian Air Force’s Rafales are built as F3-R-standard aircraft, but they come with some fascinating bespoke additions. A Dassault-owned, test-configured Rafale B with Indian-specific modifications started flying at Istres-Le Tubé in France in August 2018. It has progressively carried as many as 14 different Indian Air Force modifications to the baseline F3-R standard aircraft.

The Indian Air Force’s Rafales are built as F3-R-standard aircraft, but they come with some fascinating bespoke additions. A Dassault-owned, test-configured Rafale B with Indian-specific modifications started flying at Istres-Le Tubé in France in August 2018. It has progressively carried as many as 14 different Indian Air Force modifications to the baseline F3-R standard aircraft.

First Indian Rafale to fly was DH serial RB008, which made its maiden flight on October 30, 2018, from Bordeaux-Mérignac. This aircraft is supporting the test and certification of the India-specific enhancements.

Example twin seat Rafale DH that'll be analogous to the test bed for the India specific upgrades.
Link

[Jessierider]

Originally Posted by AZT

Underrated comment. Global arms purchases are heavily linked to diplomacy and drumming up support / not speaking up. The US is the worlds largest arms exporter and ironically second largest for both India and Pakistan, Russia is first for India and China for Pakistan. With the France Rafale deal we have 4 out of the 5 UNSC veto members having a direct stake in regional instability and an increasing defense budget. I haven't dug deep for the UK but I have a feeling even they get a slice of the pie here with talks of them building us a naval super carrier.

I was specifically answering to that part of comment which questined the idea behind India focusing on Soviet imports during the 60s and 70s.

In addition to your point and the fact that Russian equiments are lower on operationability, I must also add that the Russians are the largest supplier to China as mentioned by you, Chinese equipments are predominently Russian, the newer generation Chinese jets also share a lot of components with Russia. In terms of the no of aircrafts the chinese are far ahead of India, our only advantage rests with the superiority of our platforms in cmparisson with the Chinese as well as our diplomatic bonds with the world powers to exert enough pressure on the chinese on the eastern front where the bulk of their equipments are stationed.

[DrPriyankT]

Originally Posted by whitecloud

A beautiful write up, considering the jarring TV debates when the five Rafales reached India on 29th July.

We Indians need to understand that good things come at a price and are worth waiting for. Rafales are expected to be highly capable against the adversaries but we need to digest this information with a pinch of salt especially when we consider China. According to media reports, S400 Triumf regiments have been deployed by China in Ladakh. Any Plane or Jet landing or taking off from the Leh airfield or even within the range of S400 could be under threat in case of war.

Adding further to this, according to Defence Expert Ajai Shukla, India had paid 1.7 bn Euro for capacity enhancement in the Engine to ensure take off from smaller runways like Leh. But the five Planes brought to india do not have such capability as of now. Hence not of much use as of now against China. Furthermore, the Chinese have developed a >300 km A2A missile named PL 15 which is being used to arm the PLAAF & JF 17 planes to counter Rafales.

In the end we could definitely come to the conclusion that the acquisition of Rafales is s good beginning although 5 to 7 yrs late. India needs to ramp up the acquisitions, research and defence production at a war footing to ensure some kind of parity with China in the coming decade.

Sir, the effectiveness of any SAM in a mountainous region like Ladakh is highly hampered by underlying geography of Ladakh. The radar’s range will be hampered by the hills and valleys. Also the mountainous terrain also Ladakh adds to radar clutter which greatly diminishes range of the radar. Yes, a radar may detect it from 100’s of km’s away, however, the quality of information provided at such long ranges especially in a mountainous terrain will not be adequate to provide firing solutions to your weapons. In simple words, the enemy will just know you are there, however won’t be able to fire at you as targeting data won’t be available. Fighter jets can take advantage of terrain in mountainous terrain by using a terrain hugging flight plan, whereby they will be undetectable by radar, due to low altitude radar clutter.
SAM’s are most effective at long ranges when used over plain terrain with minimal geographical features.

I suppose you are partly misinformed about the India specific upgrades for the Rafale. The 1.7 billion cost was not only for the engines, but also to integrate India specific equipment like low band jammers, ability for cold starts at high altitude airfields, integration of Israeli avionics and other classified equipment. This fixed cost will not be passed on to extra orders of Rafales which I sincerely hope we place in the future.

Sir, during Kargil war, just 12 Mirages we operated were capable of deploying laser guided bombs on Pakistani positions and we all knew what happened to them. Definitely we need way more than 36 Rafales, however don’t underestimate the impact of even few Rafales on any battle. Their avionics are amongst the best this side of the Greenwich meridian, and they can soak up vast amount of electronic information giving us a tremendous advantage. You can know a bit more of their ability by seeing this interview.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oJZjMfYGnGM

.

I would take the PL-15 missile with a pinch of salt. Advertised range and effective range of BVR missiles are two vastly different entities, which depend on multiple variables like launch altitude, launch speed, target altitude and speed, whether its tail chase or head on, type of rocket motor, jamming and what not. Post Balakot, the Pakistani pilots, rather foolishly launched their Armaam C5s at max range, and we all know how a couple of Sukhois using manouvering, jamming and chaff outwitted a volley of BVR Amraams. Never judge a BVR by max speed, but by No escape zone, which now luckily for us, is the best with our shiny new Meteors. Please read my post 1178 on this thread where I have attempted to explain what BVR’s are. https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...ml#post4834772 (Combat Aircraft of the Indian Air Force)

[V.Narayan]

Beyond Visual Range & the Meteor Missile

This note is to address the questions on BVR and add to discussion. For those not pilots or aircraft buffs first a few lines of introduction.

A beyond-visual-range missile (BVR) is an air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) that is capable of engaging at ranges of 20 nautical miles (37 km) or beyond. Realistically it has remained in the 100+ kms practical range at the outside for over 50 years. This alone should tell us something about the complexity involved.

In addition to the range capability, the missile must also be capable of tracking its target at this range or of acquiring the target in flight. Equally important is mid-course correction either by the launch aircraft, another aircraft or the missile itself. And finally a jamming resistant lock-on mode – radar or infrared.

BVR missiles which really came into their own with the American Phoenix in the 1970s should not be confused with the earlier generation radar beam riders of the 1960s, 1970s & 1980s which we can term as pre-first generation BVRs -– Sparrow AIM-7, early variants of the Soviet Vympel R-27, French Super Matra 530D, British Skyflash etc. The real first generation BVR was the American Phoenix mounted exclusively on the Grumman Tomcat followed by the Soviet R-33 married exclusively to the MiG-31 in the 1980s.

The missile rocketery hardware existed in the 1970s for ranges well beyond 20 nautical miles but the software, the computer power packed into a narrow diameter missile that carried the brain power of a true BVR all came into their own only in the 1990s with the American AMRAAM missile with a 55+ kms range which very recently has come out in an improved version of 100+ kms. The Russians in the meantime continued to improve on the R-27 hardware with better guidance & jamming resistance. The most recent variants are very competent weapons in their own right. China & India both use them. The R-27 of today is a second generation BVR like the AMRAAM. This R-27 should not be confused with the first generation R-27 two paras above. We’ll come to why in a minute. In international exercises against the IAF the AMRAAM has shown very modest & mixed results when up against a real adversary as opposed to Saddam’s Iraq. I make this point not to denigrate the AMRAAM but to illustrate the many layers of the onion where a BVRs capabilities go and it is much beyond simple ranges & speeds published on the internet.

Current generation fire-and-forget type BVR missiles like the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM and the R-77 (NATO designation AA-12 'Adder') use an inertial navigation system (INS) combined with initial target information from the launching aircraft and updates from a one or two-way data link in order to launch beyond visual range, and then switch to a terminal homing mode, typically active radar guidance. These types of missiles have the advantage of not requiring the launching aircraft to illuminate the target with radar energy for the entire flight of the missile, and in fact do not require a radar lock to launch at all, only target tracking information. This gives the target less warning that a missile has been launched and also allows the launching aircraft to turn away once the missile is in its terminal homing phase or engage other aircraft.

But BVR is not magic. IFF {Identification of Friend or Foe} remains its Achilles heal as does situational awareness of the pilots and the entire command and control set up. The ranges you read of in Wikipedia or most of social media are usually stretched. Range can mean effective range against a fast manoeuvring, fast climbing ECM packed target or range can mean the absolute theoretical range at which all kinetic energy of the missile is expended. Also just because a new generation of weapon has come up does not make the previous generation useless overnight except in video games. The permutation and combinations in warfare are too many without even including the human factor of skill, alertness, co-ordination quality, raw fear, clarity of mission purpose, experience, tactics, operational doctrine, leadership, morale etc.

In my opinion the only other BVR missile at this point in the league of the French Meteor is the Israeli Derby and maybe just maybe the new American ‘D’ version of the AMRAAM– qualitatively speaking ie brainpower. In terms of range the Israelis claim 100 kms but if their declared weight & dimensions are correct then 60 kms sounds more reasonable. Between the three most probably the Meteor is the brightest – this is my educated guess and no more having watched, read about them for 45 years.

The Chinese PL-12 is a copy of the early Soviet R-27 (of the 1980s). The Chinese purchased the design from Ukraine and reverse engineered it. The IAF stopped used that original first generation R-27 15 years ago. The next Chinese BVR missile is the PL-15 that is believed to have entered service in 2016 with an AESA electronic scanning array radar. What is meant by ‘put into service’ is an ambiguous term that can refer to several milestones over a 5 to 10 year period from ‘under pre-production testing’ to real full squadron service. Their claims of 200 kms + and 400 kms+ ranges are quixotic to say the least. The Chinese are working on a PL-21 missile too, more advanced than the PL-15 but that is some time away from squadron service. If the Americans take a decade I doubt the Chinese can do it faster.

Given the French & Israeli track record on designing and testing air to air missiles that work in the real world I would put my money on the Meteor and the Isareli Derby ER in that order. We should not underestimate our enemies especially one so devious as the Chinese Communist leadership but at the same time there is no point assuming that what they have is gold.

A treatsie on BVRs by member DrPryankT here at post #1178. https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...ml#post4834772 (Combat Aircraft of the Indian Air Force)

[Jessierider]

Sir, Your report on Dassault Rafale was very well written and a great source of information which was concise and clear. I had a few doubts and questions about the Equipments of the Indian AirForce in general and Russian/ Soviet based equipments in particular.

1. Is there any reason apart from the cost and the diplomatic boon India and other countries got from Russia/ Soviet which resulted in the Soviet equipments forming the backbone of some countries in the east.

2. Why Russian jets lag in Avionics and other sub systems against the western jets? This was the case even during the cold war as per some aviation experts. Is the Soviet philosophy of build cheap and bombard the adversary the ethos behind this.

3. There is a lot of criticism against the operational reliability of Russian fighters WRT engine overhaul intervals and the availabilty percentages. Why are Western jets ahead by such a huge margin.

4. In the Era of electronic and Beyond Visual Range warfare, should the dogfight capabilites of the aircrafts be as important.

5. Sukhoi 30 MKI is the backbone of Indian Airforce. Is it a flawed aircraft as we use a lot of subsystems from various countries and seldom they communicate with each other. Is that a boon or a bane.

6. How are the russian BVR weapons in comparison to the western weapon system. Why are they inferior.

7. Would the super Sukhoi update significantly improve the operationability of the Sukhois in our fleet.

8. I was going through an interview by Abhijit iyer Mitra on the state of Indian airforce and its procurement process. Are our equipment as bad in comparison to the western airforces as he states.

9. How would you rate the Tejas Mk 1A in comparison with JF17 block 3 with respect to avionics, electronic warefare suits, situational awareness and BVR capabilities.

It would be fantastic if you could shed some light in this regard.

Others also please put in your valid points.

[DrPriyankT]

India was sort of forced to using Russian Equipment in the mid 60’s post the China debacle, as Pakistan became a member of CENTO and SEATO, which were pro NATO blocks in the post WW2 world. Pakistan was made a member to stop the spread of socialism and communism, whilst acting as bulwark to India. Also when we were shopping for a supersonic fighter, only the Russians were willing to give us complete technology transfer for the Mig 21, compared to competitors like then English Electric Lightning and the F-104 Starfigher. This is how we were hitched to the Mig 21. The Indo-Soviet friendship treaty reinforced this relation, as seen by the presence of soviet submarines tailing the USS Enterprise CBG in the Bay of Bengal in 1971.

Russia is a very easy country to defend, due to its sheer geographic depth, the weather and the geography, amply demonstrated by Russia at a high human cost during WW2, when they defended their nation against the Nazi War Machine. Soviet design philosophy was based on simplicity of operation and maintenance, as a bulk of their army was of conscripts who were to be quickly trained in defence of their fatherland. This brushed off on their planes, which were designed to be rugged from the onset, and equipped to be operated from their sparse, remote Air Force bases . These bases had lesser trained air maintenance crews as compared to the west, and hence, the equipment so designed was kept as simple as possible for ease of operations. Also their defence strategy was one based of quantity over quality, and hence they kept their designs simple to manufacture huge quantities easily. Avionics are pretty complex to develop, build and maintain, hence they were often an afterthought in early soviet designs. Their first plane with actually respectable avionics was the Mig 29, when they too finally accepted the role of modern avionics in modern warfare. Hence they were a generation late compared to their western counterparts in avionics, however the Russia of today has almost caught up to the west in terms of ability. For instance, Russian jammers are comparable in ability to western made jammers.

Again Russian engines lag behind western ones, as Russian material science is not as good as western material science, especially in the field of engine development. Others may add in to this point here.

Of course your fighters need to be dogfight ready. Inspite of all hoopla over BVR fights, you simply won’t fire in anger at a BVR target until you confirm it’s definitely an enemy target to avoid a friendly kill, especially in today’s environment where good EW systems can confuse the most advanced IFF systems. And what will you do if a BVR engagement turns into WVR fight? You need a fighter to be capable of fighting in all scenarios. The Americans ate humble pie at the end of the Vietnam war, and started a dedicated dogfighting programmes for the the USAF and USN as they too realised the importance of WVR skills in spite of upcoming BVR tech. Another example is the development of the Eurofighter Typhoon. It was developed as a successor to the Tornado ADV, which was developed primarily as an interceptor, for BVR combat, and due to those requirements, it wasn’t exactly good in WVR combat. The Typhoon was developed from the outset to be good at both.

The Sukhoi 30 is surely the backbone of our current fleet. It has faced development delays, as its avionics from multiple nations could not talk to each other, as the Russians were reluctant to share the source codes of the mission computers at start, however we had our way and also due to the ability of our Air Force engineers, we have now integrated the systems almost seamlessly, in the MKI Mk4-5 iterations. It’s both a boon and a bane, as we were able to cherry pick the best equipment suited for our needs from the best global manufacturers, however we had trouble in integrating all of them. The Su30 upgrade will definitely improve their combat ability, as they are to receive Zhuk AESA radars, a better IRST system, and better jammers and radar warning receivers. Also they may get AL-41 engines which was supposedly better than the AL-31’s currently powering them. As a part of their upgrade, their serviceability will also be improved. Over the past 5 years, their overall service rate has been improved due to better parts availability and better maintenance practises. They proved their combat ability when a pair of Sukhois was able to fend off a big PAF strike package which launched a volley of advanced BVRs at them. With the upgrade, they will get nothing but better. This fighter is mainly good for us due to the sheer endurance this plane offers.

Who says Russian BVRs are bad? The supposedly advanced AMRAAMs were nicely evaded by our fighters, so will you call them bad? BVRs are simply as a good as the tactics used when firing them. Plain and simple. Use them smartly, and you get a kill with a R-27 or a Sparrow, use them stupidly and even 15 advanced Meteors won’t guarantee a kill. Russian BVRs are considered by the western analysts to be as good as western missiles, in most operational aspects. Remember, our airforce pilots didn’t fire their BVR missiles against the PAF intruders, as they knew they would not get a kill with their weapons as the Pakistani planes were simply not their in their kill zones, hence they didn’t waste missiles costing crores, unlike the Pakistanis who ended up firing weapons costed them crores simply into the ground. Our pilots not firing their Russian BVRs that fateful day, due to operational and tactical issues doesn’t make them bad. One point to consider is, by firing their Amraams that day the PAF gave us a wealth of ELINT data, which will trickle down in our tactics.

Our procurement process is convoluted and complex to say the least, however it’s a topic for another thread. But what matters is the man behind the machine. I personally feel our equipment is pretty good as compared to world standards and abilities, and with our pilots, it becomes an airforce which can give a bloody nose to anyone coming up against it. For that matter this is true for all our forces, both military and paramilitary.

The Tejas MK1A holds an edge over the JF17. The Tejas will be powered by a GE F404 engine which is more reliable and proven than the RD33 which powers the JF17. Also the Tejas has a smaller visual profile as compared to the JF17 which is an advantage in dog fights. The Tejas also has a smaller RCS, due to its higher use of composites, which gives it more stealth as compared to the JF17. The Israeli AESA radar is also rated to be better than its Chinese counterpart and even the desi UTTAM AESA radar is showing significant promise. The Tejas will be using best in class jamming suites developed with rumoured Israeli help (Israel’s jammer tech is supposedly the best in the world), will give it significant combat edge. Lastly, weapons to be carried by the Tejas give it significant sharp teeth. Various iterations of the Astra will give it an excellent BVR missiles, whereas the WVR CCM missiles like the ASRAAM, R-73 and Python 5 lend it a very potent dogfighting ability. Also it’s PGM munition delivery during Exercise IronFist has impressed the IAF top brass. One thing in favour of the JF17 is the higher numbers they have currently, and also it has been in service longer than the Tejas, hence the PAF has been able to develop tactics with it better than we have been able to do with the Tejas currently, however when more and more Tejas come into service, this field will be level.

The interview in this link of Air Marshal B Suresh will help you in understanding the contours of the IAF better. I have also posted the link of Air Marshal Raghu Nambiar’s link in an earlier post. It too will enhance your knowledge.

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2020/0...marshal-b.html

I hope I have been of help.

[V.Narayan]

PLAAF

Air warfare is one subset of our military strategy. Of that air defence is one sub-set and manned fighters & the weapons they carry are one piece of that sub-set. Surface to Air Missiles, Early Warning Radars, Communication & Command, Maintenance, Electronic Warfare are some of the other components without even talking of the softer and often more critical pieces such as men, morale, training, co-ordination etc. So when we talk of aircraft A versus aircraft B or missile P versus missile Q we may want to keep this holistic picture in mind. We or our adversary having one superior aircraft or missile matters but only within this much much broader context.

Our Chinese neighbours’air Force {named PLAAF} is larger than ours at ~1800 combat aircraft & attack helicopters compared to our ~1200+. They have a larger proportion of obsolete aircraft in their inventory while our old MiG-27s, MiG-21s {other than some Bison versions} and MiG-23s have been retired. They are way ahead of us in indigenization and full credit to them for that. They have mastered the art of reverse engineering and are more self-sufficient by a long margin in munitions & spares. Our quality of avionics and missile is in all probability superior and in exercises with other top Air forces across the world we hold our own very well. We need to be on top of building up our numbers which is only now being addressed and of course the road to indigenization is a long one for us.

Below are pen pictures of the 4 main Chinese aircraft types. Aircraft are only one of 4 offensive arrows in the quiver. The other three are – SAMs, Surface to Surface missiles and Electronic Warfare + Command. Control, Communications & Intelligence {C3I}. We are not touching on those three here. Suffice to say with regard to SAMs we are neck to neck with our main adversary in quality and quantity. Surface to Surface missiles of the non-nuclear type is harder to judge. Their numbers are probably larger.

A comparison between two fighter aircraft tends leave out three among many other factors - (A) the pilot & the team work between the 4 or 6 in a flight and (B) the tactics that are deployed prior to reaching the point where an engagement is possible and the tactics in the first few seconds after first point of overlap. (C) the benefits of airborne command & control the pilot may or may not benefit from. Just like the F1 driver with the most powerful car doesn't win the race or the author with the most expensive pen doesn't write the best book similarly the pilot, his/her state of mind, momentary alertness or lack thereof all make a very big difference.



The Sukhoi's: Like us the mainstay of the Chinese Air Force (PLAAF) are the Sukhoi-27 derivatives -- Sukhoi Su-30MKK & its unlicensed copy the Shenyang J-16; the older Sukhoi Su-27 and its licensed version called the Shenyang J-11 and another derivative called Su-35. The PLAAF, according to public sources has ~550 to 650 of all of these in service. While the names are many these are all basically variants of the Sukhoi Su-27 airframe & engines. Their primary long range anti-air armament remains the Chinese PL-12 discussed in post nos #82 and the Russian R-77 and R-27 ET. These aircraft are of the same family as our Sukhoi Su-30MKI and with less advanced avionics, mission computers.

The Chinese versions carry mainly Russian or Chinese avionics while our fleet of ~272 field a mix of French, Israeli & Russian avionics. So while we do not wish to underestimate our opponents some of the posts/ media that talk of massive air superiority are over stated. It is very likely the Chinese aircraft of this family have suffered the same availability rates and engine challenges that we have faced. Equally likely they have resolved matters like we have. Given their lack of access to Western technology it is almost sure the sensor-fire control weapons package is inferior to ours.



J-10: This is a home grown medium multirole combat aircraft larger than our Tejas smaller than the Rafale. About 450+ are in service. The Chinese deserve credit for this wholly indigenous design powered by a single unit of the same Al-31F engine that powers the Sukhoi’s discussed above. Good on maneuverability, climb, power to weight ratios and fitted with avionics copied from the Russians. Not in the same league of long arms like the IAF’s Mirage 2000 and Sukhoi Su-30MKI but still an adversary to be respected. While we dwaddle along with dates for the Tejas Mk 2 their industry designed and built this machine. 450+ in service means it is working well for them.



Chengdu J-20: This is China’s stealth 5th generation fighter. How far it develops and gets real is still to be seen. 5th generation stealth fighters have tested the capability even of the United States for over 20 years now. The Russians are trying but are no where near. Across the world there are or have been 44 serious national projects to develop stealth aircraft without even including the 15 one-off technology demonstrators attempted. Only 5 of them got beyond the prototype stage – 4 American and the Chinese Chengdu J-20. One must give the Chinese credit that their perseverance got them this far. Simultaneously the picture media creates of unconquerable stealth bombers striking terror is yet to come to pass.

Stealth is over rated especially in the context of a competent adversary. A stealth aircraft is not invisible to radar. It is only less visible to radar, somewhat less visible to infra-red and fully visible to Eyeball Mark 1. Further it is invisible only if it does not open its internal weapon bay, or till it does not carry weapons on its pylons {the main tool to carry & deploy weapons} and till its .00001 sq metre cross section is not spoilt 1000X by a .01 sq metre bug that gets squashed on its windscreen!!! Further it is semi-visible only when flying at certain angles to the searching radar or flying head on towards it. But what if the radar is in the sky??!! What if the stealth aircraft needs to fly hi-hi-hi and is painted by radar on the ground getting a good view of its large planform. So stealth is a great buzz word but thus far not of unlimited potency as made out by the press. A effectiveness of stealth aircraft against an alert and well trained adversary such as Japan or India is to be seen.

We need to watch out for the Chengdu J-20. It would be foolish to ignore it. However the two main effective weapons in its quiver remain the Russian R-27 and R-77 both of which are also deployed by us.

Originally Posted by Jessierider

9. How would you rate the Tejas Mk 1A in comparison with JF17 block 3 with respect to avionics, electronic warefare suits, situational awareness and BVR capabilities.

The JF-17 represents Chinese practicality and good common & strategic sense at its best. It is, by today’s standards a simple robust fighter that can make a reasonable account of itself over the battlefield supporting the Army, conducting short range attacks, combat air patrols etc after better equipped aircraft have established air superiority. It was designed by the Chinese for the Pakistani AF and is license built by Pakistan. It is the lo end of the lo-hi mix that like all Air Forces the Pakistani have tried to achieve. It is a MiG-21 airframe and wing mated to chin air intakes, a leading edge root extension and the RD-93 Klimov Russian engine. That’s a substantial change. They stayed with more traditional short range weapons {infra red AAMs for e.g.}. In short simple & workable.

Compared to the Tejas – Tejas is larger, more powerful, more maneuverable, has avionics one or at least half-a-generation ahead. But the JF-17 has been in full service for a decade while the Tejas is still getting inducted! In terms of BVR the Tejas is in process of being mated to the Indian Astra and Israeli Derby ER while JF-17 is being integrated with the Chinese P-12 and PL-15. Overall Tejas has the potential of being the more capable of the two but we should not under estimate our rivals.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

PLAAF

Stealth is over rated especially in the context of a competent adversary. A stealth aircraft is not invisible to radar. It is only less visible to radar, somewhat less visible to infra-red and fully visible to Eyeball Mark 1. Further it is invisible only if it does not open its internal weapon bay, or till it does not carry weapons on its pylons {the main tool to carry & deploy weapons} and till its .00001 sq metre cross section is not spoilt 1000X by a .01 sq metre bug that gets squashed on its windscreen!!! Further it is semi-visible only when flying at certain angles to the searching radar or flying head on towards it. But what if the radar is in the sky??!! What if the stealth aircraft needs to fly hi-hi-hi and is painted by radar on the ground getting a good view of its large planform. So stealth is a great buzz word but thus far not of unlimited potency as made out by the press. A effectiveness of stealth aircraft against an alert and well trained adversary such as Japan or India is to be seen.

Narayan sir, you've answered a question which has been on my mind for years! However, we've all heard of USAF exercises where F22s and F35s took out F16s and F15s without them even knowing that they were being targeted. Is this because of stealth? Or is it because of better sensor fusion in jets like the F35s which give much better situational awareness to their pilots?

And coming to our object of discussion, much has been said about the SPECTRA suite in Rafales which apparently give them an edge, however what exactly is SPECTRA? Is there a SPECTRA equivalent in a F15, Eurofighter, Su-30 MKI/Su-25 or a J-16/J-20? And how would this SPECTRA compare with the data fusion tech in a F35 (I understand this might be well beyond public domain information )?

Staying with the Rafales, I believe the IAF gets the F3R variant though Dassault is coming out with the F4 standard in 2024 which comes with even better data fusion. I hope we get the F4 variant if the IAF ever chooses to go-ahead with a follow-up order (or gets selected for the MRCA deal)

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

From a historical standpoint, I wonder why India never really went for Mirage 3/ Mirage F1 planes from the 60s thru the early 80s. Obviously, we continued to engage with Europe by acquiring the Jaguar. We could have perhaps avoided the mishmash of Mig 21, 23, 27, 29, Su-7 fighters. The Panavia Tornado/Saab Viggen were also good options.

Originally Posted by peterjim13

But how did we miss Mirage-5? There were quite a lot of users for this fighter plane including the IAI derivative in Israel.
I am sure that this particular fighter would have been a great bridge between Mirage 2000 and the previous-gen Dassault.

Great point and there is a history with both aircraft the Mirage III and Mirage F.1. We did think of/evaluate/discuss the Mirage III in, I think, 1961. It & the Saab Draken were the most modern fighters outside USSR and USA. Its fame at Israeli hands in 1967 was some years away. The MiG-21 offered by USSR was a tailed delta v/s the Mirage III's tail-less delta wing. As described in the main first post the delta wing has many advantages and some classic disadvantages {very high landing speeds, speed bleed off in turns, almost impossible ride at high speeds lo-lo-lo etc}. The most effective way to eliminate these while retaining a deltas good qualities is an all moving canard. But in the 1960s the computer technology and fly by wire did not exist to make those canards work right. The next best solution was to build a tailed delta which is what the MiG-21 is.

Other than the geo-political benefits of dealing with USSR + license production of airframe, engines and avionics + rupee payments we without a doubt selected the better aircraft. Israeli Mirage III's trounced the Arab MiG's in 1967 but in 1971 Pakistan took great pains not to let their Mirage III anywhere close to our MiG-21s!!! In 1981-82 we did look at the F.1 to boost our long range air-to-air defense competency especially with F-16s going to Zia ul Haq. We had already evaluated it in 1977 under the Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft {DPSA} programme won by the Jaguar and found the F.1 electronically advanced. In the processes of that discussion the French tabled the 2000 which was in the prototype stage. We decided to wait for it as it was a whole quantum jump ahead of the F.1. We bought the MiG-23 and R-23 missile instead which I believe was a knee jerk reaction and a waste. The MiG-21, Sukhoi Su-7 and MiG-27 were outstanding aircraft and were the right pick for their time at a fraction of the price a Western aircraft would have cost us assuming we had the foreign exchange to pay for it in those days. The Tornado was a geo-political no-no for us - great bomb truck, excellent lo-lo flying characteristics but tough to defend against a nimble opponent. The Viggen had already been evaluated and the Sepecat Jaguar selected instead. Also the Americans would not let the Viggen {with an American upgraded engine} to be sold to India. Viggen was a very modern aircraft for its time but not accessible to us and requiring very careful maintenance procedures to get the best out of its finely tuned engine. The Western media gives the impression of their aircraft always being top notch but that is not reality. Just for the record the MiG-21bis as it was in 1981 could fly rings around both the Tornado and the Viggen

PS: The canards on the Viggen, Lavi & rebuilt Mirage should not be confused for the canards on the Rafale. The former are simple lift devices. The latter are maneuvering flight surfaces.

Originally Posted by MMV

Very well written article and detailed too, hatsoff!
As you had mentioned HAMMER was included much later considering geopolitical situation , how does it compare with SPICE, currently integrated with Mirage fighters. Maybe for later lot of MMRCAs IAF might go for SPICE, any views

HAMMER and SPICE are contemporaries and similar in nature & comparably sophisticated. HAMMER is a later product and is said to have a circular error of probability* of 1 metre versus SPICE's 3 metres. But if most of your targets are 10 to 50 metres long this difference is less material. Both convert iron bombs into smart weapons with an optronic-cum-IR-cum laser-cum satellite-cum-GPS guidance in the nose and cruciform tail surfaces at the rear (for glide control). Both have outer effective range in the 40 to 50 kms band if released from altitude at speed.

*means that 50% of the time the bomb will fall within 1-metre of the target.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

....you've answered a question which has been on my mind for years! However, we've all heard of USAF exercises where F22s and F35s took out F16s and F15s without them even knowing that they were being targeted. Is this because of stealth? Or is it because of better sensor fusion in jets like the F35s which give much better situational awareness to their pilots?

How much is myth and how much reality we will never know. The Americans have a huge stake in promoting the invincibility of stealth aircraft. Stealth is less visibility most of the time and very less visibility some of the time at no stage is it invisible.

And coming to our object of discussion, much has been said about the SPECTRA suite in Rafales which apparently give them an edge, however what exactly is SPECTRA? Is there a SPECTRA equivalent in a F15, Eurofighter, Su-30 MKI/Su-25 or a J-16/J-20? And how would this SPECTRA compare with the data fusion tech in a F35 (I understand this might be well beyond public domain information )?

Every modern fighter will have its suite of electronic warfare - the one on Rafale is christened Spectra. It must be somewhat more advanced than the one on the Mirage 2000, MiG-29 UPG and Su-30MKIs. It must be potent but I doubt it is a game changer. I don't know. Will never know.

Originally Posted by Maveryq

I was wondering what is the circled item near the tail exhaust system?

This is part of the workings of the nozzle - expansion when on reheat and contraction when in dry thrust mode.

Originally Posted by swarnava.ch

I came across a thread by a Chinese Think Tank which mentioned Rafale is a failure product and no one buys it and India purchasing the same was a misstep. I can understand the bias in the tone but the interesting question definitely was why indeed not many other countries have purchased this bird.

One should not expect better from a Chinese think tank!! You will be surprised that the IAF is considered a gold standard where it comes to evaluating fighter or any other aircraft and several other Air Forces wait to see what the IAF picks. It happened with the Mirage 2000 and also with the Rafale when we selected it as the final winner in 2011.

[Romeo_Mike]

Very well-compiled thread on our newest bird of prey @V.Narayan. Enjoyed reading it, just like all the aviation related essays you have penned before. I see many aspects of the Rafale and its acquisition have been discussed and here are my thoughts on some of these aspects. Although I should clarify right now that these are just thoughts based on assimilation of various news and scholarly articles I have read over these years and members having better knowledge on these subject are welcome to correct me where necessary.

1. How technologically relevant is the Rafale today: I would say as much as any other aircraft of similar role in the world, since it sports comparably competent technology in terms of EW and BVR capabilities in its class.

I agree with some people who say stealth is the way forward and the Rafale does not look stealthy enough for today's age. But let's take a quick detour to look at how stealth has evolved over these years. Even the people who invented stealth (Yes.. I'm talking about Uncle Sam and the F-117 here) have come to recognize the fact that geometry need not play the largest part in achieving desired stealth characteristics and advanced radar absorbing surface coating can achieve substantial results at a fraction of the cost (of development) and without compromising the aircraft's flying characteristics. Just compare the looks of the F-117 (which was mostly geometry) and the F-35 lightning (the US' current multi-role stealth aircraft) to get the idea. When the Yankees set out to create the gold standard in stealth today, the F-22 Raptor, it also became THE most expensive fighter ever produced. This arguably led them to rely more on surface coating in case of the F-35, which, let's be honest looks like the chubby cousin of the Raptor.

And the French seem to possess such surface coating tech and would go to any extent to guard this secret - which is why they sought to keep this out of the ToT clause negotiated for the MMRCA deal(more on this below). Also adding to this argument, is the fact that every Rafale we have bought has to fly back to France to get the coating redone at periodic intervals (not sure of the number right now).

2. Why 36 and not 126:

First why not 126... I believe the major driving factors would have been the below -

a. Cost - The Rafale was already and expensive aircraft, as rightly said by many here, mostly due to lack of economies of scale. License production with ToT of 108 Aircraft in India (18 were to be bought off the shelf) would have made it even costlier to produce. And this is true for any aircraft e.g. the Su-30MKIs license built by HAL are almost double the cost of the Russian built examples. Yes, the Rafale was declared L-1 in th MMRCA competition, but that estimate did not accurately reflect the true cost of acquisition for the aircraft. Going ahead with such a costly defence deal would have been Fiscal and political suicide for any incumbent Govt. Sure, someone could argue we have the third largest Annual Defence budget in the world, but ironically, major part of that budget goes into paying salaries and pension.

b. Contract negotiation stalemate - The full ToT that was mandated by the current Govt for any future defence acquisition, did not sit well with the French, who did not want to part with some of the sensitive tech such as the surface coating mentioned above.

c. Questions over projected role- Many, including the CAG, have questioned why a heavier and much costlier aircraft was chosen as the replacement for the current light fighter in the IAF inventory (the Mig-21). I would refrain from commenting of the circumstances that led to evolution of the IAF's requirement as I am no military strategist. This however was the subject of much scrutiny in the public domain.

...then why 36? In no particular order -

• The IAF needed some multi-role planes and needed them fast, to 1- maintain nominal (if not desired) squadron strength, with the retirement of the Mig family fighters; 2- To compensate for the lack of progress in the Jaguar Improvement program.
• To save face with the French - after them being declared the winners of the MMRCA competition, the new Govt simply couldn't have risked alienating a proven supplier, by just scrapping the program that had already been 6 long years in the making.

All said and done, I believe, Induction of the Rafale in the IAF's inventory, certainly adds to maintaining deterrence in the neighborhood for the foreseeable future.

[whitecloud]

Simple explanation by an expert like you V.N Narayan sir has cleared most of the doubts of the laymen like us.

I would request your version of the events which happened on Feb 27 2019 when PAF fighter jets attacked the brigade headquarters in Rajouri & one IAF MIG 21 was shot down in P.O.K.while chasing them away .Their claim of downing one Flanker was a propaganda and it's well known .I would request your view on the following :

1) A leading journalist from India did claim that F16's of PAF fired their multiple AMRAAM 's for a flanker kill but somehow the indian pilots were able to duck them. But unfortunately IAF pilots didnot get the firing solution against the PAF planes due to lesser range of the A2A missiles .

2) Is S 400 Triumf system a game changer against China .

[Red Liner]

Originally Posted by Romeo_Mike

Very well-compiled thread on our newest bird of prey @V.Narayan.

Reminded me of this masterpiece - a jim Morrison poem.

Bird of prey, bird of prey
Flying high, flying high
Bird of prey, bird of prey
In the summer sky, flying high
Bird of prey, bird of prey
Flying high, flying high
Bird of prey, bird of prey
Gently pass on by, flying high
Flying high, flying high
Flying high, flying high
Flying high, flying high
Take me on your flight
Flying high
Flying high

Enjoy this visual brilliance.

https://youtu.be/2XmWVB2jbJo

For me fighter planes will always be an emotion much like motorcycles