SAR sat image would be icing on cake, but won't be released I think
Air Engagement of Operation Sindoor : Analysis
- Thread starter Parthu
- Start date
This is all the stuff I have been talking about the course of the last 1-2 months about our new networking capabilities.
@Picdelamirand-oil @vstol Jockey @Rajput Lion @Parthu
Thread:
Our active and passive capabilities are soon gonna go up by many levels over the next 2 years.
GCAP is nowhere. SCAF is localized and still a long ways away. Our capabilities will be SCAF-like but available in just a few years and will be a global network within 5-8 years. All automated, all AI-run, limited/no human element.
Not just radar detection, but this network will give us next gen passive localization too. Fighter jets in combo with AI-led drones and ELINT satellites.
And new small form factor antennas are being developed too. Something like 30% smaller. So on the same array, if you could carry 1000 TRMs, with the new antennas you can carry 1300. It means drones can carry more capability on smaller arrays. Old antenna designs require 3-4 cm2 of space, while modern ones need 1.5-2.5 cm2.
Stuff like this explains why the IAF isn't interested in 5th gen imports. They won't be able to integrate all this tech on it.
@Picdelamirand-oil @vstol Jockey @Rajput Lion @Parthu
Thread:
Our active and passive capabilities are soon gonna go up by many levels over the next 2 years.
GCAP is nowhere. SCAF is localized and still a long ways away. Our capabilities will be SCAF-like but available in just a few years and will be a global network within 5-8 years. All automated, all AI-run, limited/no human element.
Not just radar detection, but this network will give us next gen passive localization too. Fighter jets in combo with AI-led drones and ELINT satellites.
And new small form factor antennas are being developed too. Something like 30% smaller. So on the same array, if you could carry 1000 TRMs, with the new antennas you can carry 1300. It means drones can carry more capability on smaller arrays. Old antenna designs require 3-4 cm2 of space, while modern ones need 1.5-2.5 cm2.
Stuff like this explains why the IAF isn't interested in 5th gen imports. They won't be able to integrate all this tech on it.
According to this blog, it was JF-17C+ PL-15 Combo not J-10C that shoot down IAF's Plane.
To do CEC of the level where AWACS can take guide AAMs, you need propritery guidance datalinks of the missile available, so it is not the issue of launch platform but the issue is of the missile from whatever I have read on this. So, China should have allowed Sweden to take look at PL-15s guidance links or Pak got their own bespoke PL-15s with own datalinks which they used, both look inprobable to me.
Entire West & China are shocked by the 'shock & awe' we delivered to Pak and decimated them within days. Our tech lead has indeed surprised them. But what we have displayed is just a fraction, real stuff is cooked somewhere deep something more ominous for them
Yep, it's wrong. The system we are using is more advanced than what NATO is. It was a bit careless of Cooper to miss out on the old contracts.
Absolute BS! It's not Indian armed forces that are living in the past but these Euro experts. Our comm-node is now more advance than most nations. I read his report, laughed and then moved on
The 4th domain
Yes that's what I wrote. Preliminary assessment about the Rafale's performance isn't good . We'd have to await more details.
We've had this discussion before. We don't have the resources be they money time & manpower to dedicate for such a project.
Besides it is counter productive. We already have the AMCA going. We need a stop gap arrangement made more urgent by the fact that the Rafale's we have are sub par ( an assumption at this stage) .
Why would we go thru such a time consuming process since it'd take us a good 12-15 years for negotiations to be concluded, an agreement to be signed & then proceed with developmental work, trials, further developmental work & finally FOC by which time we'd have the 6th Gen in full strength in our neighborhood.
We need the Su-57 in an as is condition meaning the same version with the same avionics, sensors armaments etc that the Russians are getting . Buy 3-4 squadrons of it ASAP & get an agreement on mating our armaments to it. That's it. I'm sure the entire exercise wouldn't exceed 10 billion USD.
Keep things simple. The more you try to MKI ize it the more you're stretching the entire process which as I pointed out before is counter productive to our aims.
We might as well focus on the Rafales then as ACM A. P. Singh clearly stated in public he wanted DA to transfer source codes. He was of course referring to the winning bidder of the MRFA tender.
Rafale makes more sense over the Su-57 if the IAF deem the latter as not up to the mark & that the former can get better with upgrades to their avionics & sensors besides receiving their source codes for us to integrate our armaments avionics sensor packages etc as we're already familiar with this FA having operated it for a few years besides already having created the infrastructure for it .
Bharat Karnad is a geo strategist & a policy maker not a technology geek. He shouldn't be talking about issues he has cursory knowledge of . Unfortunately he does so & those not in the know start taking his hot takes seriously.
IAF is going through a transitional stage like going fully digital from analog, so we need fighters that can hook up to our C&C structure otherwise buying an expensive foreign jet means absolutely nothing. Having two-three squadrons of silver-bullets like Su-57 or F-35 won't enhance our force projection too much.
Gone are the days of platform vs platform. Now it's all about System of Systems and system vs system. Hence to fully thwart the Chinese VLO threat we need a combat-ready VLO jet that has all-Indian software and avionics by 2030-32. That means F-35 is out and AMCA won't realistically be combat ready before 2040, thus leaving only one candidate: Su-57.
Now what customization, IAF would want(single vs dual-seater etc.), we shall leave it on them. The real drama would begin when the first J-35 lands in PAF colours. Let's wait till then to see how it all unfolds.
How about reading up more on the IACCS so as to disabuse yourself of those fanciful notions you've long harboured about our capabilities & capacities ?
You can do so in this very forum itself assuming you're a serious member & not the troll we think you are. You can start out here, sweetie
. Ja? 
Guardians Of The Sky - India's Integrated Air Defence That Outfoxed Pakistan
India's Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) played a pivotal role in defending the skies. An automated system integrates data from forces to combat aerial threats.
www.ndtv.com
Something tells me you ought to be kept as far off from an organization's SCM as possible just as that very same something suggests the word optimum or optimal or even budget limitations doesn't exist in your dictionary.
It always has to be EVERYTHING & that too in HUGE numbers.
Till now Su-57 and Rafale have never been measured by the same standards.
IAF liked Rafale for MRFA. For the tasks they had in mind. And this is a process that started 15y back. Not sure what their assessment is now after this battle based on Rafales performance and in general how things have moved in last 15y with most tasks takem over by inexpensive drones.
And regarding Su-57 they did not like them as they think it was not a great 5th gen Platform. They were evaluated on a different standard.
There is no evidence if IAF had to choose one between Rafale and Su-57 they would choose Rafale. IAF choose AMCA over Su-57.
That AEW system the Chinese sold them was sub par. The Paxtanis had no choice.
PN has been trying desperately for both Sweden & Germany to sell them their AIP solutions for them to fit them into their Hangor class being built in China. Both aren't co operating with the result PN had to reluctantly go ahead with the Chinese version of the Sterling AIP.
Another point of objection would be either party has to entrust source codes to the other . I don't see either of them trusting the other & with Paxtan in the mix, who the hell in their right mind would go out on a limb to aid them?
Then , there's the issue of no news in the public domain as such of Swedish collaboration with the Chinese on this front which is expected but there's no expose of this as well on SM.
Finally let's not forget Sweden can't afford to go against the US's diktats in this matter. It's no Israel & even Israel didn't disregard the US's advisory on this matter.
The only problem with your argument is we aren't getting this MKI ised version of the Su-57 before 2035 at the very least & in all likelihood would be much later than that.
All this is assuming of course the IAF actually sees the Su-57 as our answer to the J-20 + J-16 combination. Nothing in the public domain suggests to us they do
On the contrary we've reports the IAF will go in for the Voronezh radar systems. If true this suggests they've a completely different perspective to yours on how to deal with Chinese stealth FAs.
Frankly, I don't like the idea of the IAF becoming the first export customer for yet another Russian type. There are too many unknown variables - serviceability, operating costs, ToT, etc.
The RuAF itself doesn't seem to be very enthusiastic about it. They only have around 75 ac on order. For its part, Sukhoi has been hedging its bets by promoting it internationally. To me, that's a sign that a lot of work still remains to be done.
The definitive engine is far from ready and the avionics and sensors are apparently quite a bit behind the latest Western jets (no HMD, external targeting pod, and call it nitpicking but its got no side stick HOTAS). Of course, we could upgrade it over time. But we could just as well invest in upgrading the Rafale and expediting the AMCA. Better value for money imo.
During a visit to Israel, former ACM Chaudhari apparently got a briefing on the Israeli F-35I. If we can negotiate a similar deal with India-specific sovereignty clauses/euma exceptions, we'd have a winner imo.
