Rafale May Not be the Best Choice for the IAF

[LeGenD]

How about your lack of knowledge is the reason why you think I'm the troll?

Speak to the Israelis. They believe the MFSTAR is far superior to the AEGIS. AMDR is simply the American MFSTAR meant for a bigger ship.

If you actually know what radars do, you wouldn't be making stupid posts.

Hey stupid man, take yòur trolling to some other forum. Do not try to mislead members here with your jokerish hype of everything Indian and Israeli.

The entire world noticed the sorry state of affairs Indian Air Force find itself in on the day of February 27, 2019. Even your much hyped Su-30 MKI failed to deliver.

As for Israel, look no further than its products failing in the war against Hezbollah in 2006.

 

[randomradio]

Hey stupid man, take yòur trolling to some other forum. Do not try to mislead members here with your jokerish hype of everything Indian and Israeli.

The entire world noticed the sorry state of affairs Indian Air Force find itself in on the day of February 27, 2019. Even your much hyped Su-30 MKI failed to deliver.

As for Israel, look no further than its products failing in the war against Hezbollah in 2006.

Bro, please continue living in your fantasies how much ever you want. Even today PA lies to your faces about Kargil War. So what makes you think they ever tell you the truth?

As for radars, read up something about them. Someone who is actually educated in this will see no difference between the MFSTAR and AMDR, with the exception that one will say the AMDR is bigger but that the MFSTAR is located on a higher perch. Still, advantage MFSTAR. This is actually common sense. You don't need knowledge to know that if you climb a tree and look around, you will see more than if you were on the ground.

 

[LeGenD]

Bro, please continue living in your fantasies how much ever you want. Even today PA lies to your faces about Kargil War. So what makes you think they ever tell you the truth?

YOU are the one who is living under fantasies here, not me. Almost every single member have called you out on your BS in various discussions. Your 'know it all attitude' and 'enormous leaps in logic' is why a large number of members do not take you seriously anymore.

Kargil War is a thing of the PAST; Pakistani armed forces were weak at the time due to impact of Presseler Amendment throughout the 1990s.

Try your luck now, if you have the guts. In fact, your side was taught a valuable lesson on the day of February 27, 2019.

To refresh your memory: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/no-evidence-of-the-loss-of-an-f-16.618802/

As for radars, read up something about them. Someone who is actually educated in this will see no difference between the MFSTAR and AMDR, with the exception that one will say the AMDR is bigger but that the MFSTAR is located on a higher perch. Still, advantage MFSTAR. This is actually common sense. You don't need knowledge to know that if you climb a tree and look around, you will see more than if you were on the ground.

YOU are 'someone who pretends' to know a thing or two about radar systems, but end up exposing your complete lack of knowledge with unsubstantiated jokes.

What exactly do you know about the design and characteristics of AN/APG-77(v)1, AN/APG-81, AN/SPY-1D and AMDR? Do you have access to these radar systems as to enable you to draw comparisons with RBE2-AA and MF-STAR? You are just jumping to premature conclusions in these comparisons.

Raw comparisons between Rafale and American 5th generation aircraft, is a futile effort due to massive amount of qualitative differences (minute details which you can never account for in person). Your perception of Rafale being a 5th generation jet fighter is utterly baseless.

As for MS-STAR, it is roughly on par with AN/SPY-1D in raw performance aspect but much less capable in terms of threat recognition and developing fire solutions (no BMD capability). AMDR is a generational leap from every AESA variant in service - world's first GaN based and RMA blocks architecture, and the capability to search for potential targets in both S-band and X-band frequencies in combination (sensor netting); sensitivity of AMDR is reportedly off-the-charts.

 

[American Pakistani]

After using French diplomacy and power in UN, India now ditched them just like they ditched Iran. Wah kya baat hai.

 

[randomradio]

YOU are the one who is living under fantasies here, not me. Almost every single member have called you out on your BS in various discussions. Your 'know it all attitude' and 'enormous leaps in logic' is why a large number of members do not take you seriously anymore.

Kargil War is a thing of the PAST; Pakistani armed forces were weak at the time due to impact of Presseler Amendment throughout the 1990s.

Try your luck now, if you have the guts. In fact, your side was taught a valuable lesson on the day of February 27, 2019.

To refresh your memory: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/no-evidence-of-the-loss-of-an-f-16.618802/


YOU are 'someone who pretends' to know a thing or two about radar systems, but end up exposing your complete lack of knowledge with unsubstantiated jokes.

What exactly do you know about the design and characteristics of AN/APG-77(v)1, AN/APG-81, AN/SPY-1D and AMDR? Do you have access to these radar systems as to enable you to draw comparisons with RBE2-AA and MF-STAR? You are just jumping to premature conclusions in these comparisons.

Raw comparisons between Rafale and American 5th generation aircraft, is a futile effort due to massive amount of qualitative differences (minute details which you can never accouny for in person). Your perception of Rafale being a 5th generation jet fighter is utterly baseless.

I most definitely know way more than you do.

As for details, yes, I know a lot about these systems. And most of the stuff I discuss on this forum is related to basic knowledge and common sense.

For example, any idiot with basic knowledge in radars will accept that a radar that has more T/R modules on a given radar size will be more capable. You don't need any sort of actual radar education for this.

MFSTAR is located on a higher perch than the AMDR. Both S and X band radars on the AB class are at a lower perch than the MFSTAR. You only need common sense to figure out that higher the radar, the superior its detection range will be. In fact you can say even the Israeli Sa'ar 5 will see far more than the AMDR can. And at such short ranges to horizon of just 30 or 40 or 50Km, these radars will be able to function equally well. Point being, against sea skimming missiles, the MFSTAR will have more time to engage the threat. Even if the AMDR uses far superior tech, which it does not, it can't defy physics. This is literally common sense.

As for Rafale vs other 5th gen, you will find out in time. Go ask any fighter pilot worth his salt if he will fly over enemy SAM systems with total impunity like the Rafales did in Libya, and then come back and tell me what they said. It's literally open source information that the Rafales flew into Libya and conducted operations long before SEAD/DEAD missions even began. What do you think is needed to make it happen? Why did the IAF say that the Rafale's EW capabilities are 5th gen to the Supreme Court? Do you know that there's no precedent for offensive EW from the American side for it to be classified as 5th gen? The F-22 has no ECM and the F-35's ECM is only from its radar, so where did this precedent for 5th gen EW come from? Do you know the Egyptians said they bought the Rafale in order to compete with the Israeli F-35?

All what I said above requires very basic common sense. People here can't even get around these simple facts. Also, yes, I am privy to a lot of details about many of the radars you have mentioned that most people do not.

As for Balakot, the less said the better when it came to your performance. We will gladly repeat it. I was told to stop talking about it here. Btw, I now know which weapon was used in the strikes.

Cheerio.

 

[LeGenD]

I most definitely know way more than you do.

Let us see.

Explain the difference to me.

As for details, yes, I know a lot about these systems. And most of the stuff I discuss on this forum is related to basic knowledge and common sense.

For example, any idiot with basic knowledge in radars will accept that a radar that has more T/R modules on a given radar size will be more capable. You don't need any sort of actual radar education for this.

Take a good look.

1. What can you deduce from this comparison?
2. What are you trying to measure here?
3. Better performance in what sense?

HINTS:-

T/R module count = one aspect
T/R module design = one aspect
Algorithms = one aspect

MFSTAR is located on a higher perch than the AMDR. Both S and X band radars on the AB class are at a lower perch than the MFSTAR. You only need common sense to figure out that higher the radar, the superior its detection range will be. In fact you can say even the Israeli Sa'ar 5 will see far more than the AMDR can. And at such short ranges to horizon of just 30 or 40 or 50Km, these radars will be able to function equally well. Point being, against sea skimming missiles, the MFSTAR will have more time to engage the threat. Even if the AMDR uses far superior tech, which it does not, it can't defy physics. This is literally common sense.

LISTEN GENIUS,

Detection range of any radar system depend upon numerous design-related considerations, and not just its elevation from the surface.

1. AMDR to be installed in the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, is much larger in size than the MF-STAR of the Kolkata class destroyers.

2. AMDR is a dual-band design (S-band and X-band) whereas MF-STAR is S-band only*; X-band frequency range is excellent for detecting and tracking air-breathing targets, and X-band panels will be positioned above S-band panels in the upcoming Flight III configuration of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

*For reference.

3. AMDR incorporate incredibly efficient Gallium Nitride (GaN) T/R modules for its functions whereas MF-STAR incorporate older Gallium Arsenide (GaS) for its functions = difference in sensitivity at grassroots level.

---

The MF-STAR's extreme elevation in the Kolkata class destroyers is to facilitate its detection range for sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles (~30 KM), and MF-STAR's detection range for air-breathing targets extend up to 324 KM maximum (detection range will vary according to the RCS factor). FYI: http://cmano-db.com/pdf/sensor/2321/

The above is far below than the known performance parameters of the AN/SPY-1D(v) in service on-board Flight II configuration of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers:-

The only public numerical figure on Aegis detection range against a specific target is that the SPY-1D "can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 kilometers." A golf ball-size (1.68 inches diameter) sphere corresponds to radar cross section of about 0.0025 m^2 at 3.3 GHz. This statement was made in the context of the soon-to-be deployed SPY-1D(V) radar to detect mortar and artillery shell and small-caliber rockets against a clutter background, so presumably it applies to the D(v) version. Scaling to a radar cross section more typical of a ballistic missile warhead (0.03 m^2 at 3.3 GHz) gives a range of at least 310 km. Now scale further in accordance with the known RCS figures of various combat aircraft.

Forget about comparisons with AMDR which is far more powerful than even AN/SPY-1D(v):-

"The AMDR consists of an S-band AESA radar for air and missile defense, an X-band radar for horizon search, and a command and control integration center. The AMDR is the first radar built with Radar Modular Assemblies (RMA) building blocks, which allows for the radar to be scaled smaller or larger. The system’s Radar Modular Assemble (RMA) are 2’ x 2’ x 2’ radars that are scalable and will be able to fit different ships according to their mission. RMA blocks will use gallium nitride (GaN) which need less space, power, and cooling. The AMDR will be 30 times more sensitive than currently fielded radars on the Arleigh Burke Destroyers and can handle over 30 times the targets of the SPY-1." - CSIS

---

"The AN/SPX-6(V) (AMDR) is comprised of 37 RMAs – which is equivalent to AN/SPY-1D(V) +15 dB in terms of sensitivity. It uses digital beamforming architecture and Gallium Nitride technology to detect missile threats over a large range and better distinguish detected objects. It acquire and track a target half the size and at twice the range compared to the AN/SPY-1, providing increased flexibility in ship operating location." - radartutorial.ru

---

As for Rafale vs other 5th gen, you will find out in time. Go ask any fighter pilot worth his salt if he will fly over enemy SAM systems with total impunity like the Rafales did in Libya, and then come back and tell me what they said. It's literally open source information that the Rafales flew into Libya and conducted operations long before SEAD/DEAD missions even began. What do you think is needed to make it happen? Why did the IAF say that the Rafale's EW capabilities are 5th gen to the Supreme Court? Do you know that there's no precedent for offensive EW from the American side for it to be classified as 5th gen? The F-22 has no ECM and the F-35's ECM is only from its radar, so where did this precedent for 5th gen EW come from? Do you know the Egyptians said they bought the Rafale in order to compete with the Israeli F-35?

Highlighted parts =

On March 19, 2011, at about 4:45 p.m. local time, French fighter aircraft struck columns of Libyan tanks and vehicles advancing on Benghazi, beginning the coalition air campaign in Libya. Contrary to popular belief, the French pilots did not initiate air operations against loyalist forces in Libya. Rather, they joined a campaign that aircraft belonging to the newly formed Free Libya Air Force (Quwwat al-Jawiya al-Libya alHurra) already had started. - RAND

Link: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR676/RAND_RR676.pdf

Rafale was the 'propaganda cover' for public consumption while USAF and USN did the heavy-lifting behind-the-scenes:-

Two days later, US and British warships based in the Mediterranean launched more than 100 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses—kick-starting Operation Odyssey Dawn. Three B-2 stealth bombers flew from their home station at Whiteman AFB, Mo., and blew out hardened shelters used to protect Libyan combat aircraft, said Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, Joint Staff director, following the opening assault. Four F-15Es and eight F-16CJs participated in the initial wave of attacks, Air Force officials said. KC135 tankers from RAF Mildenhall in England and Global Hawk unmanned reconnaissance aircraft flying out of NATO air base Sigonella, Sicily, also supported the strikes. - AIR FORCE MAGAZINE

+

Within a few hours, the United States fired over a hundred Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles (TLAMs) at central nodes of Qaddafi's air defense system along the Libyan coast. The Royal Navy also participated in these initial TLAM strikes, though on a much smaller scale. With Libya’s air defenses crippled, the coalition proceeded to fly multiple air strikes against other regime targets in Libya, including some B-2 bomber sorties launched from bases in the continental United States. Within 72 hours, the no-fly zone was established (see Figure 2.3). Ultimately, twelve countries would participate in this operation, but the United States flew the vast majority of strike sorties. - RAND

Libyan Air Defense was a joke at the time:-

A Nonexistent IADS
Although NATO commanders ruled out infrastructure targeting, the coalition mounted a concerted effort to take down the regime’s C2, integrated air defense system (IADS) in Tripoli, and other strategic targets. However, in many respects, the Libyan IADS was almost nonexistent even before the campaign. “In 12 days, our air defenses were gone. We were completely blind,” conceded a Libyan air defense officer, based throughout the war at the Bir Usta al-Milad air defense site, 15 kilometers south of Tripoli. “The S-200 (SA-5) was our only effective system. We reported a 60 percent readiness on the S-200; in fact, it was only 10 percent. We were all afraid of being shot,” the officer stated. The only real early-warning radar capability the regime possessed at the time that the air campaign began was a civilian ARSR-103D radar at Tripoli International Airport that fed data to the air defense operations room at nearby Mitiga Air Base via microwave or very high frequency (VHF). “It was not a very complete picture. And NATO eventually struck this. This was the technology of the 1960s warning against the 21st century,” said the Libyan air defense officer. In late March, shortly after the initial NATO salvo, the Qaddafi regime began trying to mobilize the entire military to confront an impending ground invasion. Even air defense officers assigned to research and logistics sections were trained in the use of rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47s. “We were told that the U.S. Marines were coming to take Qaddafi,” noted the officer. Once the regime’s fixed air-defense sites were destroyed, it was left with 14.5mm and 23mm anti-aircraft guns and man-portable surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) including the SA-7 Strela and SA-24 (Igla). Several of these were organic to elite units such as the 32nd Brigade. An SA-7 gunner with the 32nd Brigade, captured in the assault on Misrata, noted that once NATO had taken out the 32nd Brigade’s radar, they were effectively blind. He never fired a shot, although there were reports in Misrata of loyalist forces trying to use heat-seeking MANPADS against opposition vehicles. The 32nd Brigade also possessed a few UAVs that it used in Zawaiya and Brega. By June, these had all been lost due to malfunction or ground fire. - RAND

--- ---

Friendly advice: Ditch Rafale and go for F-16 Block 70/72 or F-21.

All what I said above requires very basic common sense. People here can't even get around these simple facts. Also, yes, I am privy to a lot of details about many of the radars you have mentioned that most people do not.

As for Balakot, the less said the better when it came to your performance. We will gladly repeat it. I was told to stop talking about it here. Btw, I now know which weapon was used in the strikes.

Cheerio.

 

[randomradio]

Let us see.

Explain the difference to me.

The one on the left is a Vivaldi antenna. The one on the right is a regular tiled analog AESA.

Take a good look.

1. What can you deduce from this comparison?
2. What are you trying to measure here?
3. Better performance in what sense?

HINTS:-

T/R module count = one aspect
T/R module design = one aspect
Algorithms = one aspect

What's there to see? The RBE-2AA model in pic has American T/R modules. The production model has French T/R modules and never been shown. What you see in the images is why the French modules used on the RBE-2AA are so much superior because, as I said earlier, they managed to get many more modules on an area that's much smaller than the APG-80. That's why the RBE-2AA is in fact competitive with the APG-77 and 81. The more closely packed an AESA antennas is, the superior its qualities.

Also, the APG-81 module count is totally wrong.
Hint: Where it says "2", it's actually just 1. So the number is actually at least 150 modules less. Of course, all these are only models. Please don't get suckered into module number game from models, you guys are suckers for propaganda already and only make it worse.

LISTEN GENIUS,

Detection range of any radar system depend upon numerous design-related considerations, and not just its elevation from the surface.

1. AMDR to be installed in the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, is much larger in size than the MF-STAR of the Kolkata class destroyers.

2. AMDR is a dual-band design (S-band and X-band) whereas MF-STAR is S-band only*; X-band frequency range is excellent for detecting and tracking air-breathing targets, and X-band panels will be positioned above S-band panels in the upcoming Flight III configuration of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

*For reference.

3. AMDR incorporate incredibly efficient Gallium Nitride (GaN) T/R modules for its functions whereas MF-STAR incorporate older Gallium Arsenide (GaS) for its functions = difference in sensitivity at grassroots level.

---

The MF-STAR's extreme elevation in the Kolkata class destroyers is to facilitate its detection range for sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles (~30 KM), and MF-STAR's detection range for air-breathing targets extend up to 324 KM maximum (detection range will vary according to the RCS factor). FYI: http://cmano-db.com/pdf/sensor/2321/

The above is far below than the known performance parameters of the AN/SPY-1D(v) in service on-board Flight II configuration of the Arleigh Burke class destroyers:-

The only public numerical figure on Aegis detection range against a specific target is that the SPY-1D "can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 kilometers." A golf ball-size (1.68 inches diameter) sphere corresponds to radar cross section of about 0.0025 m^2 at 3.3 GHz. This statement was made in the context of the soon-to-be deployed SPY-1D(V) radar to detect mortar and artillery shell and small-caliber rockets against a clutter background, so presumably it applies to the D(v) version. Scaling to a radar cross section more typical of a ballistic missile warhead (0.03 m^2 at 3.3 GHz) gives a range of at least 310 km. Now scale further in accordance with the known RCS figures of various combat aircraft.

Forget about comparisons with AMDR which is far more powerful than even AN/SPY-1D(v):-

"The AMDR consists of an S-band AESA radar for air and missile defense, an X-band radar for horizon search, and a command and control integration center. The AMDR is the first radar built with Radar Modular Assemblies (RMA) building blocks, which allows for the radar to be scaled smaller or larger. The system’s Radar Modular Assemble (RMA) are 2’ x 2’ x 2’ radars that are scalable and will be able to fit different ships according to their mission. RMA blocks will use gallium nitride (GaN) which need less space, power, and cooling. The AMDR will be 30 times more sensitive than currently fielded radars on the Arleigh Burke Destroyers and can handle over 30 times the targets of the SPY-1." - CSIS

---

"The AN/SPX-6(V) (AMDR) is comprised of 37 RMAs – which is equivalent to AN/SPY-1D(V) +15 dB in terms of sensitivity. It uses digital beamforming architecture and Gallium Nitride technology to detect missile threats over a large range and better distinguish detected objects. It acquire and track a target half the size and at twice the range compared to the AN/SPY-1, providing increased flexibility in ship operating location." - radartutorial.ru

---

Pretty much all the data you posted on the MFSTAR for Kolkata is wrong. This is pretty entertaining. Even the smaller EL/M 2084 have better figures that what you posted for the MFSTAR.

Highlighted parts =

On March 19, 2011, at about 4:45 p.m. local time, French fighter aircraft struck columns of Libyan tanks and vehicles advancing on Benghazi, beginning the coalition air campaign in Libya. Contrary to popular belief, the French pilots did not initiate air operations against loyalist forces in Libya. Rather, they joined a campaign that aircraft belonging to the newly formed Free Libya Air Force (Quwwat al-Jawiya al-Libya alHurra) already had started. - RAND

Link: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR600/RR676/RAND_RR676.pdf

Rafale was the 'propaganda cover' for public consumption while USAF and USN did the heavy-lifting behind-the-scenes:-

Two days later, US and British warships based in the Mediterranean launched more than 100 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses—kick-starting Operation Odyssey Dawn. Three B-2 stealth bombers flew from their home station at Whiteman AFB, Mo., and blew out hardened shelters used to protect Libyan combat aircraft, said Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, Joint Staff director, following the opening assault. Four F-15Es and eight F-16CJs participated in the initial wave of attacks, Air Force officials said. KC135 tankers from RAF Mildenhall in England and Global Hawk unmanned reconnaissance aircraft flying out of NATO air base Sigonella, Sicily, also supported the strikes. - AIR FORCE MAGAZINE

+

Within a few hours, the United States fired over a hundred Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles (TLAMs) at central nodes of Qaddafi's air defense system along the Libyan coast. The Royal Navy also participated in these initial TLAM strikes, though on a much smaller scale. With Libya’s air defenses crippled, the coalition proceeded to fly multiple air strikes against other regime targets in Libya, including some B-2 bomber sorties launched from bases in the continental United States. Within 72 hours, the no-fly zone was established (see Figure 2.3). Ultimately, twelve countries would participate in this operation, but the United States flew the vast majority of strike sorties. - RAND

Libyan Air Defense was a joke at the time:-

A Nonexistent IADS
Although NATO commanders ruled out infrastructure targeting, the coalition mounted a concerted effort to take down the regime’s C2, integrated air defense system (IADS) in Tripoli, and other strategic targets. However, in many respects, the Libyan IADS was almost nonexistent even before the campaign. “In 12 days, our air defenses were gone. We were completely blind,” conceded a Libyan air defense officer, based throughout the war at the Bir Usta al-Milad air defense site, 15 kilometers south of Tripoli. “The S-200 (SA-5) was our only effective system. We reported a 60 percent readiness on the S-200; in fact, it was only 10 percent. We were all afraid of being shot,” the officer stated. The only real early-warning radar capability the regime possessed at the time that the air campaign began was a civilian ARSR-103D radar at Tripoli International Airport that fed data to the air defense operations room at nearby Mitiga Air Base via microwave or very high frequency (VHF). “It was not a very complete picture. And NATO eventually struck this. This was the technology of the 1960s warning against the 21st century,” said the Libyan air defense officer. In late March, shortly after the initial NATO salvo, the Qaddafi regime began trying to mobilize the entire military to confront an impending ground invasion. Even air defense officers assigned to research and logistics sections were trained in the use of rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47s. “We were told that the U.S. Marines were coming to take Qaddafi,” noted the officer. Once the regime’s fixed air-defense sites were destroyed, it was left with 14.5mm and 23mm anti-aircraft guns and man-portable surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) including the SA-7 Strela and SA-24 (Igla). Several of these were organic to elite units such as the 32nd Brigade. An SA-7 gunner with the 32nd Brigade, captured in the assault on Misrata, noted that once NATO had taken out the 32nd Brigade’s radar, they were effectively blind. He never fired a shot, although there were reports in Misrata of loyalist forces trying to use heat-seeking MANPADS against opposition vehicles. The 32nd Brigade also possessed a few UAVs that it used in Zawaiya and Brega. By June, these had all been lost due to malfunction or ground fire. - RAND

--- ---

So 3 days, 12 days etc is the same as the first hour of starting the campaign?

That RAND report is not a full report, btw. Also, the part you quoted only speaks of early warning radars, not the SAM's own radars. Did you forget the Syrians shot down an Israeli F-16 using the S-200? The S-200 is capable of autonomous operation and doesn't need an early warning radar apart from its own.

If Libyan AD was indeed a joke, then even NATO wouldn't have bothered with SEAD/DEAD.

Also, no, the French did not go into Libya for air operations, rather their allies needed ground support and they quickly moved in ignoring AD. No other NATO aircraft has ever done that in history.

Friendly advice:

Ditch Rafale and go for F-16 Block 70/72 or F-21.

Very bad advice. We won't be taking it. [/quote][/quote]

 

[Novice09]

Even add spares for 5 years and weapons.. it is still too expensive and that is why there's a case against Modi in their SC.

Who told you that there is a case against Modi in SC... case is SC was on PROCEDURAL LAPSES... and SC found none...

Now a review petition is there...

It is still cheaper than SCAMGRESS' Proposed deal...

No its not that expensive as it appears ...

It includes integration cost of Rafael with the command and control infrastructure of India including the nuclear command and control network ...

It also include an offset clause which means Rafael will be investing something back in India that will help the economy ..

50% offset...
Nuke capabilities...
IAF's experience with MIRAGE...
If I'm not wrong... 10 years support for spares and maintenance...
India specific upgrades/changes...

All in all... a jet which India need DESPERATELY AND URGENTLY...

 

[The Accountant]

Who told you that there is a case against Modi in SC... case is SC was on PROCEDURAL LAPSES... and SC found none...

Now a review petition is there...

It is still cheaper than SCAMGRESS' Proposed deal...



50% offset...
Nuke capabilities...
IAF's experience with MIRAGE...
If I'm not wrong... 10 years support for spares and maintenance...
India specific upgrades/changes...

All in all... a jet which India need DESPERATELY AND URGENTLY...

Agreed on all point including the fact that you desperately need it specially after the 27th Feb episode ...

Rafael with Meteor will be a great threat ti PAF ... Pakistan needs to get a counter immediately

 

[randomradio]

If I'm not wrong... 10 years support for spares and maintenance...

5 years for spares, extendable to 12 years on the same terms. And 50 years maintenance.

 

[LeGenD]

The one on the left is a Vivaldi antenna. The one on the right is a regular tiled analog AESA.

Took you long enough to respond, and this is the best you could tell me? Shame.

What's there to see? The RBE-2AA model in pic has American T/R modules. The production model has French T/R modules and never been shown. What you see in the images is why the French modules used on the RBE-2AA are so much superior because, as I said earlier, they managed to get many more modules on an area that's much smaller than the APG-80. That's why the RBE-2AA is in fact competitive with the APG-77 and 81. The more closely packed an AESA antennas is, the superior its qualities.

Take a look.
RBE2-AA is not ready for mass production yet, earliest deliveries are expected in 2021.

Diameter = 55 cm+-

X-band frequency range = 8 GHz - 12 GHz

Ideal frequency = 10 GHz ???

AN/APG-81 house a much higher T/R modules count within a slightly larger structure. In fact, both AN/APG-77(v)1 and AN/APG-81 have a relatively superior density based on known dimensions. Additionally, these two radar systems are able to detect up to 100 targets, and develop a fire solution for up to 20 targets, in one go, in under 3 seconds. This is 'more than twice' the capability of RBE2-AA for similar ends (able to detect up to 40 targets, and develop a fire solution for up to 8 targets, in one go, in under 3 seconds).

Also, the APG-81 module count is totally wrong.
Hint: Where it says "2", it's actually just 1. So the number is actually at least 150 modules less. Of course, all these are only models. Please don't get suckered into module number game from models, you guys are suckers for propaganda already and only make it worse.

WRONG.

Actual count of T/R modules in AN/APG-81 is 1676.

FYI: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-274acec7e6905acb2f96f6ba6d18b806

Antenna type is also different in AN/AGP-81 (Vivaldi).

Indians are far bigger suckers for propaganda. To refresh your memory once again: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/no-evidence-of-the-loss-of-an-f-16.618802/

Pretty much all the data you posted on the MFSTAR for Kolkata is wrong. This is pretty entertaining. Even the smaller EL/M 2084 have better figures that what you posted for the MFSTAR.

Oh really?

I checked an Indian source and it reported lesser figures, and the ones I mentioned are rather liberal figures.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/M-2238_STAR

Sorry sonny, MF-STAR suck in comparison to AEGIS class radar systems on-board Arleigh Burke class destroyers, let alone AMDR.

So 3 days, 12 days etc is the same as the first hour of starting the campaign?

That RAND report is not a full report, btw. Also, the part you quoted only speaks of early warning radars, not the SAM's own radars. Did you forget the Syrians shot down an Israeli F-16 using the S-200? The S-200 is capable of autonomous operation and doesn't need an early warning radar apart from its own.

If Libyan AD was indeed a joke, then even NATO wouldn't have bothered with SEAD/DEAD.

Also, no, the French did not go into Libya for air operations, rather their allies needed ground support and they quickly moved in ignoring AD. No other NATO aircraft has ever done that in history.

What a joke you are, trying to rationalize your BASELESS claims with lame excuses.

Now pay attention.

2 x Rafale struck a Libyan military armored column on the outskirts of Benghazi on March 19, 2011 (Operation Harmattan), and nothing suggest that these jets faced opposition while doing so.

American and British forces took care of the Libyan Air Defense infrastructure a short while later:

"The no-fly operation was enabled by a strike against Libyan air-defense assets and other targets using 110 Tomahawk and Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles and strikes by three B-2 Spirit bombers delivering 45 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) against Libyan air bases. 16 Tomahawks were also fired from British ships in the area, and British Tornado GR4 aircraft flying from the Royal Air Force base at Marham, England, reportedly employed Storm Shadow cruise missiles."

Among the jets operating over Libya at the time, 4 x F-15E and 8 x F-16CJ were the first to strike at Libyan Air Defense infrastructure with support of KC-135 tankers and Global Hawk surveillance drones. Rafale weren't involved in these missions.

Libyan Air Defense infrastructure was far removed from being a genuinely threatening force to NATO at the time. As for the highlighted part in your quote:

“The S-200 (SA-5) was our only effective system. We reported a 60 percent readiness on the S-200; in fact, it was only 10 percent. We were all afraid of being shot,” the officer stated. - RAND

Russians are keeping Syrian Air Defense infrastructure up-to-date which wasn't the case with Libya.

Very bad advice. We won't be taking it.

Be my guest.

Indian Air Force will remain a 'paper tiger' for years to come.

 

[randomradio]

Took you long enough to respond, and this is the best you could tell me? Shame.

What else do you want to know? Look up Vivaldi, you will get what you want by simply googling this stuff.

I can't deal with you lot on this. One guy asked some technical questions about signal processing, I answered them and then he claimed I got all the answers from someone else. So you guys can believe what you want.

Take a look.
RBE2-AA is not ready for mass production yet, earliest deliveries are expected in 2021.

How dumb can one be? RBE2-AA entered service years ago.

And you say I am the one trolling.

The French are now working on a whole new type of radar which will give the Rafale 360 degree visibility.

Diameter = 55 cm+-

X-band frequency range = 8 GHz - 12 GHz

Ideal frequency = 10 GHz ???

AN/APG-81 house a much higher T/R modules count within a slightly larger structure. In fact, both AN/APG-77(v)1 and AN/APG-81 have a relatively superior density based on known dimensions. Additionally, these two radar systems are able to detect up to 100 targets, and develop a fire solution for up to 20 targets, in one go, in under 3 seconds. This is 'more than twice' the capability of RBE2-AA for similar ends (able to detect up to 40 targets, and develop a fire solution for up to 8 targets, in one go, in under 3 seconds).


WRONG.

Actual count of T/R modules in AN/APG-81 is 1676.

FYI: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-274acec7e6905acb2f96f6ba6d18b806

Antenna type is also different in AN/AGP-81 (Vivaldi).

So you are comparing a '55cm' radar with an '80cm' radar which has only 400-500 more modules and you claim the 80cm radar is superior?

Wow. The common sense is overflowing here. So much troll power.

Sorry sonny, MF-STAR suck in comparison to AEGIS class radar systems on-board Arleigh Burke class destroyers, let alone AMDR.

So the bigger MF-STAR with GaN and digital beamforming is less capable than a smaller SPY-1D which is a PESA? Wow logic ko goli maaro.

Yeah, it's been public since a few months, so now I can say that MF-STAR is a GaN. If you have doubts, then google it, the information is available now.

Russians are keeping Syrian Air Defense infrastructure up-to-date which wasn't the case with Libya.

Stop getting suckered into propaganda with such less amount of information.

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/05/

The Libyan AD was quite capable, even if obsolete compared to NATO. But they had received plenty of upgrades and were in the process of acquiring a lot of more capable weapons from Russia. Even France was willing to sell Rafales before the conflict started. I would comfortably say even Indian IADS the previous decade was significantly inferior to Libya's.

The region which the French infiltrated had significant SAM presence. Hell, the US even complained to France about using fighter jets without commencing SEAD/DEAD.

Obviously Syrian defences in 2018 and 2019 are superior to Libyan defences of 2011. But the Libyans were still up to date for their time.

Be my guest.

Indian Air Force will remain a 'paper tiger' for years to come.

Sure. We actually want you to believe that.

 

[The Accountant]

So the bigger MF-STAR with GaN and digital beamforming is less capable than a smaller SPY-1D which is a PESA? Wow logic ko goli maaro.

No he is comparing it with AEGIS defense system and only an stupid can think that there is a defense system better than AEGIS

 

[randomradio]

No he is comparing it with AEGIS defense system and only an stupid can think that there is a defense system better than AEGIS

You fail to understand. The SPY-1 is the primary radar of the AEGIS. And when it comes to air defence, or self-protection, the MF-STAR is a significantly superior system compared to AEGIS.

And no, today there are multiple systems superior to AEGIS. Other than the MF-STAR there's also the PAAMS. There's also the Russian Redut, which is equivalent to PAAMS. All these use AESA radars and more capable missiles.

AEGIS (SPY-1) is now being replaced by AMDR.

 

[The Accountant]

You fail to understand. The SPY-1 is the primary radar of the AEGIS. And when it comes to air defence, or self-protection, the MF-STAR is a significantly superior system compared to AEGIS.

And no, today there are multiple systems superior to AEGIS. Other than the MF-STAR there's also the PAAMS. There's also the Russian Redut, which is equivalent to PAAMS. All these use AESA radars and more capable missiles.

AEGIS (SPY-1) is now being replaced by AMDR.

Radar is just one component (one of the most important component) of many features of defense system ... If you can't understand than hats off to you