Oh great. So we're getting a Rafale line for free then? Wow, stupid Dassault!
This was the original plan, until Anil Ambani choked.
‘Will graduate to making whole plane’
www.thehindu.com
And now, instead of 2022, it's 2025.
Nagpur: Dassault Reliance Aviation Limited (DRAL) is expanding its unit at Mihan-SEZ by building two new hangers.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
With this, by early 2025, DRAL plans to finally deliver its first Falcon 2000 aircraft, said sources aware of the development.
DRAL will have capacity to make as many as 22 Falcon 2000 jets in a year.
The same line will assemble IN's Rafales.
Stupid Dassault will set up India's first proper business jet line. This will kick the doors open for other companies to do the same. I think Mahindra is working with someone too. Kinda like foreign car companies doing the sam stupid thing.
F3 baseline existed. We added ISEs on top of that - but we paid for it all out of pocket.
Right now only F4 baseline exists. F5 baseline will come by 2030.
Which means even if you sign a deal for a notional F5 configuration today, you'll need to wait till post-2030 for the R&D program to complete, because it just started. Deliveries will take place a few years thereafter.
F5 delivery to French forces is slated for 2030. I'm expecting IAF to get by 2033, along with the drone, if we go for it.
IAF isn't gonna be looking at anything until & unless there's an AoN.
It's been 8 years since the first 36 were bought and still there's nothing.
Wait for a few months.
You just reposted the same link I posted. You feeling all right?
Wasn't a post, just failed to edit.
Anyway, F4 comes with new digital antenna upgrades. A lot of our ISE stuff is non-French.
All of them. Cuz that's an upper limit, not lower.
They raised the limit for a reason.
What did you expect them to say?
Nothing. They are not supposed to say anything, just quietly go about their business.
Lol, MKI isn't getting a new engine, neither a longer airframe nor increased payload or internal fuel capacity.
You're comparing apples with oranges.
Exactly, like Mk1A, so you are comparing an upgrade with a modernization. Modernization enils changes to the airframe that require more extensive flight testing.
You are arguing for the sake of it. If it was a different airframe, they would have called it something else entirely, not LCA.
Cuz we were desperate. MiGs were falling out of the sky, Tejas wasn't ready and we couldn't waste the flight hours on the precious few M2Ks we have.
MKI had to do it. But it was never meant to.
Funny how you said MKIs did not replace Mig-21s, when they did.
30% of 126 is 38. 30% of 189 would be 57.
Great. So I was wrong. We don't need to buy 2 more Rafale squadrons, we just need 1 more.
Rest of the MRFA requirement can be met by additional Tejas Mk2.
Lack of analysis there. It's not number of jets, it's about capabilities.
We need 200 jets that can do 10 things. But due to cost, we are willing to accept 100 jets that can do 7 out of those 10 things and the other 3 will be done by the remaining 100. We would prefer all 200 do all 10 things, but we are fine with 100 + 100. That's the logic here.
So we need 100% of the 126 to do those last 3 things + a few of the first 7, while the smaller jet dedicates itself to do all the first 7 things.
Take a typical 1000-TRM FCR. The main beam can consist of up to 600 or more TRMs while still leaving enough to do other jobs like TWS.
Now tell me how the 15 TRMs on your EW emitter are going to deal with this 600 TRM main beam that's trying to scan you.
Gripen E's Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar has many antennas that help in jamming and other mechanical errors and failures.
www.saab.com
en.wikipedia.org
In short, a 600-TRM beam can be in many more places of the 8-12ghz (X band) range at the same time than what a 15-TRM EW emitter can. If you cannot modulate your output as much as the threat radar can, you cannot send him back the signal you want. You can only send back a small portion of it.
If a 1000-TRM threat radar were to be simultaneously tracking, say, 50 targets with ~20 TRMs dedicated to each track, in that hypothetical scenario it may be possible for a Rafale to sufficiently fool an AESA and slip by. Otherwise you ain't escaping an AESA with ACT, sorry.
And this is all when talking about a Rafale facing a single threat radar at a given time, which is not at all a realistic scenario.
You don't understand your own question, 'cause it doesn't make sense.
Anyway, SPECTRA has correlators, and there are tens of thousands of them. Take GPS, only 4 satellites are required for positioning, but the number of signals sent to just one satellite at a single time is tens of thousands. Imagine all those people on the ground using GPS.
Similarly, cell towers send out thousands of signals when thousands of phones are working in tandem. And the cell tower has just small antenna.
Signal management is quite easy.
Also, radar doesn't work the way you think it does. It works on the principle of superposition. So that means to get a meaningful signal, you need a lot of TRMs transmitting the same signal at the same power in the same direction. These signals then constructively interfere with each other and you create a main beam. This main beam is what you need to detect targets.
So if you use 500 TRMs to generate 500 different signals, then all these signals will just fizzle out less than 100 m away from the aircraft, 'cause each of those signals are barely 10 W. So the more TRMs you use to generate the main beam, the more range you get.
That means a radar will only create 1 or 2 or even 3 beams at best. But more beams means a very significant drop in range. But you could have 1 beam searching the air, the other beam searching the ground, and that's how you get swing role capability.
So if SPECTRA has to work against this type of radar, it only has to deal with 1 beam, the one searching the air, 'cause that's the threat to the Rafale. It can ignore the other beam, it's for others to deal with.
MKI can create only 1 beam at a time with 1 transmitter. RBE2 PESA and Irbis E can create 2 beams with 2 transmitters. AESA can create many more via a process called radar choreography, where it can divide TRMs into sections, even lines. It does this to improve identification and accuracy at the cost of range.
And naturally, SPECTRA has enough resources to deal with many radars. A single ground-based radar can create multiple large main beams. For example, the S-400's FCR can create 4 large beams. An AESA radar can create even more than that. And Rafale's equipped to defeat multiple such radars.
You should try sending this link to Dassault's email address and tell them they're wasting their time on stealthy things like nEUROn.
They would agree with me though.
Even the French don't openly talk about this that much, so not like anyone would care.
How else do I know?
FFS, they're talking about the DASS suite's ECM/ESM functionality. This is what Typhoon means by Digital Stealth:
www.eurofighter.com
ECM is not stealth. The French call it "virtual stealth." Do you see anybody actually advertising stealth?
Stealth and ECM are totally different concepts. There's nothing stealthy about ECM.
You wanna tell the Italian, German & Brit air forces that they're wasting their money buying F-35s when their home-grown Typhoon can beat it at stealth?
Typhoon isn't good enough. I'll explain that in Rajput's reply.
You still don't get it. I'm asking why isn't SCAF itself a modernized Rafale?
As I said, there's politics involved. Picdel is confident the program will die after a TD is created. Like it happened with the Typhoon.
Coming from an MKI? Sure, Rafale would seem stealthy as heck.
Wait till they see what a F-22 or F-35 looks like without the Luneberg lens.
They have a way better idea than you think. They have seen far more stealthy systems than the F-22 and F-35. That's why we have 3 stealth programs of our own.
By definition, they are. By design it must not be so that money goes out of the country in order to procure critical equipment.
But there are certain realities to be considered, our domestic R&D base has not developed to the level where it can substitute all foreign bought equipment. So we just gotta be careful, and only buy things we really cannot develop ourselves.
Spending billions to indigenize a French AESA when there's an indigenous one ready is exactly the kind of thing to avoid. MRFA, as it exists today, is filled with such things.
ToT keeps money in the country. And pays for it far more than you can imagine.
It's their job to be answerable to the taxpayers, just like all other public servants. If they think they are above that, then there's a need of an attitude adjustment. Such corrective measures do come along once in a while.
And end of the day, IAF has to realize that it's not fighting its own war - it's expected to function as part of a larger integrated defence establishment. So when a different service comes up with a way to destroy an enemy bunker protected by air defences that can destroy a fighter but can't stop a Mach 3 steep-diving BrahMos, IAF should listen.
And they should readjust their procurement accordingly. They can't be wearing horse blinders. They need to be situationally aware.
LOL!!!
You don't even know what ACT is. Here, have another read:
Their technique is old, from the 80s. Rafale uses significantly more modern hardware. The stealth mode was introduced 40 years later, ie, 2020.
