36 + 26 +36 = 98
If you had bought them all at once, firstly you would already have them, secondly a large proportion of them would have been built in India, and thirdly you could usefully think about how to counter the emergence of Chinese strength.
Ignorants lives up to his name, he can't even read properly. If the I D R W article is true, then the committee is recommending a stopgap of 36 more F4s before starting MRFA.
MRFA will take 5 years to finish and 3 years to deliver, so they'd like the IAF to buy 36 more Rafale F4s to plug that time gap.
A high-level committee tasked with evaluating the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) fighter jet acquisition strategy is reportedly considering repeat orders for 36 Dassault Rafale jets as an interim measure. This comes as a temporary solution before the long-awaited Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) program gains final approval.
Anyway, 26 already comes with a production line so 26+36 will give us a bigger line, ready for the transition to MRFA.
Also, 36 jets as stopgap + MRFA is something I have proposed for almost a decade now. I'm glad the powers that be have listened.
Yes, we spend 15 billion to develop an engine, but when we offer you a technology transfer for one billion, you think it's too expensive. So you never go through with your projects and then you're surprised that you still don't have any indigenous engines.
1. With F414 coming in along with AMCA engine from foreign suppliers, the IAF wants a domestic development program. So Kaveri is going to give us that with fully indigenous tech. Dry Kaveri is a success, 45 KN, it will be integrated with a 29 KN afterburner being developed by Brahmos Aerospace. And the engine will get better materials to significantly exceed M88-4E eventually. This engine is aimed for LCA's MLU, both LCAs.
2. It wasn't too expensive, it was just beyond the scope of the budget. GoI preferred to spend that money elsewhere instead, basically explained in point 1. Plus French investment was coming through offsets, so there was no real transfer of money involved, but India was expected to pay $500M hard cash. And $500M is not a lot to the French, but we can run multiple weapons programs with that much money, so it's a lot for GoI from an R&D perspective. It was half of ISRO's budget at the time.
3. A third Kaveri version is a backup for AMCA engine's failure. But it cannot be done if we do not build up our human capital via the first 2 Kaveris. If we had bought M88 tech from the start, then that's neither know-how nor know-why to develop an engine the aircraft developers themselves were not a big fan of for the end product, they prefered F404. I guess money could have been released if there was more enthusiasm from the other stakehoders. But the Kaveri acts as a hedge against future imports.
4. I am a fan of the IAF is always right. It was they who pressured GoI out of any foreign development program for Kaveri in order to prevent GTRE from not doing things on their own. This was the case even in 2012. They know how the system works better than anyone, so they know what they are doing best. So their goal is to create Kaveri entirely using Indian minds, but are ready to buy engine technology through other programs like F414, MRFA and AMCA.
I see RST has developed a new MO . Every time his prediction skills are called into question , he comes up with something which can never be verified viz some dialogue with someone on PDF years ago or better still some conversation off line .
Do remember this is the same person who a few days ago claimed a better prediction rate than Baba Vanga.
Unsurprisingly both these statements were made , yes , you said it right , post 8 PM.
So let's get this right . I D R W claims the committee is recommending we go in for 36 nos additional Rafales & RST here is claiming victory pronouncing that's what he's already predicted - 36 additional Rafales + MRFA.
Hence post the order for 36 additional Rafales we'd launch a tender for 114 - 72 (36+36 ) = 42 Rafales. Why not RST would further claim ? After all we went in for the IN tender for 26 nos deck based FA ?
Now even someone like Hydrocele would baulk at such logic but not RST. Why ? Well if you're tempted to blame it on the same 8 pm phenomenon , that's true but it's much more than that. It's called self deception. It's like the coke dealer using his own stuff which he peddles around .
36 + 26 +36 = 98
If you had bought them all at once, firstly you would already have them, secondly a large proportion of them would have been built in India, and thirdly you could usefully think about how to counter the emergence of Chinese strength.
Those 26 under the MRCBF tender was a requirement which didn't exist or was at an extremely preliminary stage , most likely a proposal by the IN in 2014-15 , around the time the negotiations for 36 nos Rafales for the IAF was happening.
Why do I say this ? The MRCBF tender itself made an appearance somewhere in 2017 . You see the PLAAF started practicing targeting the Andaman & Nicobar Island chain somewhere around 2015 with the J-20 forming the tip of the spear. That rang alarm bells in the IN & the entire MoD establishment.
Up until that time there could have been a proposal to replace the MiG-29K for its sub optimal performance which obviously didn't get much traction at MoD. This new development by PLAAF could virtually jeopardize our ability to strangle China in case of a conflict particularly since the MKI wasn't deemed adequate in the shape it was in then ( the MKI upgradation plan to Super Sukhoi status was still in the limbo then ) & our arsenal was running empty.
I doubt in the recent past if we've ever seen the alacrity with which such a high value import was handled as in the brisk way the entire MRCBF tender proceeded. We should be inking the agreement before the end of this financial year.
Which in turn brings us to the additional requirement of 36 nos Rafales . I've already detailed why it was delayed although ideally both should have been combined for better leverage & bargaining power. This is where we stand at the moment.
Germany can't buy Rafale, ego issue. And they want the F-35 'cause the Americans have practically refused to integrate nukes on Typhoons. The Germans had decided not to go for the F-35, but changed their mind after 2022.
"Standard F3 is the current release. It was qualified by the French MoD in 2008."
"The first Rafale F3 was delivered to the French Air Force Operational Evaluation Center (CEAM) in mid-2008 at Mont-de-Marsan Air Base, in full accordance with the contracted delivery schedule."
...if we adopt the same standard as before, the earliest that we can begin MRFA evaluation (if we wait for F5) is 2031. At least two years for competitive evaluation of all contenders, and at least another year for commercial bidding. We'd be signing the deal by around the same time as AMCA Mk-1 gets IOC, and taking delivery by around the same time as FOC.
Budget was decided by ADA itself. You don't know how budgeting works in India, I had explained this to Picdel a long time ago when he brought up the same argument.
Circles? 2001 was for SEFs. It was withdrawn. In 2004, 20T limit was rised to 30T and it became MMRCA. It was for TEFs. So Mig-29 entered the MMRCA contest along with Rafale, Typhoon and SH; M2000 withdrew and Gripen C was upgraded to Gripen NG and F-16E was upgraded to F-16 B70.
IAF aren't fools, and they don't suffer fools either. It literally wouldn't hurt anyone if they specified a TEF-only requirement in ANY version of MRCA tender. All important countries would still get to compete.
IAF simply treats these competitions as nothing but an information-gathering exercise, not a real intent to buy. They create all kinds of QRs to obtain critical information about varying platforms. That's all.
MRFA is the same. It's not a serious contest. No plane will ever be bought under this tender. If additional Rafales are to come, they'll come by means of another G2G deal. You just haven't realized IAF's game even after they've been playing it for 20+ years.
If it was the same airframe it wouldn't require a fresh PDR & CDR. Did you see Mk-1A go through PDR, CDR? No, because Mk-1A is the same airframe as Mk-1.
But Mk-2 is not - it's wholly different, that's why its design had to be reviewed & certified anew.
Please don't get into technical stuff, you have absolutely no idea about this subject. If a 500 TRM radar releases 500 different signals, then it poses absolutely no threat to the Rafale. The only thing that will die is itself.
My bad - I forgot that the enemy will be considerate enough to only use the minimum number of TRMs needed to form a coherent beam so as not to overwhelm poor little ACT.
Oh and did the people who got you hooked on ACT forget to mention that Rafale actually NEEDS to let the enemy detect & scan it for a sufficiently long period that the computer can figure out the pattern of frequency-hopping used by the enemy (the more sophiscated the threat radar, the longer it takes)?
But for some unknown reason, no enemy would be interested in getting additional beams to scan the region where his computer could swear it saw a Rafale just a minute ago.
A clean load RCS figure is a useless metric to describe a plane that cannot carry weapons internally.
The RCS of Rafale with a useful combat load is what matters.
Besides, I really doubt the claim of a sparrow-sized signature. Yes Rafale has treated surfaces, saw toothed edges along surfaces prone to scaterring, ITO-coated canopy etc...but so does SH. Nobody claims SH as a stealth fighter.
You sure the claim is not a carefully stage-managed one? Probably obtained by using ACT against a single-frequency transmitter? In that case it would still be technically true, but essentially unobtainable & useless in the real world. The kind of thing a marketing department would cook up.
Cuz AFAIK, that sparrow claim was from a Dassault source.
You are arguing over the importance of stealth shaping, I am not. With stealth shaping combined with ACT, you can just get more stealth than you can get on the Rafale, that's all. Rafale gives a frontal RCS similar to a sparrow, but not necessarily from the sides. But SCAF's RCS could be that of a mosquito.
But to defeat the J-20, the Rafale will be sufficient. And then AMCA with its even smaller RCS can defeat the next new threat.
Nope. I'm arguing for the air force. Like I said, ToT enables the air force. Any benefits to the industry is a byproduct. In fact, the IAF was planning to build their own jets when the private sector refused to go against HAL. But a compromise was reached with HAL when they decided to build AMCA in an IAF air base instead along with a private partner.
Think about it. After the failure of HAL in MMRCA, they decided they needed to build AMCA on their own in a BRD, until they decided on Sulur, with MRFA going to a private company. Well, HAL got LCA and TEDBF, and almost all helicopters.
Yes, we spend 15 billion to develop an engine, but when we offer you a technology transfer for one billion, you think it's too expensive. So you never go through with your projects and then you're surprised that you still don't have any indigenous engines.
The pay of scientists in France is at least 3 times more than what Indian scientists earn both in private and government sector even after reducing that 39% tax and insurance. Hence the overall cost in France of whole R&D will be higher comparative to India. But under no circumstances even in India it shall fall below $4 Billion dollars and cross $5 billion. And if Indians are buying from abroad, they don't want your 99 engines, they just want one with source code and manufacturing process. For that they are ready to pay $ 1 billion.
But what happens is that policy makers end up buying 50 engines for $5 billion without getting any ToT. Because then Chinese deploy their advance weapons at Indian borders giving rise to arms race.
SPECTRA does not do ACT against all hostile RF signals, but only against those which its computer decides that it can spoof. Against modern radars, modern IADS network which consists of multiple emitters of different bands all linked together, chances of ACT not working is a lot higher than the vice-versa.
Airframe stealth is what matters along with strong EW. That's what the Chinese are doing with their triple engined stealth fighter. It'll have all-aspecf broadband stealth combined with huge electrical power from its three engines to enable it to make very powerful EA. Combination of 6th gen stealth with such EA capability is such a game-changing one.
Anyways, the committee's recommendation of off-the-shelf Rafale purchase is what I have wanted since years and what I was demanding since my time here. But does that mean that MRFA is dead? Nope. IAF will pursue it till time eternity until they get their wish fulfilled. No plan B, always remember. So my prediction of MRFA being contested between Rafale F5 vs F-35 Block 4 has started to take shape
@Rajput Lion Is the low-band jammer added as part of ISE is podded or an internal installation? If we plan on employing Rafale as a DPSA into Tibet we're probably going to need more juice - an escort jammer like the NGJ or an Israeli pod.
SPECTRA does not do ACT against all hostile RF signals, but only against those which its computer decides that it can spoof. Against modern radars, modern IADS network which consists of multiple emitters of different bands all linked together, chances of ACT not working is a lot higher than the vice-versa.
Airframe stealth is what matters along with strong EW. That's what the Chinese are doing with their triple engined stealth fighter. It'll have all-aspecf broadband stealth combined with huge electrical power from its three engines to enable it to make very powerful EA. Combination of 6th gen stealth with such EA capability is such a game-changing one.
Anyways, the committee's recommendation of off-the-shelf Rafale purchase is what I have wanted since years and what I was demanding since my time here. But does that mean that MRFA is dead? Nope. IAF will pursue it till time eternity until they get their wish fulfilled. No plan B, always remember. So my prediction of MRFA being contested between Rafale F5 vs F-35 Block 4 has started to take shape
I say not a chance we're getting the F-35 . Firstly it hasn't & won't be offered. Secondly it's still work in progress ( RST himself pointed this out ad nauseum ) & thirdly the terms at which it comes will hugely compromise existing & future developments not to mention the kind of accomodations we'd be making to induct them.
Assuming it'd get FOC by 2032 & the IAF would then be interested in it is also a fallacy for we're facing an existential crisis now which by the early 30s would've been resolved one way or another post which both the IAF & MoD will play a game we're familiar with & the rest of the world is gradually becoming familiar with - tender tender. It's much like the kadi ninda & dossier dossier game earlier governments played .
This goes on till we receive the definitive version of the AMCA the Mk-2 whenever that happens. Till such time we make do with desi stuff & the Rafales with probably more than a good chance of the Su-57 featuring in our line up provided it meets our requirements & more importantly we get what we want & not what the Russkies decide.
@Rajput Lion Is the low-band jammer added as part of ISE is podded or an internal installation? If we plan on employing Rafale as a DPSA into Tibet we're probably going to need more juice - an escort jammer like the NGJ or an Israeli pod.
Pod based AFAIK. Some argue that it is mounted below lower tail(underbelly), but low-band jammers are usually very bulky, so should be pod based as per my educated guess.
Ignorants lives up to his name, he can't even read properly. If the I D R W article is true, then the committee is recommending a stopgap of 36 more F4s before starting MRFA.
MRFA will take 5 years to finish and 3 years to deliver, so they'd like the IAF to buy 36 more Rafale F4s to plug that time gap.
A high-level committee tasked with evaluating the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) fighter jet acquisition strategy is reportedly considering repeat orders for 36 Dassault Rafale jets as an interim measure. This comes as a temporary solution before the long-awaited Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) program gains final approval.
Anyway, 26 already comes with a production line so 26+36 will give us a bigger line, ready for the transition to MRFA.
Also, 36 jets as stopgap + MRFA is something I have proposed for almost a decade now. I'm glad the powers that be have listened.
F4.xx can't be upgraded to F5 standard. F5 will have airframe changes, conformal radars with almost 360° coverage, bigger intakes for more thrust and even bigger wings. Better call F5 as 'Super Rafale'
So ordering 2/3 squadrons more of Rafale F4.x is very pragmatic decision as infrastructure already exists for 2 extra squdrons. F4.x is also not that different from our Rafale F3R-I. So there won't be problem of our current fleet becoming obsolete or wanting upgrades earlier than required.
PS: Only if the new batch of Rafale F4.x which we may order would consist of a GaN FCR(unlikely) or GaN for SPECTRA(likely)then maybe we need to upgrade our current 36 to that standard.
"Standard F3 is the current release. It was qualified by the French MoD in 2008."
"The first Rafale F3 was delivered to the French Air Force Operational Evaluation Center (CEAM) in mid-2008 at Mont-de-Marsan Air Base, in full accordance with the contracted delivery schedule."
...if we adopt the same standard as before, the earliest that we can begin MRFA evaluation (if we wait for F5) is 2031. At least two years for competitive evaluation of all contenders, and at least another year for commercial bidding. We'd be signing the deal by around the same time as AMCA Mk-1 gets IOC, and taking delivery by around the same time as FOC.
Says vital to have indigenous weapons systems to deal with security challenges.
www.tribuneindia.com
On the future of a multi-role fighter aircraft (MRFA) programme that would plan to make 114 jets with a foreign partner and India partner JV producing jets in India, the IAF Chief said, “ We needed the MRFA as of yesterday”.
If it was the same airframe it wouldn't require a fresh PDR & CDR. Did you see Mk-1A go through PDR, CDR? No, because Mk-1A is the same airframe as Mk-1.
But Mk-2 is not - it's wholly different, that's why its design had to be reviewed & certified anew.
Wow, you are mixing things up so well. Mk2 is a modernization, not an upgrade like Mk1A. Those terms are completely different. Do you think MKI MLU is undergoing PDR and CDR too?
We actually did. The Uttarlai AFS had Mig-21s until Oct 2023, and were replaced by the 13th MKI squadron on the same day.
In fact, the IAF publicly said all the old Mig-21s are directly being replaced by MKIs with the additional 80 they ordered. Only the bases closest to Pakistan require LCAs, like Jalandhar and Pathankot.
My bad - I forgot that the enemy will be considerate enough to only use the minimum number of TRMs needed to form a coherent beam so as not to overwhelm poor little ACT.
Oh and did the people who got you hooked on ACT forget to mention that Rafale actually NEEDS to let the enemy detect & scan it for a sufficiently long period that the computer can figure out the pattern of frequency-hopping used by the enemy (the more sophiscated the threat radar, the longer it takes)?
But for some unknown reason, no enemy would be interested in getting additional beams to scan the region where his computer could swear it saw a Rafale just a minute ago.
ACT won't do all that. And yes, a minimum number of TRMs are necessary to make use of radar, and it's more than you think. Just like you need more than a candle flame to cook rice.
Dude, please stop. You literally do not know what you are talking about. I'm actually being very serious.
The Ministry of Defense requested the government’s approval for the acquisition of the 4th tranche of the European fighter jet, effectively launching the
theaviationist.com
The system’s integrated sensors and jamming equipment deliver situational awareness to the pilot and equip the aircraft with a “digital stealth capability”, achieved through advanced electronic deception techniques.
You generally get such information via hints and clues, 'cause unlike the French, these guys are in the process of introducing it.
As I said, they want a modernized Rafale, not SCAF. This seems more like a political project than one beign developed out of need. And why do you keep omitting the timeline? It's for 2050+. We're both practically parrots now.
To say that the SCAF new generation combat aircraft program, which brings together France, Germany and Spain, is today on the wrong track
meta-defense.fr
If SCAF fails, the French plan B is to make a Super Rafale and keep that going. They are proposing going on their own for next gen, or pulling in a non-European partner (basically India). Germany's plan B is to join GCAP.
A clean load RCS figure is a useless metric to describe a plane that cannot carry weapons internally.
The RCS of Rafale with a useful combat load is what matters.
Besides, I really doubt the claim of a sparrow-sized signature. Yes Rafale has treated surfaces, saw toothed edges along surfaces prone to scaterring, ITO-coated canopy etc...but so does SH. Nobody claims SH as a stealth fighter.
You sure the claim is not a carefully stage-managed one? Probably obtained by using ACT against a single-frequency transmitter? In that case it would still be technically true, but essentially unobtainable & useless in the real world. The kind of thing a marketing department would cook up.
Cuz AFAIK, that sparrow claim was from a Dassault source.
That the domestic lobby has gaslit civilians so badly that they think imports are all evil and designed to destroy India. The IAF had to even defend themselves in the Supreme Court because of that.
What you are talking about is necessary for ECM, where a signal is compared to one in the suite's library. And the effect comes with a small delay while the signal is processed, compared and then a response is generated. So if the computer doesn't have the same signal in its library it cannot create a repsonse. A human operator is necessary for a real-time response, which is not neecessarily perfect. Earlier, for a perfect response it used to take months of work on the ground, but today it takes a day or two. Pretty soon this repsonse can become real-time via cognitive EW.
But for ACT, the only thing the computer needs to know is the Rafale's echo, which is under the control of Dassault. So the effect is immediate. The ACT signal is merely retransmitted with the Rafale's echo out of phase thereby canceling it, so there is no need to know the signal's characteristics. That's why ACT is not ECM. The only time a comparison is necessary is when it has to identify the source of the signal initially, so it doesn't waste time canceling signals that are not a threat, like cosmic background or friendly signals. So our S-400s will see the Rafale, but the Chinese S-400 won't.
@Rajput Lion Is the low-band jammer added as part of ISE is podded or an internal installation? If we plan on employing Rafale as a DPSA into Tibet we're probably going to need more juice - an escort jammer like the NGJ or an Israeli pod.
It's unclear but our version has a new ECM housing under the engine pointing towards the rear. So we can assume there's something similar in front too. And it's unclear if it's carrying low band or some other band.
Don't take what Ignorants or the ID RW article said seriously. The committee is yet to make a recommendation, and there's no obligation to follow the committee's proposal either. It's just a fact finding mission for the govt.
The committee requires 2 months at the minimum. We don't know if what ID RW wrote up is true or not.
With that said, I've been a fan of this 36+114 process since 2015. So don't mind me. And yes, the tender jet offered will be for F5. Anything less is meaningless. The Euro boys are offering a Tranche 5 EFT.
Lol, Ignorants can't read even after posting the necessary text. ID RW clearly says 36 + MRFA.
Anyway, Akashteer and Trigun are very old programs. Akashteer started a decade ago, after the success of IACCS. It was a well-known program. We just didn't know the name. Even in 2020, I had posted details about the army's programs and pointed out to members that there's a lot of stuff happening in the background that's more important than stuff that can be seen, like tanks and aircraft.
Bengaluru node of Integrated Air Command and Control System declared functional
www.deccanherald.com
Do people even know what Akashteer really is? It's basically the civilian, IAF and IA radars being combined into one, which was announced so long ago, and Akashteer is the army-specific system meant to give them access to this new network. That's all it is. Nothing new.
There's no prediction, no nothing. It's just old news.
Don't take what Ignorants or the ID RW article said seriously. The committee is yet to make a recommendation, and there's no obligation to follow the committee's proposal either. It's just a fact finding mission for the govt.
The committee requires 2 months at the minimum. We don't know if what ID RW wrote up is true or not.
With that said, I've been a fan of this 36+114 process since 2015. So don't mind me. And yes, the tender jet offered will be for F5. Anything less is meaningless. The Euro boys are offering a Tranche 5 EFT.
But F5 will be a different aircraft all together I think,different engine . It won't be ready even at 2030 I fear. @@picdelamirand-oil any inputs on it?
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.
Says vital to have indigenous weapons systems to deal with security challenges.
www.tribuneindia.com
On the future of a multi-role fighter aircraft (MRFA) programme that would plan to make 114 jets with a foreign partner and India partner JV producing jets in India, the IAF Chief said, “ We needed the MRFA as of yesterday”.
Wow, you are mixing things up so well. Mk2 is a modernization, not an upgrade like Mk1A. Those terms are completely different. Do you think MKI MLU is undergoing PDR and CDR too?
We actually did. The Uttarlai AFS had Mig-21s until Oct 2023, and were replaced by the 13th MKI squadron on the same day.
In fact, the IAF publicly said all the old Mig-21s are directly being replaced by MKIs with the additional 80 they ordered. Only the bases closest to Pakistan require LCAs, like Jalandhar and Pathankot.
ACT won't do all that. And yes, a minimum number of TRMs are necessary to make use of radar, and it's more than you think. Just like you need more than a candle flame to cook rice.
Dude, please stop. You literally do not know what you are talking about. I'm actually being very serious.
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.
The AESA radar can drastically reduce the enemy’s jamming capability. This is done by a radar technique called “frequency-hopping” where the frequency at which the radar is transmitting can be changed with every pulse. In addition to that, the radar also has the ability to distribute frequencies across a wide band even within individual pulses, this radar technique is called “chirping,” also known as “pulse compression.”
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
AESAs can also produce beams that consist of many different frequencies at once, using post-processing of the combined signal from a number of TRMs to re-create a display as if there was a single powerful beam being sent.
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.
The Ministry of Defense requested the government’s approval for the acquisition of the 4th tranche of the European fighter jet, effectively launching the
theaviationist.com
The system’s integrated sensors and jamming equipment deliver situational awareness to the pilot and equip the aircraft with a “digital stealth capability”, achieved through advanced electronic deception techniques.
You generally get such information via hints and clues, 'cause unlike the French, these guys are in the process of introducing it.
It doesn't work against advanced threats. Surmounting the challenge of 5th gen jets with this reads like a joke.
And note that they, like the Americans, refer to this as an EW technique. There's a time & place to use it (just like for all other EW functions. You don't try to jam an AWACS with a ELL-8222 now do you?).
It's just you that seems to think it's some magical holy grail the French alone are guarding, which negates the advantage of 5th gen jets with shaping & internal weapons.
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?
As I said, they want a modernized Rafale, not SCAF. This seems more like a political project than one beign developed out of need. And why do you keep omitting the timeline? It's for 2050+. We're both practically parrots now.
To say that the SCAF new generation combat aircraft program, which brings together France, Germany and Spain, is today on the wrong track
meta-defense.fr
If SCAF fails, the French plan B is to make a Super Rafale and keep that going. They are proposing going on their own for next gen, or pulling in a non-European partner (basically India). Germany's plan B is to join GCAP.
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.
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.
What you are talking about is necessary for ECM, where a signal is compared to one in the suite's library. And the effect comes with a small delay while the signal is processed, compared and then a response is generated. So if the computer doesn't have the same signal in its library it cannot create a repsonse. A human operator is necessary for a real-time response, which is not neecessarily perfect. Earlier, for a perfect response it used to take months of work on the ground, but today it takes a day or two. Pretty soon this repsonse can become real-time via cognitive EW.
But for ACT, the only thing the computer needs to know is the Rafale's echo, which is under the control of Dassault. So the effect is immediate. The ACT signal is merely retransmitted with the Rafale's echo out of phase thereby canceling it, so there is no need to know the signal's characteristics. That's why ACT is not ECM. The only time a comparison is necessary is when it has to identify the source of the signal initially, so it doesn't waste time canceling signals that are not a threat, like cosmic background or friendly signals. So our S-400s will see the Rafale, but the Chinese S-400 won't.
You don't even know what ACT is. Here, have another read:
There is considerable speculation that the AN/APR-50 utilises an ECM technique known as ’active cancellation’ - this stealth technique employs an array of antennas to transmit a signal which is out of phase with incoming radar emissions, thus effectively reducing the intensity of the reflected returns through interference. If the emitted interference signal, travelling in the same direction, is exactly matched in terms of amplitude, period and phase, to the reflected radar signal, then the threat radar would not be able to detect any return signal, thus failing to ’see’ the aircraft. This is called destructive interference. In terms of applying such ECM techniques to an airborne platform, incoming signals will have many different characteristics of amplitude, period and phase, which, combined with the many different directions of reflection, resulting in phase/amplitude shift, will make true ’cancellation’ extremely difficult to achieve in the real world. It is more likely that the characteristics of the strongest incident signal would be selected by the system processor for destructive interference.
F4.xx can't be upgraded to F5 standard. F5 will have airframe changes, conformal radars with almost 360° coverage, bigger intakes for more thrust and even bigger wings. Better call F5 as 'Super Rafale'
So ordering 2/3 squadrons more of Rafale F4.x is very pragmatic decision as infrastructure already exists for 2 extra squdrons. F4.x is also not that different from our Rafale F3R-I. So there won't be problem of our current fleet becoming obsolete or wanting upgrades earlier than required.
PS: Only if the new batch of Rafale F4.x which we may order would consist of a GaN FCR(unlikely) or GaN for SPECTRA(likely)then maybe we need to upgrade our current 36 to that standard.
If F4 standards can't be upgraded to F5 standards what're the French AF going to do with the nearly 200 Rafales in their inventory or is there a separate program for their upgradation & if so does it involve change of the TFs ?
Besides in what numbers are the French AF planning to acquire the F5 standard in ? If there's going to be a substantial change in the air frame including the TFs do the numbers of F5 standard Rafales to be procured justify the costs ?
