but sadly again i want to state nowhere did i find mini awacs cant be used for offensive ( enemy's air space)
Guess why the IAF used the Flankers seperated from the Mig 27s and why the Bisons escorted them? IAF could simply had used the Flankers to escort and provide radar data right? So when they purposely decided to seperate the mini AWACS from the strike package and their escorts, do you really think that was done for no reason?
The fact is right there, even in your own sources, you just have to understand that the priority is to remain undetected as long as possible when you send strike packages behind enemy lines and remaining behind and support them "just" with radar data without making them vulnerable is the better thing to do. As I said before, that changes only with FGFA, since we then can modify the tactics benefiting from the low detectability of the fighter even in active roles.
your saying we would be using LCA for escorting rafale in foreign land eg CHINESE airspace
Please read up propperly and don't invent things. Where in that post did I mention Chinese airspace? I only related the same tactics IAF has shown in that exercise with older fighters, to the future fighter fleet and the modern capabilities it will have. And LCA as the replacement of the Mig 21s, but with far better passive detection and low detectability can easily take over the escort role in future, that however doesn't mean that IAF would use deep penetration missions against China, where simply more Rafales would be more effective.
IRST is not used for early warning as it is used for targeting basically
Exactly, that's why IRST won't make a difference unless you have detected a target, be it via radar or signals. Only then you point your nose and sensors towards the target to identify it. That's why an FGFA with an AESA that has LPI modes will be very hard to detect by any Chinese fighter, unless it flys head to head in a very close distance. The importance of AWACS and mini AWACS however is, to detect a target at long distance and to a wide field of view, that's why they use active radar and passive RWRs as their main sensors and not IRST.
And since we talk about the Rafale here, in passive mode it's prime sensors are the SPECTRA EW sensors, for long range and wide field of view detection. When a target is detected, the fighter will point it's nose to the target, to use FSO to gain more data and identify it. Which again shows, which again shows that the IRST / TV channel are the secondary sensors only.
without the use of Electronic Warfare in case of Non stealthy fighters with {EFTS & PGMS/CRUISE MISSILES}no matter how low you fly plus whether you are in active or passive mode
Who said they wouldn't use EW? The point was, that you use an active high flying fighter (at safe distances) to lure the enemy defences to be actived, while a low flying passive fighter will remain as undetectable as possible, while closing in to the target. That again shows, that the mini AWACS role is done in seperation to the actual striker!
citing one or two examples doesnt prove that it would work always in other scenario also.
But it shows the reality and not only assumptions, that's the difference! It shows that even the most advanced AWACS aircrafts, with the most advanced fighters next to it, can't prevent attacks against you, without the propper addition of multiple different radar working together and that you need a propper AWACS coverage to all areas. That's why we need not only the most advanced Phalcon AWACS, but enough AWACS platforms to provide propper coverage of the border areas in the first place. That added with netcentric linking of ground radars, aerostatos or fighters in Mini AWACS roles will give you a high level of protection and not the assumption that AWACS can detect everything.
Hey wait a minute
you have twisted my post to post totally another thing. The previous post was for AWACS basically when did i say it cant carry cruise missile .
Again please read propperly, in this case the part I quoted from you, where you stated:
we wont be having in offensive scenario in their land
So that is the part I refered to be wrong, which it clearly is, since the importance of improved strike capabilities with MMRCA and MKI beyond the borders can't actually be denied anymore and I am not even talking about cruise missiles, but about actual offensive strikes of the fighters, no matter what kind of weapon they will use.
