MMRCA 2.0 - Updates and Discussions

What is your favorite for MMRCA 2.0 ?

  • F-35 Blk 4

    Votes: 32 13.4%
  • Rafale F4

    Votes: 187 78.2%
  • Eurofighter Typhoon T3

    Votes: 4 1.7%
  • Gripen E/F

    Votes: 6 2.5%
  • F-16 B70

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • F-18 SH

    Votes: 9 3.8%
  • F-15EX

    Votes: 9 3.8%
  • Mig-35

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • Total voters
    239
Then you went ahead and nitpicked the F-22 ignoring how the entire USAF is missing IRST part.
Weren't you the person who brought F-22 in discussion? I didn't even mention F-22. BTW, my "nitpicking" is supported by facts and articles. I haven't seen one single fact or source from you.
Cool, Now made it about AESA.
If you cann't read properly, there is nothing I can do about it.

For the same point, i have clearly explained there is no need to have fleet wide AESA or IRST.
And I told you, it depends upon what your opponents will field and what kind of adversaries you will face.

Again, I am yet to see one coherent answer from you based on facts. All insults, snarky emojies and no facts. Usually these are characteristics of people with no real knowledge.

Anyway, good talk since you have backed off from IRST rant.
My rant is based on facts, your insults and snarky emojies are pure hot air with no content. Carry on.
 
This is a simulation-based on too many assumptions starting with the exhaust radiant intensity. Even if it's half true, It would have revolutionized aerial warfare (Detecting F-35 at 100km!). Also, check what i wrote. It should be able to identify and get a firing solution. Detect->Track->Identify-> firing solution. I have never heard these happening in a real-world situation outside of ~30km.

Screenshot_20201022-012336~2.png
I would like to draw your attention to the last line of the para just below the table. It clearly states that all these data of simulation has been proved in actual trials. So these are not mere 'assumptions' or 'half-truthd' but raw facts.
Now our debate concerned the performance of IRST sensor in detecting stealth planes against Radars, and it is proven beyond doubt that IRST offers 3-5 times ( even more according to @vstol Jockey sir) more detection range compared to radars. So there is no reason to not believe that it would offer firing solutions too at much longer ranges than a traditional radars against a stealth plane. Anyways current radars can't even detect stealth planes from BVR distances according to yourself let alone offering a firing solution. That is why in modern times IRST is a
MUST HAVE SYSTEM.
 
@Saaho, The DAS of F-35 is more of a MAWS and less of an IRST. Every MAWS sensor is like a mini IRST as it also detects the hot parts of a missile to generate missile approach alerts.
View attachment 18396 I would like to draw your attention to the last line of the para just below the table. It clearly states that all these data of simulation has been proved in actual trials. So these are not mere 'assumptions' or 'half-truthd' but raw facts.
Now our debate concerned the performance of IRST sensor in detecting stealth planes against Radars, and it is proven beyond doubt that IRST offers 3-5 times ( even more according to @vstol Jockey sir) more detection range compared to radars. So there is no reason to not believe that it would offer firing solutions too at much longer ranges than a traditional radars against a stealth plane. Anyways current radars can't even detect stealth planes from BVR distances according to yourself let alone offering a firing solution. That is why in modern times IRST is a
MUST HAVE SYSTEM.
For any arcraft trying to engage targets passively, a very accurate EW system and IRST are a must.
 
View attachment 18396 I would like to draw your attention to the last line of the para just below the table. It clearly states that all these data of simulation has been proved in actual trials. So these are not mere 'assumptions' or 'half-truthd' but raw facts.
Now our debate concerned the performance of IRST sensor in detecting stealth planes against Radars, and it is proven beyond doubt that IRST offers 3-5 times ( even more according to @vstol Jockey sir) more detection range compared to radars. So there is no reason to not believe that it would offer firing solutions too at much longer ranges than a traditional radars against a stealth plane. Anyways current radars can't even detect stealth planes from BVR distances according to yourself let alone offering a firing solution. That is why in modern times IRST is a
MUST HAVE SYSTEM.
Oh I agree. But this is still a simulation. Here it's claiming F-35 at 100km which is too much and never heard of before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killbot and Aurora
Oh I agree. But this is still a simulation. Here it's claiming F-35 at 100km which is too much and never heard of before.
Yep, I was surprised too when I first read it. But since article is claiming that this simulation is turned out to be true in actual real world trials, then I had to believe it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashwin
Then all you have is a jet that can manage against a Flanker, and not the 5 or 6 other types of jets the enemy possesses.

Also, the aerodynamics of our Flanker is completely different from that of the Chinese Flankers due to the use of the TVC. Then the signature is different, pilot quality is different, operational employment is different. Basically, just to deal with the Flanker, we will need a month's worth of testing in various conditions, and that data is still going to be useless when it comes to the Chinese Flanker, never mind all the other types of jets.

The idea behind DACT is to train the pilot, not the aircraft.
Point is not about getting exact data, we can't get them without getting involved in an actual battle against PLAAF. Point is about getting surety that the jet we are going to buy will provide us serious edge over our adversaries. Now if any of the MRFA contenders could outperform our Sukhois in WVR and BVR combat then there is every reason to believe that it would do so against Chinese Flankers too.
And no there are not 5-6 different types of jets in our enemy's inventory. Apart from Flankers only J10s are the jet which have some serious capabilities and differs from Flankers. Other jets are vintage and could be easily neglected.
 
Point is not about getting exact data,

Actually it is.

Point is about getting surety that the jet we are going to buy will provide us serious edge over our adversaries. Now if any of the MRFA contenders could outperform our Sukhois in WVR and BVR combat then there is every reason to believe that it would do so against Chinese Flankers too.

You can't really test that. And definitely not in a competition. The only real way to test that is if you keep the jet and its crew for a week or two and put the jet though every major scenario imaginable. Which also means we will end up divulging our secrets to the competitors. You see how unrealistic that is.

Rather what we do is give the jet a goal and see how it performs. Pretty much all of it requires experienced pilots so they can use their experience on their old jets to see how the new one performs in comparison. So these evaluators are pilots who have flown multiple types of jets throughout their careers, so they can be the best judge of the jet's capabilities.

Simply pitting the jets against the MKI, as I have repeatedly said, is utterly useless. No one's gonna take it seriously. Exercises have always been about training the pilot and to see how well they can use their own jet.

And no there are not 5-6 different types of jets in our enemy's inventory. Apart from Flankers only J10s are the jet which have some serious capabilities and differs from Flankers. Other jets are vintage and could be easily neglected.

You forgot about the F-16s and JF-17s. Apart from J-10 and J-11, there are also the J-20 and the upcoming J-31. And possibly another single engine stealth fighter for the PLAAF. Then there's another fighter coming up meant to be used as a VTOL or STOVL from their AAS. That's 4 next gen fighter jets already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious
You can't really test that. And definitely not in a competition. The only real way to test that is if you keep the jet and its crew for a week or two and put the jet though every major scenario imaginable. Which also means we will end up divulging our secrets to the competitors. You see how unrealistic that is.

Rather what we do is give the jet a goal and see how it performs. Pretty much all of it requires experienced pilots so they can use their experience on their old jets to see how the new one performs in comparison. So these evaluators are pilots who have flown multiple types of jets throughout their careers, so they can be the best judge of the jet's capabilities.

Simply pitting the jets against the MKI, as I have repeatedly said, is utterly useless. No one's gonna take it seriously. Exercises have always been about training the pilot and t.
We don't need to put jets in every imaginable scenario, only in a situation where odds are equal so that we could see which jet comes on top.

I didn't forget about JF17s or F16s. They are Pakistani jets and I was talking about China. Still you could test our MRFA contenders against Tejas. If it beats Tejas then it could easily beat JF17s and F16s.
All those next gen Chinese jets are still far from reality. Anyways MRFA is not to tackle that threat. We are pursuing AMCA for a reason.
 
We don't need to put jets in every imaginable scenario, only in a situation where odds are equal so that we could see which jet comes on top.

Doesn't help. Just a specs comparison can tell you that.

I didn't forget about JF17s or F16s. They are Pakistani jets and I was talking about China. Still you could test our MRFA contenders against Tejas. If it beats Tejas then it could easily beat JF17s and F16s.
All those next gen Chinese jets are still far from reality. Anyways MRFA is not to tackle that threat. We are pursuing AMCA for a reason.

MRFA is meant to tackle all future threats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious

NATO Pilot Who Flew Rafale Jets Says Other Fighters In Region Mere Target Practice

By Smriti Chaudhary
Retired Air Force pilot, Stefanos Karavidas, the first Greek pilot to fly Rafale fighters has boasted of capabilities of the French origin jet. This comes after Indian commander had earlier confirmed the unmatched capabilities of Dassault Rafales.

“I flew in the back seat of such an aircraft during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Tiger exercise in 2015, in Konya, Turkey, and I saw for myself its capabilities. It is an excellent flying platform, it has exceptional flexibility, exceptional excess power.”


Turkey and Greece have long been at loggerheads over access to natural resources, namely potential gas and oil deposits under the seabed of the Mediterranean.

France has been at the forefront of lending support to Greece by reportedly planning to equip them with 18 Dassault Rafale fighter jets to fight their Mediterranean neighbours.

According to a report in Pentapostagma, Karavidas when asked whether the acquisition of Rafale fighters would change the balances in the Aegean said “the balances are changing drastically, to a very large extent. In essence, the Turkish Air Force will not be a factor, just a target for the Greek Air Force.”

Former air chief marshal BS Dhanoa of the Indian Air Force (IAF) echoed a similar sentiment about the capabilities of Rafale in an interview with HT.

He said that with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) concentrated and on the offensive on a barren Tibetan Plateau, the IAF with Rafale fighter as its spearhead weapon will decide the outcome of the battle in case the red flag goes up. This was in reference to India-China standoff at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh.

India has inducted the first batch consisting of five Rafales into the Indian Air Force’s 17 Squadron ‘Golden Arrows’ at Ambala Air Force Station on September 10, in a grand ceremony attended by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh with his French counterpart Florence Parly.

“Today, this induction sends a strong message to the world and those who have raised an eye at us. This induction is very crucial, considering the border situation,” Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said at the ceremonial unveiling of the Rafale aircraft.

An order of 36 Rafale fighters has been placed by New Delhi, with a second batch expected to land in November this year. The French origin jet can reach almost double the speed of sound, with a top speed of 1.8 Mach.

It has multi-role capabilities including electronic warfare, air defence, ground support and in-depth strikes. The jets can integrate with missiles like MICA air to air missiles, SCALP long-range missiles, laser-guided bombs, AM39 anti-ship missiles, GIAT 30 internal cannon, METEOR long-range air to air missiles and air to ground precision-guided weapons.

Dhanoa appeared to back Karavidas claims and stated that the Rafale jets with its top of the line electronic warfare suite, Meteor beyond visual range missile and SCALP air to the ground weapon with its terrain-following capability outguns any threat that the Chinese Air Force produces.

“The Rafale with its advanced terrain following weapons and level II of Digital Terrain Elevation Data available to the Indian pilot, the error probability of the weapon is reduced to mere 10 metres. As I have said in the past, Rafale is a game-changer,” he added in an interview with HT.

In the backdrop of growing India-China and Turkey-Greece tensions, experts have consistently praised the capabilities of Rafale jets and asserting they would out-do Turkish and Chinese or Pakistani jets.
 
There are no quick fixes for the problem we have. If we were to buy F-18 for the Navy, then we can transfer the 2 squadrons of Mig 29K's to the IAF and that will last another 20 years. Unless the defense budget is increased to 3.5% - 4.0% of the GDP and the Capex budget be 2.0% - 2.25% of the GDP, we will not be able to afford the Rafale's (114 nos). Instead we may have to buy 36 - 54 Rafale's and the fill the gap with more Tejas Mk1As.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious
Some workshare for DRAL in India :

The French Navy command twelve Falcon 2000 Albatrosses


Florence Parly announced this Thursday an order for twelve Falcon 2000 maritime surveillance units from Dassault Aviation (1), during a trip to one of the manufacturer’s factories in Seclin (Hauts de France). This order will be carried out in two installments with a first firm batch of 7 aircraft this year and a second (5 planes) in 2025. This last phase is conditional. The Minister of the Armed Forces is renewing an aging fleet, made up of five Falcon 200s (45 years on the clock when they retired from service in 2025) and eight Falcon 50s (48 years in 2029).
Jobs & CompanyNewsletter

This order, valued at 1.3 billion euros, is good news for Dassault and its partners. Naval Group will supply the Albatross mission system, the name chosen by the military, Thales, the radars and Safran, the optronic ball. "This contract will generate 100 jobs at Dassault during the development phase and 50 during the production and support phase", summarizes the Ministry of the Armed Forces. "The first three planes will be manufactured in France and the others in Nagpur, India, as part of the compensation related to the Rafale contract in India," said Hôtel de Brienne.

Delivery of the first three Falcon 2000s is scheduled for 2025 and the last at the start of the 2030s. The Albatross fleet will operate amid an increase in traffic at sea, illegal fishing, accidents and pollution incidents. The plane could find a buyer internationally. “The Falcon 2000 Albatros is a high performance aircraft with the latest generation of mission and sensor systems. (…) Several countries are interested in these planes, which constitute an effective response to the considerable challenges of the protection and maritime security of the territory and of State action at sea ”, underlines Éric Trappier, CEO of Dassault Aviation.
 
If we were to buy F-18 for the Navy, then we can transfer the 2 squadrons of Mig 29K's to the IAF and that will last another 20 years.
same if you purchase Rafale for your Navy. With some major assets : a indian production lign nearly ready in India (US will never allow India to produce the bird locally), a common set of spare parts, test benchs ant technicians training rounds between the AF and the Navy, same pilot training, same weaponery.
 
same if you purchase Rafale for your Navy. With some major assets : a indian production lign nearly ready in India (US will never allow India to produce the bird locally), a common set of spare parts, test benchs ant technicians training rounds between the AF and the Navy, same pilot training, same weaponery.
If we can't afford to buy 114 Rafale's we will seldom be able to afford Rafale-M's for our Navy
 
Mission Foch : When a submarine designates a target to the Rafale Marine of the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle
A nuclear attack submarine [SNA] is a mandatory part of the escort accompanying the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle when the latter is on mission. This type of ship is needed by a naval air group [GAN] to counter possible submarine threats and even, as Operation Trident, conducted during NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, showed, to deter an opposing naval force from leaving its naval base.


Sous-Marin.jpg


Another mission that falls to an ANS is to monitor the maritime approaches when the GAN is on break in a port. As happened when the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and its escort [Task Force 473] made a two-day stopover in Brest last week.

However, with the sensors it deploys, an ANS can also have a more "offensive" role, as demonstrated by the "linkex" type exercise carried out by the GAN on 17 March. In a way, it was a question of putting into practice what is known as "naval cooperative intelligence", which, schematically, consists of networking all the means of a naval force in order to increase information sharing with a view to multiplying its effects.

For example, if a ship detects a threat or a target to be "dealt with", it will send the necessary information to the ship best placed to neutralise it. This is what the SNA assigned to protect the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier did, but... with Rafale Marine. But indirectly.

Thus, according to the Armed Forces General Staff [EMA] in its latest operations report, thanks to its sensors, the SNA first spotted and identified a "fictitious threat". It then returned to periscope immersion to transmit the necessary information to the E-2C Hawkeye airborne surveillance aircraft, which was then on a mission 150 nautical miles from the submarine, via the L-11 tactical data link.

CDG.jpg

This link allows automatic data exchanges between surface, air and submarine units in real time, generally in HF range, which however has the disadvantage of having a low data rate.

"Capable of tracking more than 1,500 runways and transmitting this information at a range of nearly 200 nautical miles, the Hawkeye fully played its role as a controller by relaying the information gathered to the Rafale Marine, which then proceeded, from the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, to the target identified by the submarine," explains the EMA. The EMA emphasises that "this formidable aggregation of resources makes the GAN a powerful and effective tool, a multiplier of capabilities, with an autonomous assessment of the situation and a rapid, proportionate and graduated intervention. »

However, the ideal would be to allow a diving submarine to communicate directly with a plane, as periscopic immersion can betray its presence. In this respect, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT] has probably found a solution with Translational Acoustic-RF communication [TARF], which consists of having a sonar system send a signal coded in binary language [0 or 1] to the submarine. The vibrations thus sent would be picked
up at the surface by a very sensitive radar.
 
Mission Foch : Just to understand:
  • The surface situation (SITSURF) is the primary concern of a force at sea.
  • Aircraft are a way to extend the radius of this SITSURF, helicopter, PATMAR, Hawkeye...all good.
The more powerful the radar is, the higher it flies, the more contacts they will detect and we will see coming from far away.
Panther STD2, Cayman NFH, ATL2, Hawkeye, SNA and surface units are on the L11.
More and more surface units are also on the L16 (CDG, FDA/ FAA, FREMM?...) with the Hawkeye and Rafale.

But once the contacts have been detected in a few antenna towers, they have to be identified.

Civilian ships use an AIS transponder.

But a malicious and malicious surface unit will display a false AIS identity, adopt the behaviour of a civilian unit (military radar OFF, sea lane, reduced speed...).

Depending on the traffic, it can be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Approaching can be dangerous if the military unit activates its SAMs.

Fighter can effectively identify contacts informing the SITSURF (SUCAP mission).
The radar will detect, and the POD laser/ OSF will increase their "productivity" by increasing the identification distance.

But the SNA is a discreet and persistent means on zone.
It can accurately detect and identify units. It can detail the composition of a naval group.

We can imagine that it monitors the exit from a military port or the crossing of a strait, and that it triggers a particularly discreet sea assault.
No need to switch on your own radar to fire an Exocet, the position of the target is enough.
 
If we can't afford to buy 114 Rafale's we will seldom be able to afford Rafale-M's for our Navy
Rafale and SH18 are in the same price range. Maybe slightly costlier for Rafale.
And never forget that uncle Sam will never agree an indian production line.