I have a doubt. How this competition takes place ? Will IAF pit one jet against other in dog fighting, BVR ? like Rafale against F-18 and find out which is better or IAF pilots will fly each jet individually and just notice which is best ? Does anybody have idea of how technical evaluation happens?
It's the second one. The IAF will test the aircraft like how one would test drive a car.
Performance tests will be carried out in India. Including in the deserts and in Leh, so that takes care of both our main geographies.
Avionics and weapons tests will be carried out in their respective countries.
DACT is also part of tests of some air forces, where the contenders are pitted against the client's fighter jets. For example, Singapore tested their MRFA contenders against their F-16s. But that's unnecessary. We only need aircraft to meet our expectations based on a specs list because what the jets eventually have to fight will be different from what we operate. Not to mention, we find out what we need through exercises rather than during the contest.
Radar on M2000 is somewhat outdated. M2000 is missing a IRST. There is no AESA radar for M2000. May be our Uttam radar might be able to be mounted but we just spent like 1 billion + dollars in upgrading our m2000s with RDY 3 radar. So, M2000 will remain lacking in that department. That said it is very potent fighter for the role it fulfills. Its better than mig-29 crap that has been shoved down iaf and in's throat.
So, if necessary, the 36 Rafales can manage over 12000 hours of flying all on their own in just 1 month. That's basically a Rafale flying about 12 hours a day for 30 days straight. That's 5 sorties a day, 2-2.5 hours each.
So a full squadron can perform surge operations of 90 sorties per day for a whole month. Not 3 days or 5 days, a whole friggin' month!!!
I would just like to show the interest of these capabilities for an aircraft carrier:
With 10 Rafale and 9 Super Etendard aircraft on board during the Bois Belleau mission conducted over five weeks with the USS Harry S. Truman and its 60 aircrafts, the Charles de Gaulle flew 45 aircraft a day and the USS Harry S. Truman 60 aircraft.
Since the last IPER, the French aircraft carrier has been reconfigured to carry a maximum of 30 Rafale, helicopters and E2C.
Its capacity to generate sorties has therefore almost tripled!
Radar on M2000 is somewhat outdated. M2000 is missing a IRST. There is no AESA radar for M2000. May be our Uttam radar might be able to be mounted but we just spent like 1 billion + dollars in upgrading our m2000s with RDY 3 radar. So, M2000 will remain lacking in that department. That said it is very potent fighter for the role it fulfills. Its better than mig-29 crap that has been shoved down iaf and in's throat.
Our mig 29's are pretty decent. I don't know why everyone keeps shitting on it. The thing is pretty good and now with astra will be more than capable in bvr and it was already an amazing wvr fighter. It's bad luck of the mig 29 being fought against well integrated western AF's and that too in small numbers. In kargil it was the mig 29 that kept the f16's inside their airspace not the mirage..
I would just like to show the interest of these capabilities for an aircraft carrier:
With 10 Rafale and 9 Super Etendard aircraft on board during the Bois Belleau mission conducted over five weeks with the USS Harry S. Truman and its 60 aircrafts, the Charles de Gaulle flew 45 aircraft a day and the USS Harry S. Truman 60 aircraft.
Since the last IPER, the French aircraft carrier has been reconfigured to carry a maximum of 30 Rafale, helicopters and E2C.
Its capacity to generate sorties has therefore almost tripled!
But anyway, while I am impressed with the Rafale's sortie generation rate, we still need an 800-1000 fighter jet air force, since we need to perform maximum sorties during the first 5 days of war.
With 200 Rafales, I can generate 1000 sorties a day, but even if the rest of the air force had let's say 600 MKI capable of 3 sorties a day, the total sorties will be 1000 for Rafale and 1800 for MKI, so the air force gets a total of 2800 sorties a day.
So any air force will prioritise numbers for generating more sorties than the quality of the jet itself. If the war prolongs for many months, only then quality comes into the picture, where Rafale wins hands down. But for the first few days, having more jets is more important.
Our mig 29's are pretty decent. I don't know why everyone keeps shitting on it. The thing is pretty good and now with astra will be more than capable in bvr and it was already an amazing wvr fighter. It's bad luck of the mig 29 being fought against well integrated western AF's and that too in small numbers. In kargil it was the mig 29 that kept the f16's inside their airspace not the mirage..
You don't need a fleet-wide IRST or AESA radar. The premier fifth-generation fighter F-22 is without IRST or the entire USAF. Even the french Rafale is without a proper IRST. Its not some magic bullet.
Russian and European's are just starting to add AESA to their fleet. Yet you will ask to integrate AESA on a Mig-21.
Not entirely. First, there's still a fair number of first-generation OSF that have an IRST -- it's only the newer OSF-IT that miss it. Secondly, the MICA-IR's seeker head can be used by the aircraft while on wingtips, so it gives some backup IRST capability. This capacity is why for the OSF-IT the IRST component was axed under the principle of "it'd cost more and we don't really need it"
Not entirely. First, there's still a fair number of first-generation OSF that have an IRST -- it's only the newer OSF-IT that miss it. Secondly, the MICA-IR's seeker head can be used by the aircraft while on wingtips, so it gives some backup IRST capability. This capacity is why for the OSF-IT the IRST component was axed under the principle of "it'd cost more and we don't really need it"
With 200 Rafales, I can generate 1000 sorties a day, but even if the rest of the air force had let's say 600 MKI capable of 3 sorties a day, the total sorties will be 1000 for Rafale and 1800 for MKI, so the air force gets a total of 2800 sorties a day.
So with your approach 360 Rafale are able to generate the same amont of sorties than 600 MKI during the 5 first days.
But you don't take into account the availability: Suppose a high intensity war tomorrow Triggered by China : you wouldn't get 272 MKI to generate your sorties but perhaps 55% of them, It is only if you are the one attacking that you can prepare to have 100% availability.
If you apply a 60% availability to MKI and a 90% availability to Rafale 200 Rafale will generate 900 sorties and 600 MKI will generate 1080 sorties....
So you just need 240 Rafale to be able to generate the same amont of sorties than 600 MKI during the 5 first days.
So with your approach 360 Rafale are able to generate the same amont of sorties than 600 MKI during the 5 first days.
But you don't take into account the availability: Suppose a high intensity war tomorrow Triggered by China : you wouldn't get 272 MKI to generate your sorties but perhaps 55% of them, It is only if you are the one attacking that you can prepare to have 100% availability.
If you apply a 60% availability to MKI and a 90% availability to Rafale 200 Rafale will generate 900 sorties and 600 MKI will generate 1080 sorties....
So you just need 240 Rafale to be able to generate the same amont of sorties than 600 MKI during the 5 first days.
55% or 60% is peacetime availability. And it's mainly due to spares supply. During wartime, spares availability will be increased to its peak by tapping into reserves, so it can go well above 80%. Only the jets in 3rd line maintenance will not be available and that's only 10-15% of the fleet. Rafale will at best have a 10% advantage.
During Exercise Gagan Shakti, which involved all assets of the air force, the availability of the entire air force was close to 80%. So this includes all our Cold War era relics. So MKI was definitely more than 80%.
Indian Defence Review (IDR), quarterly journal, the brainchild of former captain of the Indian Army, was launched on January 1, 1986 as a logical continuum to Lancer established in 1979, the first Indian publishing house dedicated to put forward the military experience and point of view.
www.indiandefencereview.com
Almost the entire might of the IAF was exercised to validate its concept of operations and war waging capabilities. Nuclear and biological warfare were at the periphery of the exercise and the ability to fight a two-front war with China and Pakistan, an unspoken agenda. The first part of the exercise focussed on the Western front and then the whole activity shifted to the Northern front. The IAF flew over 11,000 sorties, including nearly 9,000 by its combat aircraft.
Sources said that Exercise Gagan Shakti was not about learning tactical lessons but focused on checking logistics stamina to build up and sustain the high serviceability levels.
indianexpress.com
In an exclusive conversation with The Indian Express, Air Chief Marshal Dhanoa said that “full credit goes to our engineers that we have built up the serviceability of fighter aircraft to 80%, compared to a target of 75%, and a dispatch reliability of more than 95% during Gagan Shakti exercise”.
Also, with the changes in the Russian system, the spares supply for their jets has become very reliable. So availability is now closer to 70% for peacetime.
Anyway, what you're arguing for is more Rafales vs other aircraft, but that's not my point, I don't disagree with it either. My point is absolute numbers necessary to generate all the sorties necessary. So, if we are aiming for 3000 sorties a day, we need a pretty big fleet. Even with only Rafales in the fleet, we will need well over 600 of them. I'm arguing against the earlier point you made, that you replaced 500+ jets with 150+ Rafale. We need those 500+ jets and the 150+ Rafales.
Coming to the other point you made, due to the real world effect of numbers, I'd rather have the USS Truman with 60 SHs and F-35s than the CdG with 24 Rafales if I want to generate more sorties. Greater number of jets performing lesser number of sorties is definitely better than lesser number of jets doing greater number of sorties. It's because during war the number of jets are going to start falling quickly during the first 3 days.
Because what the jets eventually have to fight will be different from what we operate. Not to mention, we find out what we need through exercises rather than during the contest.
Nope, our MRFA would have to fight with various iterations of Su30s, which we operate. So testing MRFA contenders against our Su30s is not so bad option afterall.
In exercises both nations do not bring their best capabilities AFAIK.
Nope, our MRFA would have to fight with various iterations of Su30s, which we operate. So testing MRFA contenders against our Su30s is not so bad option afterall.
It doesn't help a lot. Especially when you need to put it through many such fights in various settings if any usable data is to be generated. Nobody has that kind of time and money.
It doesn't help a lot. Especially when you need to put it through many such fights in various settings if any usable data is to be generated. Nobody has that kind of time and money.
Not a problem when you are aiming to sell it. A lot of capabilities are demonstrated when the plan is to operate the same thing.
And the same is true during a contest as well. Actually why it's not a good idea to go through such a thing in the first place.
Le porte-avions Charles de Gaulle est déployé en Méditerranée avec son groupe aéronaval pour l'exercice Fanal 2019. A cette occasion un groupe aérien particulièrement conséquent a été embarqué avec 30 Rafale.
Yeah, so there are a lot of factors involved which will not help in bringing out the data points required. Our jet is different from what our enemies operate, and we will simply be wasting time in DACT and LFE, where neither side will show off the fullest capabilities to each other anyway.
Hence why contests are held in such a way that the result is predictable and easily measured.
Coming to the other point you made, due to the real world effect of numbers, I'd rather have the USS Truman with 60 SHs and F-35s than the CdG with 24 Rafales if I want to generate more sorties. Greater number of jets performing lesser number of sorties is definitely better than lesser number of jets doing greater number of sorties. It's because during war the number of jets are going to start falling quickly during the first 3 days.
No bro, speaking strictly about aerodynamic performance our Su 30s are very similar to Chinese Flankers. Therefore testing the same of MRFA contenders against our Sukhois would help us.
You don't need a fleet-wide IRST or AESA radar. The premier fifth-generation fighter F-22 is without IRST or the entire USAF. Even the french Rafale is without a proper IRST. Its not some magic bullet.
You DO know that lack of IRST is not a feature of the F-22 but a bug or deficiency. Do you know why? Because US beaurocrats limited the budget for avionics to 9 million dollars. Yes thats the reason. Its a bean counter approach.
But in January 1989, the U.S. Air Force put a cap on the cost of the F-22’s avionics at $9 million per aircraft in production. At that time, Lockheed’s paper design had over $16 million of avionics in each aircraft.America’s F-22 Raptor is one of the world’s most advanced warplanes. But it has...
news.yahoo.com
But in January 1989, the U.S. Air Force put a cap on the cost of the F-22’s avionics at $9 million per aircraft in production. At that time, Lockheed’s paper design had over $16 million of avionics in each aircraft.
America’s F-22 Raptor is one of the world’s most advanced warplanes. But it has several weaknesses. For one, it’s blind in the infrared though several of its potential rivals have infrared-search-and-track sensors, effectively allowing them to scan for enemy warplanes’ heat signatures.
The Rafales Front Sector Optronics (FSO) will be fitted with a new-generation infrared search and track (IRST) sensor optimised for the tracking of air targets, either alone, or in conjunction with the RBE2 radar.
You DO know that lack of IRST is not a feature of the F-22 but a bug or deficiency. Do you know why? Because US beaurocrats limited the budget for avionics to 9 million dollars. Yes thats the reason. Its a bean counter approach.
But in January 1989, the U.S. Air Force put a cap on the cost of the F-22’s avionics at $9 million per aircraft in production. At that time, Lockheed’s paper design had over $16 million of avionics in each aircraft.America’s F-22 Raptor is one of the world’s most advanced warplanes. But it has...
news.yahoo.com
F-22 is a great plane NOT because it is missing IRST, it is great inspite of missing IRST.
It was a deliberate choice. Till a few years back non of the USAF fighter has it as a standard. in fact, they were the first to use it in the 60's and ditched after that. The point is its not a must-have.
Lockheed has a new modular sensor system for combat aircraft dubbed the "Legion Pod" that aims at plugging a major hole in US air warfare capability. It provides a bolt-on Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system for optically hunting down enemy aircraft, especially stealthy ones, that our radars...
