MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

[JustCurious]

2-3 days.

Extremely hard to believe, Sir. I just mentioned IAF's doctrinal musings.

Personally, I don't trust IAF to accomplish & maintain air-superiority over Pakistani airspace within 2-3 weeks, & that too not without getting half-of-IAF fighters destroyed themselves.

IAF might have the best of pilots. But amongst the 3 forces, they have disappointed Indians the most. Consistently, over last 2 decades.

Globally, as well - their reputation ain't the same now, despite staged shows like GaganShakti.

Mig-21 crashes saga & Su30MKI fiasco (the sword arm with unrivaled potential being wasted) goes on to exhibit the disastrously duff planning of IAF top brass over the decades.

 

[Hydra]

They have 2 AESA radars already flying. One is being inducted while the other is under state tests. PAK FA and Mig-35.



That 20% difference is like heaven and earth. I'd actually say the difference between Derby ER and AIM-260 will be very small.

Here we are not comparing derby with meteor. What i was trying is that, if an.existing Derby missile with little bit if tweaks is able to acheive 80 of meteor, then achieving meteor plus parameters on entirely new airframe like AIM260 is pretty easy job for technological giant like USA.

Extremely hard to believe, Sir. I just mentioned IAF's doctrinal musings.

Personally, I don't trust IAF to accomplish & maintain air-superiority over Pakistani airspace within 2-3 weeks, & that too not without getting half-of-IAF fighters destroyed themselves.

IAF might have the best of pilots. But amongst the 3 forces, they have disappointed Indians the most. Consistently, over last 2 decades.

Globally, as well - their reputation ain't the same now, despite staged shows like GaganShakti.

Mig-21 crashes saga & Su30MKI fiasco (the sword arm with unrivaled potential being wasted) goes on to exhibit the disastrously duff planning of IAF top brass over the decades.

IAF not gonna achieve air superiority over pakistan in 2-3 day. If it was that much easy we would have responded in 2019 itself.

 

[Hydra]

That's what I would want personally. Diplomacy should never be personality based and I agree on that completely. The problem is that the majority of the Democrats leaving Tulsi Gabbard are basically bought out by the Chinese and Pakistani lobby or atleast hold some influence. If Trump loses and the chances seem pretty huge because of all the voter fraud the democrats will do we won't have an pro-Indian regime to ally with. American politics has been so toxic these few years that we might be the biggest losers if Trump loses. The democrats will give a lot of breathing space to the Chinese. And their deep state is experiencing schizophrenia from whatever I have understood.

If trump loses we will have a steady & reliable consistency on indo ud relationship. I like Trump, but that man is highly unpredictable.

 

[Nikhil]

Russians are 15 years behind western Europe & 20 years behind US in technology.
I just posted about there airborne AESA technology & how much behind they are.
SU 57 RCS is same as F 18 blk 3. Russians always have been strong in physics , mathematics , algorithm, programming so it negate some of the hardware related technological disadvantage they have compared to west. There is a reason Russians rely heavily on powerful ground based radars & SAM system for defence... cause they know where they stand compared to west in air domain. Soviet Union breakup almost doomed Russian along with brain drain.
Russian usually promise sky but don't deliver...but now they have started building quality stuff. Next decade and they might even catch up with American on certain critical fields.

They have 2 AESA radars already flying. One is being inducted while the other is under state tests. PAK FA and Mig-35.



That 20% difference is like heaven and earth. I'd actually say the difference between Derby ER and AIM-260 will be very small.

Both radars are even inferior to RBE 2 AESA. AIM-260 is next generation high speed long range AAM..... While all Israeli tech is American behind curtains.

 

[JustCurious]

Also, keep in mind that the American idea of penetrating air defenses is to start by sending hundreds of cruise missiles to damage as many systems as possible, then send stealth planes to target what might remain, and then send the teen fighters. The F-15EX is developed with this paradigm in mind. The EPAWWS is meant to protect it against residual threats that might have been missed by the cruise missiles and stealth bomber sweep. It's not like the Rafale that has been designed to sneakily penetrate undamaged enemy territory alone if needed.

Excellent explanation. Btw, what's wrong with this approach ?

penetrating air defenses is to start by sending hundreds of cruise missiles (Nirbhay-variants) to damage as many systems as possible, then send stealth planes (Rafale) to target what might remain, and then send the teen fighters (MKI fo Air-Superiority &CAP + Tejas- Tactical Strikes & Interception)?

 

[A Person]

EPAWWS isn't as mature as the spectra. But the U.S.A.F has been dedicated to the project

USAF dedication is spread between A-10, AC-130, F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35, B-52, B-1, B-2, B-21, PCAA/NGAD to only list the combat aircraft.

It's a bigger pie, but it's divided in more slices.

Boeing is claiming that the system will future proof it to the year 2040 and beyond.

Boeing also claimed the 737MAX is safe to fly.

The Americans don't project the notion of technologically advanced because they "are" technologically advanced. The Americans have made the f22 and f35 not the French. The Americans are ahead on most parameters of military tech. The French never came up with the f22.

The French don't have the budget for ten concurrent combat aircraft. But they haven't been idle on stealth technologies either, it's just that it's been kept to experimental drone testbeds (culminating in Neuron).

EPAWWS will do the job the Americans have a pretty good lead on avionics and electronics.

Who pioneered data fusion? It's the Europeans. Saab was the first, followed by Dassault. The Americans only got to it with the F-35, long after the Europeans did it. Then they tried to pretend they invented it.
Who pioneered the glass cockpit? Airbus did. Take the remote boom control on the latest generation of refuelers: Airbus had no problem with it on the A330 MRTT; Boeing spent months trying to find a way to get rid of screen glare. Screen glare. That was a blocking problem for them that caused them a year of delays.

The Americans are very good at selling their kool-aid, though. They invented PowerPoint after all; and all their aircraft have PowerPoint dominance.

To compare them with European tech is just a cope they don't even share their premium technology and their inferior technology is on par with European premium technology so it's pretty clear who has the notion of being advanced.

So that's why the RBE2-AA prototype made with American TR modules got a +40% power increase compared to the PESA model, while the serial production with European TR modules got a +100% power increase instead. It's because European technology is behind American technology. Yes.

I'm not saying epawws will outperform spectra but it has a comparable mission objective of protecting the plane so I think it will do the job considering how the U.S.A.F have invested their money and energy into it..

Again, USAF has to invest money and energy in a lot of things, and the F-35 is remarkably efficient at draining budgets to itself. The French on the other hand can focus on the Rafale. Yeah, there's still a bit for the Mirage 2000 and they're just getting started on the SCAF

 

[A Person]

Regarding super cruise, did rafale able super cruise with weapons?

Yes. With four AAM and one drop tank.

Excellent explanation. Btw, what's wrong with this approach ?

France doesn't really have the budget for hundreds of cruise missiles. If India has, good for her!

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

AFAIK spectra jam.enemy signal by frequency cancellation, interference techniques were using to cancel the signal. Am i right?

Consistent evidence shows that Spectra is capable of automatically processing waveforms in real time, a technology that the United States has not yet mastered, as the Director of DARPA has admitted. They only started working on this technology in 2018, a technology we've been using for more than a decade. When combined with SPECTRA's extraordinary localization capabilities, it makes jammers far smarter than those used by the Growlers. And it is likely that this allows "active cancellation".

Indeed it does:

In order for the radar to have good performance in range it must be able to recognize its signal, so it is not necessary to cancel it completely, it is enough to alter it a little so that the return signal no longer correlates with the replica of the transmitted signal.

You don't need to modify the first pulse for it to work, you still need a series of pulses that exceeds a few units to make a signal that can be distinguished from the others and from the noise.

The technique that seems to be used is to make a kind of adaptive mirror (it's a mirror that can amplify or attenuate the received signal according to the known signature of the Rafale and the geometry of the threat in relation to the aircraft). This adaptation is real time but it doesn't change in micro-seconds, it's the "reflection" on this mirror that implements these extremely short times.

In X-band the wavelength is about 3 cm and we only have the time it takes for the light to travel 1.5 cm to make the "reflection" if we want to treat the first pulse... But the difficulty for stealth aircraft is to counter the longer wavelengths: if we put an absorbent material whose thickness is the wavelength, we can locally add 3 cm, but we could not add 1 m! On the other hand 1m makes the active cancellation easier...
This is an advantage that allows the Rafale to surprise more than one.

 

[Manstrategist]

All these Spectra capabilities are great to read, but has IAF got the real thing or the downgraded export stuff?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

An LO aircraft differs from a VLO aircraft because it is VLO by piece! This means that when it becomes too difficult to connect two pieces of the airframe of the aircraft properly from a stealth point of view, well we don't do it! You then have what is called a spike at the connection.

VLO aircraft also have spikes, which are the peaks of reflection on the radar-equivalent surface angular profile. For example, if you illuminate an F-22 from the front, you will have a very low return, but if you illuminate it so that it is just perpendicular to the edges of the wings, tail and empennages, the same angle for all three, you will have a much higher return, this is the spike.

On the Rafale, the spikes are also known and come mostly from places close to the canards, for example (with more annoying angles there than elsewhere), and the SPECTRA transceivers are located there, allowing you to know what the most annoying waves are and counter them with active cancellation, because that's how you maximize the reduction of the returned signal.

 

[vstol Jockey]

An LO aircraft differs from a VLO aircraft because it is VLO by piece! This means that when it becomes too difficult to connect two pieces of the airframe of the aircraft properly from a stealth point of view, well we don't do it! You then have what is called a spike at the connection.

VLO aircraft also have spikes, which are the peaks of reflection on the radar-equivalent surface angular profile. For example, if you illuminate an F-22 from the front, you will have a very low return, but if you illuminate it so that it is just perpendicular to the edges of the wings, tail and empennages, the same angle for all three, you will have a much higher return, this is the spike.

On the Rafale, the spikes are also known and come mostly from places close to the canards, for example (with more annoying angles there than elsewhere), and the SPECTRA transceivers are located there, allowing you to know what the most annoying waves are and counter them with active cancellation, because that's how you maximize the reduction of the returned signal.

I just believe in LO. How can we have a VLO now in the times of OSF? I believe in LO only. MSA is LO and that is why we have wingtip missiles. By the time you pick me up by your radar, I have you locked on thru the combination of my OSF and Missile seeker head and I will fire first.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

All these Spectra capabilities are great to read, but has IAF got the real thing or the downgraded export stuff?

The hardware will be same, software won't.

 

[Lolwa]

The Israelis are a better source because the Americans won't give us the tech, whereas the Israelis do. Also, the Americans and Israelis work together on something, and then over the course of many years they develop better and better versions which allows them to export the tech. When it comes to the 2052, the Israelis have made it better than what America operates today, so it's a technologically more advanced radar. Otoh, the US has kept their more advanced technologies for their own future programs, like the F-22 MLU, F-35 Block 5, PCA etc. The older tech is dumped for export.

Boeing also claimed the 737MAX is safe to

We also bought Apache and Chinooks and P8I's all Boeing systems. You don't seem to be crying about their quality. A specific product problem doesn't seep into other products. If Airbus is so awesome why is the Typhoon such a Trainwreck of a project with all the awesome tech it's as expensive as the f22 and is inferior to the rafale in effiectiveness. The f15 is a proven aircraft and ex will continue to perform that way.

Who pioneered the glass cockpit? Airbus did. Take the remote boom control on the latest generation of refuelers: Airbus had no problem with it on the A330 MRTT; Boeing spent months trying to find a way to get rid of screen glare. Screen glare. That was a blocking problem for them that caused them a year of delays.

And does Airbus have an comparable aircraft to the f15ex?? Who pioneered in stealth it was the Americans. Who has the best platform for electronic warfare? Boeing. Screen glare effect are product problems. But Airbus main focus has always been civil aviation. There military project have been as bad as Boeing civilian projects so thats that.

So that's why the RBE2-AA prototype made with American TR modules got a +40% power increase compared to the PESA model, while the serial production with European TR modules got a +100% power increase instead. It's because European technology is behind American technology. Yes.

Yeah and still nothing close to the apg 77 and apg 81. Now you will say what about the size and class of the aircrafts the fact remains the yankees are ahead in the tech curve when it comes to electronics. The f22 and f35 will dominate every aircraft on the European mainland. That's why typhoon has become such difficult thing to buy that even Germany had to buy fa18's for its nuclear strike role. So much for European superiority. The gripen ng can defeat every plane in this universe but can only find sales in third world countries like Brazil. Nobody seriously considers European tech ask the Europeans themselves. The rafale failed because of bad lobbying and being an overkill doesn't change the fact that the f22 and f35 will have a clear advantage in a bvr fight. So much for European Superiority...

 

[randomradio]

None of these engines are superior i will say. I do agree with you that bigger engine generally produce bigger thrust. In modern era a good jet engine means it produce enough thrust & enough electrical power. If my memory is correct a single f15 engine produce 70 KW per engine.

Rafale shouldn't have any problem matching the F-15 in electrical output.

Both have similar life cycle.
Regarding super cruise, did rafale able super cruise with weapons? Super cruise capability of Rafale & Grippen are mere a publicity stunts like their low rcs, not going show up these two peculiarities ( low rcs & super cruise ) in real war.
And with ge f414, grippen can.supercruise, f18 blk 3 cannot. Super crukse capability of gen 4 fighter is more of its aerodynamic & dry twr characteristics.

Mach 1.4 with 1 drop tank and 4-6 AAMs.

Yeah, the propoganda master even feilded an uncooked su57 in syria to show the world that gen5 su 57 is ready. I dont buy the claim that rusiian aesa is ready without a truck load of salt. They currently doesnt have any GaN fighter sized radar as you state in on.of your earlier reply.

What they did in Syria is for testing, state trials. The aircraft has finished state trials and has entered serial production stage, where the RuAF will have full operational control of the aircraft. So that's basically IOC.

 

[randomradio]

Extremely hard to believe, Sir. I just mentioned IAF's doctrinal musings.

Personally, I don't trust IAF to accomplish & maintain air-superiority over Pakistani airspace within 2-3 weeks, & that too not without getting half-of-IAF fighters destroyed themselves.

IAF might have the best of pilots. But amongst the 3 forces, they have disappointed Indians the most. Consistently, over last 2 decades.

Globally, as well - their reputation ain't the same now, despite staged shows like GaganShakti.

Mig-21 crashes saga & Su30MKI fiasco (the sword arm with unrivaled potential being wasted) goes on to exhibit the disastrously duff planning of IAF top brass over the decades.

In all-out war, it will take 2-3 days for IAF to take over their skies. It's pretty standard for a superior air force.

Whether they can manage it, only a war will tell.

 

[randomradio]

Here we are not comparing derby with meteor. What i was trying is that, if an.existing Derby missile with little bit if tweaks is able to acheive 80 of meteor, then achieving meteor plus parameters on entirely new airframe like AIM260 is pretty easy job for technological giant like USA.

According to the PAF, the JF-17 is 80% as capable as the F-16.

The physics behind a ramjet is very different from a rocket. So the ramjet superiority will still be significant regardless of how advanced the AIM-260's electronics will become. The American LREW may be more than a match though. AIM-260 is merely a stopgap missile.

 

[randomradio]

We also bought Apache and Chinooks and P8I's all Boeing systems. You don't seem to be crying about their quality.

I actually very much support those aircraft. The Americans have a lot of very, very good aircraft. But the fighter planes, a strict no, no, both from political perspective and the fact that the planes on offer are lemons today. But my argument is mainly centered aorund the fact that the teens are actually lemons. They were excellent once upon a time, back in the 80s and 90s. But today, they are all has-beens.

 

[Hydra]

Consistent evidence shows that Spectra is capable of automatically processing waveforms in real time, a technology that the United States has not yet mastered, as the Director of DARPA has admitted. They only started working on this technology in 2018, a technology we've been using for more than a decade. When combined with SPECTRA's extraordinary localization capabilities, it makes jammers far smarter than those used by the Growlers. And it is likely that this allows "active cancellation".

Indeed it does:

In order for the radar to have good performance in range it must be able to recognize its signal, so it is not necessary to cancel it completely, it is enough to alter it a little so that the return signal no longer correlates with the replica of the transmitted signal.

You don't need to modify the first pulse for it to work, you still need a series of pulses that exceeds a few units to make a signal that can be distinguished from the others and from the noise.

The technique that seems to be used is to make a kind of adaptive mirror (it's a mirror that can amplify or attenuate the received signal according to the known signature of the Rafale and the geometry of the threat in relation to the aircraft). This adaptation is real time but it doesn't change in micro-seconds, it's the "reflection" on this mirror that implements these extremely short times.

In X-band the wavelength is about 3 cm and we only have the time it takes for the light to travel 1.5 cm to make the "reflection" if we want to treat the first pulse... But the difficulty for stealth aircraft is to counter the longer wavelengths: if we put an absorbent material whose thickness is the wavelength, we can locally add 3 cm, but we could not add 1 m! On the other hand 1m makes the active cancellation easier...
This is an advantage that allows the Rafale to surprise more than one.

You can alter the signals, but you cannot destroy the information without canceling the wave, signal processing can retrieve tge information.

By the way tell me, wether you need to know the incoming frequency to cancel it using interference or not. In my opinion you must know the incoming frequency, amplitude, its shape etc. AESA used to change frequently, for example if an aesa firing a signal at 8.5 Ghz in the next instant it may fir another frequency.

@vstol Jockey @Ashwin @Nikhil is it possible for spectra to acheive active cancellations against an aesa radar?

 

[vstol Jockey]

You can alter the signals, but you cannot destroy the information without canceling the wave, signal processing can retrieve tge information.

By the way tell me, wether you need to know the incoming frequency to cancel it using interference or not. In my opinion you must know the incoming frequency, amplitude, its shape etc. AESA used to change frequently, for example if an aesa firing a signal at 8.5 Ghz in the next instant it may fir another frequency.

@vstol Jockey @Ashwin @Nikhil is it possible for spectra to acheive active cancellations against an aesa radar?

I have had serious doubts regarding spectra effectiveness against AESA radars as it is nearly impossible for any system to predict the frequency hopping of an AESA radar and transmit on them. There will always be a lag/delay in the response and by then the AESA would have changed to another frequency. Even if we inbuild AI into spectra to decode the logrhythems of the frequency hopping of a radar, the lag/delay will remain as the frequency in use will change.

 

[Hydra]

I have had serious doubts regarding spectra effectiveness against AESA radars as it is nearly impossible for any system to predict the frequency hopping of an AESA radar and transmit on them. There will always be a lag/delay in the response and by then the AESA would have changed to another frequency. Even if we inbuild AI into spectra to decode the logrhythems of the frequency hopping of a radar, the lag/delay will remain as the frequency in use will change.

Yeas exactly, that's what i am.also doubting. And even our planned uttam rad have around 16 modes of scanning, ifear AI also will not come in handy if pilot manually changes the the mod.