Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[sancho]

No comparison b/w luh and mmrca.
mmrca is critical for us.

Wrong, the case is even exactly the same, because IA and IAF officials are stating the same things about a fast replacement of the older helicopters, as we hear in MMRCA. The MoD could had made a final selection for an LUH now, but have changed the competition to a re-tendering, which causes huge delays. For MMRCA that even opens 2 causes for re-tendering possibilities.

1) re-considering about the L1 due to the changes withing the competition and the RFP
2) re-considering about HALs work share, just as in the LUH competition

Plus the swiss evaluation report pegs rafale much better than ef.

And the same might be the result of Indias evaluation, but not the best fighter will be selected, but the best package (fighter capabilities, industrial benefits, costs...).

 

[he-man]

Wrong, the case is even exactly the same, because IA and IAF officials are stating the same things about a fast replacement of the older helicopters, as we hear in MMRCA. The MoD could had made a final selection now and changed the competition now, which causes huge delays. For MMRCA that even opens 2 causes for re-tendering.

1) re-considering about the L1 due to the changes withing the competition and the RFP
2) re-considering about HALs work share, just as in the LUH competition



And the same might be the result of Indias evaluation, but not the best fighter will be selected, but the best package (fighter capabilities, industrial benefits, costs...).

As i said its too late in the day now.
And my point on sanctions is a valid one,,,we better stay away from uk

 

[sancho]

As i said its too late in the day now.
And my point on sanctions is a valid one,,,we better stay away from uk

That's your personal opionion, but that has no importance on a the evaluation which offer is better for India as a whole, nor on the decision of MoD to re-evaluate and for that it's obviously not too later (if the changes in the P75I competition are true, we even see the 2nd big re-tendering of the new MoD, again causing delays).

 

[DrSomnath999]

He clearly states the air superiority role in the example.

Yes!!

But his logic was correct but the example was embarrassingly wrong

If you take the eg of france they dont have any threat nearby their neighbourhood as they are abide by NATO but
immediate threat of theirs as a whole is RUSSIA which is quite a distance away from them plus they have a combined air force with other nations airforce as a whole in case of NATO unlike we .

Meanwhile India's case is totally different 2 nuclear armed neighbours One with surplus AWACS & 4th -upcoming
5th gen fighter & another one with leaner airforce but well trained pilots & experience with previous air combats with us

So thats why like i said earliear air superiority depends upon threat which it is facing.

(IMO)Air policing should have been the accurate case here in case of india not air superiority one For absolute air superiorty it definetly needs help from SU 30 mki & why shouldnt they hesistate for that !!

So the author should have included that part also

Doesn't really makes sense, because AESA is only the upgrade to older Radar systems, therefore we just required the most modern radar system, but didn't selected Rafale only because it has AESA.

when did i say we selected rafale only becoz it has aesa other factors also counts too
But it was one of the most important criteria of MMRCA & you very well know it

Nowadays every country wants AESA radar in their plane becoz of it's added advantages in comparision to older radars

As I said, it adds to the capabilities of the fighter, but is of no use, if the enemy has propper AWACS support!

That is serious misconception
One thing i like to tell That AWACS can patrol in one's own land basically but you cant take it deep into
enemy airspace until & unless you achieve
1) absolute air superiority by taking out all aerial threats in that area
2) SEAD , but incase of CHINA they may field long range SAM in future eg S400 which have long range Missiles & radar to detect air threats which looks very difficult to do SEAD missions

But fighter planes can go deep into enemy air space as it fly low + Low RCs + EW hence MINI awacs concept look more survivable in case of enemy air space

The low RCS, terrain avoiding capabilities, passive MICA attacks and in future METEOR will play a far more important role, when IAF is in attack, than the AESA itself.

The problem is with AWACS few things what you mention here as advantage is nullified

1)LOW rcs of rafale would be neglected with EFTs plus it can never have a stealth plane like Low RCS it would
be detected by AWACS

2) Terrain avoiding capabilties look good on when you are in offensive mode i.e when you are in enemy land ,But
when you are in defensive mode i.e you are flying in your own land & your the defender against enemy aerial attack then if you fly low then your BVRAAMS wont have any kinematic range.

3) sadly passive detection has also it's limitations unfortunately FSO IT lacks an IRST channel we can have an IRST channel if we opt for it ,meanwhile RWR 's capabilty is also limited & yet to be tested against AESA radar platforms planes

So thats why plane's EW capabilty for example in case of Rafale Spectra would be effective against enemy AWACS
& rafale's AESA radar would not help in detection of aerial threats but in Electronic attack/warfare also .This is the biggest advantage of AESA radar .

One more thing also an AESA radar also acts as a passive radar also it means it can also help in passive detection also
Imagine if our AWACS get shot down by a similiar kind of AWACS killer missile like us by the chinese then you gonna have to rely on mini awacs concept basically .

Of course, but only if the opponent fighter doesn't have AWACS support, otherwise they will fly with their own radars turned off, which makes them harder to detect, while they will get the positions of our fighters via AWACS. That's the same tactics we used with MKIs and Bisons for example, just that propper AWACS support makes this far better.
That's why that scenario fits to the opponents of the NATO so far, but not to ours!

Russia also has AWACS but it cant fly deep into NATO territories & the reason is same as above .

They always have AWACS support when they use Rafale (E-3 or E-2), the AESA is only an addition, but doesn't make the AWACS support any less important. IAF had no AWACS for a long time (and even today not anywhere close to the needed numbers), that's when the long range and wide field of view of the BARS was a crucial advantage, but as mentioned above, that is countered today by our opponents and even for the so called mini AWACS role, the T50 will be the game changer because it can do the role while being within the enemy air space and can detect threats, before they can detect the following IAF fighters,.

exactly for offensive purpose a stealth plane would be more valuable than an AWACS but for defensive purpose
AWACS role is good enough

But we have to wait to get a FFGA until then any emergency we gonna have to deal with Rafale + SU 30 mki (SUPER) variants basically


CHEERS

 

[Dash]

That's your personal opionion, but that has no importance on a the evaluation which offer is better for India as a whole, nor on the decision of MoD to re-evaluate and for that it's obviously not too later (if the changes in the P75I competition are true, we even see the 2nd big re-tendering of the new MoD, again causing delays).

They spoke about private shipyards, only L&T?

 

[sancho]

when did i say we selected rafale only becoz it has aesa other factors also counts too
But it was one of the most important criteria of MMRCA & you very well know it

Again it was one of the criterias for MMRCA, but not for the selection of Rafale. We could had got better once if AESA would actually have played a big role, but it didn't, it simply was the minimum requirement. So AESA is defenitely not a game changer.

Nowadays every country wants AESA radar in their plane becoz of it's added advantages in comparision to older radars

Isn't that logical? It is the state of the art technology and who wants to remain with old techs and weapons on their fighters. For countries without AWACS support it's even more important, as it improves the detection capability not only of the fighter by of the force as a whole by far.

That is serious misconception
One thing i like to tell That AWACS can patrol in one's own land basically but you cant take it deep into
enemy airspace until & unless you achieve

Not really, when even a basic AWACS system can detect fighter sized target at 300Km+, you can stay 150Km away from the borders and still have a good picture inside the enemy air space. The more capable the AWACS is (Chinese KJ2000s or our A50 Phalcons for example) and the more numbers of aircraft you have to cover a wide area in a 24/7 rotation, the better of course.

But fighter planes can go deep into enemy air space as it fly low + Low RCs + EW hence MINI awacs concept look more survivable in case of enemy air space

Mini AWACS has nothing to do with the enemy airspace, since not even MKIs will use their BARS there, because it makes them detectable. That concept is only the ability to share radar data via data links with other aircrafts, that then can stay in passive mode and then be less detectable. Be it AWACS to fighter, MKI to Bison, or Rafale with AESA to Rafale in passive mode...and since you can use your active radar to the maximum performance only at high altitude, you can't use that in low altitude approach either.

it can never have a stealth plane like Low RCS it would be detected by AWACS

That's why only FGFA can be a game changer, while Rafale or EF will increase or capabilities, especially in the offensive, by giving alternatives to the MKI as the only current option for offensive actions and that not even a good one at the moment.

 

[sancho]

They spoke about private shipyards, only L&T?

Not sure which ship yards, but I meant that they changed the competition (according to the reports) from 2 subs build in vendor country + 4 in India to all in India. Which would go according to the increased manufacturing in India idea, but against the fast procurement of subs as IN wants it.
Similarly, IAF wants a fast procurement in MMRCA too and that for a long time now, but it's MoD who decides and if the new MoD has a different policy, they can still change the competition according to it, if they see more benefits for India.

For example, if they want to de-link HAL more from the MMRCA as they did in the LUH competition now, they can re-evaluate the shortlisted or even re-tender the whole competition (which is unlikely though), to let more private industry team ups with the vendors happen and then select the best offer. That's the procedure that the former MoD had initiated for the Avro replacement and that the new MoD now takes over as the standard, even for ongoing tenders as it seems (LUH, P75I). If that is the new policy of the MoD now, it simply can't be ruled out for MMRCA now and it would at least open a chance for the EF again, but as I said before, lower basic costs won't make the MoD reconsider MMRCA, only credible changes in their industrial offer will.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Not really, when even a basic AWACS system can detect fighter sized target at 300Km+, you can stay 150Km away from the borders and still have a good picture inside the enemy air space.

again you are mixing things up what you have stated above is for defensive purpose basically in one's own land.

Imagine your in strategic mission to bomb one enemy land deep into it's hinterland which is heavily defended with
long range SAMs & fighter support , You cant take your awacs deep for instance 1000km into air space of enemy land with you unless you achieve both the conditions what i have posted above .

If you go with awacs without doing those 2 conditions which i have posted above then awacs is not returning to base for sure .

The more capable the AWACS is (Chinese KJ2000s or our A50 Phalcons for example) and the more numbers of aircraft you have to cover a wide area in a 24/7 rotation, the better of course.

Luckily that scenario applies good for us against pakistan as it is small country so with phalcons we can cover
almost 40-50% area of pakistani air space if we patrol our phalcons in 4 states border
a) Gujarat b) rajasthan c) Punjab & d) jammu



But unfortunately we cant do that with china as it is a big country

Mini AWACS has nothing to do with the enemy airspace, since not even MKIs will use their BARS there, because it makes them detectable.That concept is only the ability to share radar data via data links with other aircrafts, that then can stay in passive mode and then be less detectable.

MIni awacs concept lies a fighter with radar turn on from stand off range basically from distance which your adversary cant engage you with that range of BVRAAM even if it gets detected

whether it is AESA/PESA radar .But AESA radar thanks to LPI has a better chance of survival than PESA

Be it AWACS to fighter, MKI to Bison, or Rafale with AESA to Rafale in passive mode...and since you can use your active radar to the maximum performance only at high altitude, you can't use that in low altitude approach either.

You again misintreprated the logic
ok i explain
see for eg if your alloted the task of strategic nuclear attack / bombing deep into china , where stealth is a priority
but you dont have stealth plane

So rafale + aesa equipped Su 30 mki would be alloted to do the job , Both have to fly low + EW suite & situational awarness to scan out the threats .

If RWR of any plane detects a warning of EM emission then only one plane has to go up with radar turn on & rest have to be on passive mode flying low . The plane with greater detection range would be employed to be in active mode & scan out the area for ground / aerial threats & guide other planes to engage their targets from a stand of range.

Even if it is detected & it is fired upon it can evade much better way or it take out the threat on it's own which AWACS cant do

so awacs would be a liabilty on enemy air space & your ignoring one thing if similar kind of AWACS killer is used against us then what would you do

So mini awacs is a pratical way in enemy air space



CHEERS

 

[sancho]

If you go with awacs without doing those 2 conditions which i have posted above then awacs is not returning to base for sure .

Who said we would use AWACS beyond enemy borders? I said, we won't use that mini AWACS tactics in offensive strike missions, at least not unless stealth fighters will be available.

Luckily that scenario applies good for us against pakistan

Not with the pointless numbers of AWACS we have today

But unfortunately we cant do that with china as it is a big country

Of course we can, since we don't need to cover China as a whole, but need long enough range to have a propper reaction time against air or land attacks. But again, first we need useful numbers of AWACS aircrafts, otherwise we simply will have too many blind spots.

The plane with greater detection range would be employed to be in active mode & scan out the area for ground / aerial threats & guide other planes to engage their targets from a stand of range.

No it wouldn't because that would work exactly against the idea of beeing less detectable. You send the whole package in low and passive and would use radar only if really necessary. The minute you use fighter active and high, the enemy can detect it and will engage, which makes the strike package vulnerable to detection too, since you lead the interceptors to the same area, while you want to avoid that. That's why all the fighters will rely on passive sensor infos. In fact in offensive missions, you use active fighters as distractions, to divert the attention away from the strike package, or to make out ground defences and don't use both together. That as said will only be possible with FGFA, because it can fly infront of the strike package, even active and at high altitude, WITHOUT being detected or making the strike package vulnerable. It then can detect enemies and guide the package away from threats, but that's a different tactic with different capabilities.

 

[DrSomnath999]

I said, we won't use that mini AWACS tactics in offensive strike missions, at least not unless stealth fighters will be available.

Sadly thats your opinion basically .

Meanwhile Stealth fighters would lose it's stealth advantage if it is in active mode in foreign land

thats why i have read somewhere US would rather be using F15 silent eagle / latest versions of F15 's powerful AESA radar to be used in Mini awacs mode from stand off range & still be able to guide
F22 which is stealthy to be in passive mode to target their threats without turning on it's own AESA radar for stealth
reason .Thats looks more survivable Becoz F22 can take out threats stealthily Meanwhile F15 would be in standoff
range from enemy BVRs

Not with the pointless numbers of AWACS we have today[

WTH do you mean by pointless number of AWACS i just can understand

HOw many number of awacs would make your number pointful in INDO/PAK scenario then let me guess

According to the article a single E 3F awacs is sufficient enough to patrol the size of france . So atleast 4 awacs patroling in the border states wont be pointful according to you in case of INDO -PAK scenario .Strange!!

Meanwhile majority of pakistani air assets are in the border areas basically in the eastern border of theirs
Very less air assets are stationed in the western border. So one can easily monitor their movements from AWACS by flying in it's own territory

3 are there Plus DRDO awacs recently going to be handed over to IAF even if smaller is also quite capable as their ERIC EYE .

& yes future plans of other AWACS are also there for IAF but we are discussing about current scenario at the moment

Of course we can, since we don't need to cover China as a whole, but need long enough range to have a propper reaction time against air or land attacks. But again, first we need useful numbers of AWACS aircrafts, otherwise we simply will have too many blind spots.

Well easiear said than done

INDIA & china scenario & topography is totally different .
Vast stretch of border land plus AWACS range is not that much it can no way able to cover that much border area Plus Himalayas mountain topography can be an obstruction also for passing of RADAR emissions from AWACS .If a skilled chinese pilot can utilize this topography to it's advantage then it can make AWACS job very difficult

another point is Nepal area & Myanmar area can be a porous area for us against the chinese airforce if adequate AWACS coverage does nt reach there

Meanwhile this things doesnt come into equation into INDO -PAK scenario
I really wonder now how many AWACS ,would be "pointful"according to you in case of India against china scenario then

No it wouldn't because that would work exactly against the idea of beeing less detectable. You send the whole package in low and passive and would use radar only if really necessary. The minute you use fighter active and high, the enemy can detect it and will engage, which makes the strike package vulnerable to detection too, since you lead the interceptors to the same area, while you want to avoid that.

Your logic is flawed
No matter your in active or passive mode AWACS /Or an aerostat would detect you no matter how low you fly ,if your not a stealth plane as eg Rafale has to carry EFT + CRUISE Missile in case of long range mission so meaning less to say AWACS cant detect it

But for a non stealthy plane it requires an EA aircraft in the strike formation also for that SU 30 mki would be configured to carry EL/M-8222 jamming pod
jamming pod but upgraded versions might carry the Russian systems or stick to isreali ones i cant say.
But for Rafale Spectra & AESA radar would be handy for EW department.& rafale would also be carring atleast
6 missiles for self defence



Plus SU 30 mki would be carrying an AWACS killer if it indeed exists for INDIA. So eventually if the strike package do get detected
The escort fighters which usually should be Su 30 mki which might not need EFTS as it has larger internal fuel plus range so can carry extra BVRAAMS than rafale or the multi role fighter Rafale which has multiple (A2A /A2G) payload gonna have to take the threat out eventually before it intercepts them , through mini awacs concept from a Super SU 30mki or rafale itself.

Also incase SEAD is required in case then you have to carry An ARM / PGM

That's why all the fighters will rely on passive sensor infos.

Your posting one sided view basically imagine after you have been spotted by an awacs your adversary fighter jets are also in passive mode relying on awacs/mini awacs concept then .as J10b /Flanker pirated variants all have IRSTs . then Passive targeting advantage would even eventually be nullified for both sides until & unless you dont take out
AWACS with AWACS killer for that also i presume you gonna have to turn on your AESA radar.


So passive detection has its limitations for both sides ,

& only deciding factor after that would be the range of BVRAAMs (IR or EM) & it's Kp basically

. That as said will only be possible with FGFA, because it can fly infront of the strike package, even active and at high altitude, WITHOUT being detected or making the strike package vulnerable. It then can detect enemies and guide the package away from threats, but that's a different tactic with different capabilities.

then how can you call it an advantage for FFGA if it is in active meanwhile your assuming the same scenario
as disadavantage for a non steathy fighter.

basically like i mentioned before 2 scenarios could make FFGA advantage for strike package

a) EA attack assited Stealth plane strike package

b) completely passive Stealth plane assisted strike package

CHEERS

 

[sancho]

Sadly thats your opinion basically .

Which you can't counter, since the key points are flying active and with maximum use of detection capability. But that is used only in defensive, while using the passive fighters as offensive tools. Look at the reports from Cope 2004 and how IAF used the MKIs. They purposly kept them away from engaging in fights and used them only for surveillance, to use their biggest advantage in the combined tactics with the passive "attacking" Bisons! So it's not just my opionion, but a proven concept within the IAF.

Meanwhile Stealth fighters would lose it's stealth advantage if it is in active mode in foreign land

How so? They benefit from stealth in first place, contrary to the MKI, which makes them far less vulnerable even if operated at high altitude and since it is expected that they will have modern AESAs with LPI modes, as well as IR reduction measures, they are far better in an offensive mini AWACS role, exactly because the low detectability is their prime advantage, not the detection capability as it is for the MKI.

thats why i have read somewhere US would rather be using F15 silent eagle / latest versions of F15 's powerful AESA radar to be used in Mini awacs mode from stand off range & still be able to guide

Again, in defensive because the idea is to provide the forwarded / passive fighter with radar data to engage enemy fighters, even if it makes you more detectable, while being in a safe distance to the target.
In offensive strike roles however, the F22 would be the mini AWACS, because it's less detectable and would provide following passive F15s in strike config, with radar data to avoid threats and make them less detectable.

You can see the same even in Rafales current SEAD concepts, where one Rafale is active and at high altutude to force ground defences to aim at it, but at the same time pin point them, to divert target data to a low flying Rafale with stand off weapons. The earlier stays in safe distance, while the latter is closing in to the target, while remaining low detectable.

WTH do you mean by pointless number of AWACS i just can understand

HOw many number of awacs would make your number pointful in INDO/PAK scenario then let me guess

Pointless because we only have 3 operational AWACS aircrafts today, to cover several 1000s Km of border area and that 24/7. IAF officials themselfs states, that they aim on around 15 x AWACS to cover the land borders alone, so even with the follow 2 to 3 A50 Phalcons and 3 x DRDO AWACS we much below the required number to provide propper coverage, while PAF for example has already superior numbers to provide better rotations and at the same time can concentrate basically at a single boderline only. That's why aiming on developing AWACS India now, before not even the first DRDO AWACS order is fully inducted and a follow on order was cleared is totally nonsense and doesn't serve the security of the nation.

Plus SU 30 mki would be carrying an AWACS killer if it indeed exists for INDIA.

You are developing concepts and at the same time have doubts about key capabilities? So why not stick to what we know, rather than speculating on rumored capabilities?

So passive detection has its limitations for both sides

& only deciding factor after that would be the range of BVRAAMs (IR or EM) & it's Kp basically

,

Not really, it actually broadens the picture, that's why adding EW sensor capabilities with RWR in 360°s gives a modern fighter far better situational awareness, than a 4th gen fighter that is dependent on active radar data only. Rafale and EF belongs to the most advanced fighters with such capabilities, which gives them advantages over adversaries, especially in combination with unique features like MICA and FSO. Not the IRST is the key, since it has range and FoV limitations, but modern RWRs, which is why the upgraded Mig 29 of IAF will supass the passive capabilities of the older version by far, although it had IRST, HMS and Hobs missiles for years. So the better your passive capabilities, the more it adds you in modern combat.

then how can you call it an advantage for FFGA if it is in active meanwhile your assuming the same scenario
as disadavantage for a non steathy fighter.

As mentioned above, a non stealth fighter will be vulnerable against all kind of detection measures, be it active radar, IR or by EW sensors that tries to detect any signals of it. Propper 5th gen fighters on the other side are designed and developed to be as prone against these detection measures as possible, be it through stealth design, low IR features like SC capability, or by giving away as less signals as possible, using the most modern techs. All that is including in the FGFA, which is why it will give IAF a huge advantage in adding new combat tactics and we really need the twin seat version, to further increase these NG tactics with AURA UCAV in future too.

 

[DrSomnath999]

Which you can't counter, since the key points are flying active and with maximum use of detection capability. But that is used only in defensive, while using the passive fighters as offensive tools. Look at the reports from Cope 2004 and how IAF used the MKIs. They purposly kept them away from engaging in fights and used them only for surveillance, to use their biggest advantage in the combined tactics with the passive "attacking" Bisons! So it's not just my opionion, but a proven concept within the IAF.

I am sorry to reveal that
you embarrasingly citated a wrong example to prove your wrong POV

cope 2004 exercise didnt use SU 30 mki at all rather basic Su 30k as Su 30 mki radar frequencies are classified they are not authorise to use it against a foreign adversary in aerial games whether in india or abroad .

Cope India: How the IAF rewrote the rules of air combat | Russia & India Report
Exercise Cope India 04

Ok mistakes do happen sometimes ignore it

But whatever it may be mini awacs is possible in offensive / Defensive missions .Becoz i beleive in defensive mission mini awacs would be pointless when you already have AWACS

How so? They benefit from stealth in first place, contrary to the MKI, which makes them far less vulnerable even if operated at high altitude and since it is expected that they will have modern AESAs with LPI modes, as well as IR reduction measures, they are far better in an offensive mini AWACS role, exactly because the low detectability is their prime advantage, not the detection capability as it is for the MKI.

becoz if you please correlate what you have posted earliear you could see what danger if they are in active mode

No it wouldn't because that would work exactly against the idea of beeing less detectable. You send the whole package in low and passive and would use radar only if really necessary. The minute you use fighter active and high, the enemy can detect it and will engage, which makes the strike package vulnerable to detection too,since you lead the interceptors to the same area, while you want to avoid that.

so aesa technolgy remains the same for a 5th gen or 4th gen fighter's radar as they both should have LPI ,But RWR of an AWACS is usually more powerful & senstive than a fighter plane Rwr
.It would be alerted of a unknown plane in the region & it would alert & guide it patroling fighters (J10b/ flanker clones) having IRST to that region in passive mode

So whther stealthy or not IR emission from air friction from wings & fuselarge of a plane cant be ignored which the enemy fighter's IRST would detect it & no EW would work against IRST
So cover blown so better be passive in 1st place if you dont want yourselves to be engaged in aerial warfare in an enemy airspace where you dont have any fuel / fighter plane back up when you ran out of fuel /missiles eventually

Again, in defensive because the idea is to provide the forwarded / passive fighter with radar data to engage enemy fighters, even if it makes you more detectable, while being in a safe distance to the target.
In offensive strike roles however, the F22 would be the mini AWACS, because it's less detectable and would provide following passive F15s in strike config, with radar data to avoid threats and make them less detectable.

again the same old stuff defensive /offensive

why are you neglecting one thing in defensive mode when you would be having a superior awacs why the hell would you rely on a F15 for mini awacs concept.

In offensive mode F15 even in active /passive mode doesnt make any sense as it would be detected by AWACS
rather F22 in passive mode would take out all threats stealthily without alerting them & could easily clear way for F15 or any non stealthy fighter plane to proceed further & F15 aesa radar would guide them to it's target from a stand off range.

You can see the same even in Rafales current SEAD concepts, where one Rafale is active and at high altutude to force ground defences to aim at it, but at the same time pin point them, to divert target data to a low flying Rafale with stand off weapons. The earlier stays in safe distance, while the latter is closing in to the target, while remaining low detectable.

Hmm
if your reffering to LIBYA example

ask yourselves do the libyan have
a) AWACS ??
b) long range SAMs like S400

Ok why should i bash only french ask the the same thing about US airforce which opponents have they faced have those 2 things plus the french & US have excellent EW capabilty

So their opponent didnt have the 1st look advantage & situational awareness at all meanwhile the french & US did

Becoz with awacs no matter how low you fly & whther your are in active or passive mode if your not stealthy & you are flying within the detection range of AWACS , then you cant hide

Only an EA aircraft assisted non stealthy strike package(formation) can survive or completely passive stealth aircraft strike package (formation)

Pointless because we only have 3 operational AWACS aircrafts today, to cover several 1000s Km of border area and that 24/7. IAF officials themselfs states, that they aim on around 15 x AWACS to cover the land borders alone, so even with the follow 2 to 3 A50 Phalcons and 3 x DRDO AWACS we much below the required number to provide propper coverage, while PAF for example has already superior numbers to provide better rotations and at the same time can concentrate basically at a single boderline only. That's why aiming on developing AWACS India now, before not even the first DRDO AWACS order is fully inducted and a follow on order was cleared is totally nonsense and doesn't serve the security of the nation.

& that is for IAF's 2 front strategy basically which includes a vastly outnumbered adversary CHINA plus well trained PAF.I am stressing about PAK border line only.

& the article had cited example of single E3d able to patrol the size of france so 3 can be used in PAKISTAN scenario but yes numerically that is inferior but technology & capabilty wise superior to PAF

plus DRDO awacs has not been inducted yet thats true but by year end i think it would be inducted or it can be delayed also i cant deny that also
&
why do you beleive it doesnt serve security of the nation ???huH!!
meanwhile brazil is proposing to export that awacs version to 3rd world countries & PAF also have similiar kind
of AWACS in the form of ERIC EYE

You are developing concepts and at the same time have doubts about key capabilities? So why not stick to what we know, rather than speculating on rumored capabilities?

My lord!!
R172 novator misile was stated in the article itself by the author which was our topic of discussion " the article's content itself in those 2 jpegs file ",
Who the hell am I to develop concepts

& why am i doubting becoz i dont know any recent updates about novator i have been listening about this from quite a sometime but no latest updates or news have been published about it
.

so thats why i am skeptical.




,

Not really, it actually broadens the picture, that's why adding EW sensor capabilities with RWR in 360°s gives a modern fighter far better situational awareness, than a 4th gen fighter that is dependent on active radar data only. Rafale and EF belongs to the most advanced fighters with such capabilities, which gives them advantages over adversaries, especially in combination with unique features like MICA and FSO. Not the IRST is the key, since it has range and FoV limitations, but modern RWRs, which is why the upgraded Mig 29 of IAF will supass the passive capabilities of the older version by far, although it had IRST, HMS and Hobs missiles for years. So the better your passive capabilities, the more it adds you in modern combat.

You are posting only 1 sided view basically that i have pointed out earliear kindly think from adversary point of view
also

Your adversary like china also has IRST equipped fighters plus we dont know anything about their RWR capabilty

but one thing they would be having in their own land when they are in defensive & we wont be having in offensive scenario in their land

i.e AWACS , biggest force multiplier whether your are in active or passive mode it doesnt matter to him it would detect a non stealthy plane with EFTS & CRUISE missile if it flies within it's detection range .Until & unless
it is not supported By EA aircraft or rafale's active cancellation tech for rafale only not for SU 30 mki

meanhile FSO IT lacks an IRST channel & RWr targeting capabilty against a passive target wouldnt be possible

& to exploit full capabilty(MAX RANGEE) of Meteor missile we have to need a radar i.e through MINI awacs concept

As mentioned above, a non stealth fighter will be vulnerable against all kind of detection measures, be it active radar, IR or by EW sensors that tries to detect any signals of it. Propper 5th gen fighters on the other side are designed and developed to be as prone against these detection measures as possible, be it through stealth design, low IR features like SC capability, or by giving away as less signals as possible, using the most modern techs. All that is including in the FGFA, which is why it will give IAF a huge advantage in adding new combat tactics and we really need the twin seat version, to further increase these NG tactics with AURA UCAV in future too.

No matter how stealthy you are you cant avoid air friction between fuselarge & wings of a plane .It would be detected by an IRST . But until & unless you are not in active mode to alert your enemys

Same can be said for china also with J20 & J31 if paf opt for it

PLUS in defensive mode they would be having an AWACS we wont
but those are for future

CHEERS

 

[DrSomnath999]

“...Rafale is the best fighter plane in the world” - Air Chief Marshal Denis Mercier
By Claude Arpi

Appointed as the Air Force Chief of Staff (CEMAA) on September 17, 2012, at the age of 53, General Denis Mercier had joined the French Air Force academy in 1979 and qualified as a fighter pilot in 1983. With 182 combat missions and more than 3,000 flying hours (mostly on Mirage F1C and Mirage 2000C) throughout his career, he has acquired extensive experience both as an operational commander and as a fighter pilot. In 2008, he was appointed Commander of the French Air Force Academy in Salon de Provence. Prior to becoming Air Chief, he was posted as a senior Military Advisor in the Ministry of Defence.
Claude Arpi met him on his return from Jodhpur where the Indo-French joint exercises ‘Garuda V’ were being held. That day, General Mercier flew a Sukhoi-30 MKI, while his Indian counterpart, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha flew a Rafale. Excerpts from the Interview


LONG article only posting few interesting parts

........Yet, there is great hope that with the present government things will move faster.

I am personally convinced that the Rafale is the best fighter plane in the world. I would therefore be delighted to see other major Air Forces being equipped with the Rafale. This is my take on the issue.............


........
This year, all temperature records have been broken in Jodhpur. Did the heat have an impact on the current Garuda exercise?

I have been asked this question already. In fact, the squadron that we deployed is permanently based in the United Arab Emirates. Therefore, the crew was not daunted by the heat in Jodhpur given their everyday experience. I recently went to Africa, where the temperature also reaches 50 degrees. So, one thing that we are certain about is that our aircraft can stand the heat very well, and I am tempted to say, the electronic equipment actually likes the heat. The only limitation in this regard is the human limit. The risk with these staggering heats is human fatigue. But the equipment has no problem, provided it is adequately shielded.........

.......Can you envisage other collaborations with India? At a certain stage, for example, it had been considered to develop the engine of the Tejas, the Kaveri, in collaboration…
Our cooperation is well under way at the tactical and operational levels, and has even reached new heights thanks to the Garuda exercises. In Jodhpur, I realised that we had never reached such a high level during previous editions, because we have been building this inter-operability over time, and this feeling was obviously shared by aircrew from both sides. What needs to be done next is a meeting of both Chiefs of Staff. I think it is important. I will invite the Indian Air Chief to see how we can make further progress in our cooperation.
…I have just drawn up a strategic plan for the French Air Force, which lays out our priorities. We discussed this briefly, the Indian Air Force seems to be doing the same and I realise that we certainly have things to share.
We need to sit around a table and exchange our views on the challenges ahead. Following the publication of the French White Paper, I have just drawn up a strategic plan for the French Air Force, which lays out our priorities. We discussed this briefly, the Indian Air Force seems to be doing the same and I realise that we certainly have things to share. Viewing things from this angle; the sharing of our operational experiences and priorities might lead us to consider doing more together, which may also involve an industrial dimension. But our role as Chiefs of Staff is to start by reflecting on the nature of air power within our respective air forces beyond 2020. This will lead us to the rest.........

........
Some questions about France now. What did the French Air Force learn from its latest campaigns in Libya or in Mali?
In my view, the latest campaigns have demonstrated one thing: the first and foremost duty of an Air Force is to be responsive. We already possess this responsiveness through our two permanent missions. The first one is Air Defence, which requires us to react in a matter of minutes to ensure the sovereignty and protection of national airspace. The second is the Nuclear Deterrence mission, which also imposes stringent readiness constraints. It has to be assured according to a permanent alert posture decided by the President of the Republic.
Besides this, in the case of the first operations in Libya we were required to react within 24 hours. We were able to respond at such short notice thanks to our two permanent missions, whose execution implies constantly maintaining several air bases on alert, as well as information systems and command and control centres.
In the Mali operation, in order to stop the jihadists and to prevent them from regrouping and threatening the capital Bamako, we had to react in less than 48 hours. That is why we decided to strike directly from France, with a very long-range raid of almost ten hours of flight and more than 20 targets to strike. We had to do it.

We have also been close to performing other missions at other theatres of operation, each time at very short notice, within just a few hours. When we were asked to provide reassurance by participating in the air policing of the Baltic States, we also responded very quickly.
These operations have taught me one important lesson: I am now looking at ways to continue organising our Air Force so that, in addition to our two permanent missions, we possess this capability for immediate response from our national territory. Because the new capabilities we have today, the tactical and strategic airlift as well as our combat capability, now provide us with the required degree of responsiveness at very long range.

That is why, during a recent exercise, I wanted the Rafale to be deployed directly from the French mainland to the French Island of La Réunion, over 8,000 km away in the Southern Indian Ocean......

How long was that flight?

It took 10 hours and 40 minutes to reach there and 10 hours and 50 minutes to fly back.


Did you break a record?

Yes, we did. It was not just a long ferry flight; we also performed a simulated strike on the way. I wanted to demonstrate our ability to do this already now. We have also demonstrated our ability to ferry a Fennec helicopter with the new Airbus A400M military transport aircraft to French Guyana (South America) in record time. The A400M has also flown to Djibouti in the Horn of Africa and to Mali in the Sahel-Sahara region of Africa. The one key to all of this is the reorganisation of our air bases so that they can maintain their level of responsiveness, not only for the Air Defence and Nuclear Deterrence missions, but also for Strategic Projection abroad.

In the backdrop of on-going joint (tri-service) reforms, this requires us to reconsider a number of things, in some cases reverting to past concepts, such as actually operating from our air bases to launch air strikes, albeit thousands of kilometres away. The other key element that I wished to demonstrate, and recent operations have proved us right – which is always better – is the Command and Control Centre. Based in Lyon, it controls Air Defence missions over the French homeland, as well as all the operations we are currently conducting in Africa. All missions, whether in France or abroad, are now controlled from Lyon. The planning and control, no matter where the operation is in the world, is undertaken from Lyon in real time. This gives us an unequalled level of responsiveness, which no one else possesses in Europe, and, indeed, elsewhere – apart from the United States.

I really wanted to demonstrate this, and we have succeeded much faster than expected, which gives me great satisfaction. Because this centre is manned for Air Defence, I can ring up tomorrow, or in an hour’s time, and I’m sure to find people there at any time. I can tell them “I want this mission planned” and, whilst carrying on with Air Defence, they will plan a mission thousands of kilometres away. They are able to do this with competent people, who are on the watch round the clock.......

..........
Does the use of drones, as you have done in Mali, interest the Indian side?

Yes, I have been asked about our use of drones and our perspectives about their use in the future. There are different types of drones. Those used by our Air Force are the Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) type, which can be sent thousands of kilometres away, which can fly 24 hours or more, which are remotely operated through satellites and whose images and data we can receive via satellite. These drones are of interest to Air Forces, as they provide a global and permanent vision of a theatre. But using such drones is complex, it requires mastering the networks. The Indian Air Force has this required mastery of networks and of managing complex missions, India is therefore absolutely capable of doing the same (while other Air Forces would find it more problematic). This is why, although there are still only few MALE drones today, I believe we will see more and more of this type in the future. But being able to operate this type of drone requires a comprehensive mastery of air operations, including the satellite segment. In other words, a certain maturity is needed......


.......Which advice or which message would you like to give the Indian Air Force?
I have no advice to give to the Indian Air Force. They have a great Air Force. Two things I would like to tell them: first, we should try to enhance our mutual knowledge, to know each other’s perspectives better, and to develop our cooperation beyond the Garuda exercise and beyond the operational domain. Second and last, I personally believe in the qualities of the Rafale, and I would therefore be delighted to see this great Indian Air Force operating the same plane as we do.....

Merci beaucoup, mon general!
“…Rafale is the best fighter plane in the world” – Air Chief Marshal Denis Mercier » Indian Defence Review | Page 2

 

[greatone]

French pilots are former air chiefs are always praising Rafale as the best in the world.
While our retd air chiefs miss no chance to take pot shots at Tejas.
What a shame!!

 

[DrSomnath999]

French pilots are former air chiefs are always praising Rafale as the best in the world.
While our retd air chiefs miss no chance to take pot shots at Tejas.
What a shame!!