Alright,
@JustCurious lets try Objectivity this time around with our SME. No Adhominems whatsoever.
Ready Random:
Lets look at Derby ER from your posts
Not much of technicality to discuss here, but this claim needs to be backed up by some content. Maybe precedence or some rationale to explain why a company engaged in selling a product would intentionally undermine its own flagship product.
Is there any precedence,
what are the corresponding altitudes for other aam that rafael makes > Python II, III, IV, V, Derby,
Are all ranges under reported?
The ranges reported are correct, the altitude is not. It's like saying the Aim-120 does 20Km at sea level, for example, so the 30Km R-73 outranges the Aim-120. Obviously wrong analysis.
This is your claim
Derby Estimated Range : 150-200km (ignoring that has range is 33% allowance )
Astra published range : 110KM
RVV AE: 80 km
Now to objectively make this claim, I am sure you are basing this off the test altitude for all three of these ranges published.
Missile dimensions are best used for analysis. It rarely goes wrong.
Derby is 3.6m long, has a diameter of 160mm and is advertised to have a range of 50Km.
MICA is 3.1m, 160mm dia, is advertised to have a range of 80Km.
RVV-AE is 3.6m long, 200mm dia, is advertised to have a range of 80Km.
No longer computes. Hence we can estimate the range figures by bringing in other reasons. RVV-AE and MICA-RF have the same range even though the MICA is obviously so much smaller is entirely due to the massive technological difference. The Russians half-assed an export grade missile that they themselves didn't induct. Naturally, Derby's lower range is more due to altitude it was measured at than anything else, and the Israelis did not half-*censored* the design. So MICA and RVV-AE were measured at high altitude, Derby was measured at medium altitude. Hence different figures.
So for the 100 KM Dual pulse motor tests by which Rafael established this medium-altitude range, there surely will be some data to compare it to the corresponding ranges for Astra, RVV-AE, Aim 120, Meteor?
The Aim-120C is merely 20% bigger than the Derby in volume. The tech base is the same. So how is the Derby magically less than half the range of the Aim-120? Obviously doesn't make sense. The Aim-120D is also the same size as the Aim-120C, but does 3 times the range, again, doesn't give the Derby the credit it's due. Hence not an apples to apples comparison.
What you have assumed is the Derby was created from the Python, so it has the same range as the Python. Obviously wrong analysis.
Naturally, the Israelis are not dumb enough to claim without any rhyme or reason that the 150-180Km Aim-120D is only 50% as capable as the Derby ER. Range isn't the only factor in their calculation obviously, but it's not out of the ordinary to expect it to at least match the range, if not exceed it.
Also you can easily extrapolate. The French claim the MICA NG will have twice the range of the MICA. Hence you can estimate it as 160Km. Considering the dimensions and a similar tech base, the Derby ER that's 400mm longer than the MICA, is gonna be above 160Km, closer to 200Km. Possibly more than that, since the Israelis have removed the fuse from the original Derby and combined the seeker and fuse into one unit on the Derby ER. That gives us a whole lot more space for a more powerful motor and extra fuel. Even if the Israelis suck and have managed the same range as the MICA, it's still far more than Astra Mk1, Aim-120C or RVV-SD.
Astra was designed to do 44Km at medium altitude and 80Km at high. But during tests, it killed a drone from 50Km away at medium altitude, which is similar to the performance of the Aim-120C. So for the Derby at merely 20% smaller than the Aim-120, but with 20% lighter weight, it's more than likely that the 50Km range is at medium altitude, which means it will equal the Aim-120C at high altitude.
Dimensions never lie when the tech base is more or less the same.
So very simple questions:
What is the Altitude these ranges are catalogued at?
What was the barometric pressure at which the test was conducted?
Was the flight path straight or was there any gain in altitude?
We can only work on estimates for now, like at what altitude and range a target was destroyed during tests. Not specifics. Which is why 150-200Km is easier to say than something specific, like 193Km. It provides a hint on what range class a missile falls under.
Finally for your logic, given I don't know much about dual pulse motors, please do explain why would the same altitude derate apply for both Solid motors and Dual pulse motors?
Nothing strange. It's simply a more advanced propulsion system using more efficient fuel and better designs compared to what was released 20 years ago on the MICA, Aim-120 and RVV-AE.
It's like expecting newer engines on the Flankers to be more powerful and more efficient than older engines. A duh moment there.
Except it doesn't. Please show me one reference where it claims that the seeker is GaN based? From Rafael, or any paper published on the RF seeker is powered by GaN-based Radar receiver. Now if a Manufacturer is sticking a GaN-based radar, i am sure it's going to advertise it? Or from IAF given it is buying the the Derby ER.
They are not advertising it, I simply know it, because I prowl around for such information.
Last year, a Stunner seeker fell intact on Syrian soil, which was promptly handed over to the Russians. It was confirmed to be an AESA MMW seeker. The Tamir, Derby ER, MRSAM and David's Sling have AESA seekers.
Whats is the extremely modern navigation? what exactly does that mean? Please elaborate.
RLGs/FOGs based INS. AESA seeker+fuse fusion. Simply better stuff.
From the above, it is quite clear that you claim that Derby ER outranges Astra Mk1 by twice. Literally 50km difference at what you refer to as medium altitude whatever that value might be.
so extrapolating the same, Indian Airforce is intentionally buying Astra Mk1 which is half the operational range, R27ER-a that is 65% of performance (given you apply the same 50% derate unless you have different test results for the ER-1 missile and different de-rate) in the Indian arsenal. Would that be a fair assessment?
In order to support our industry of course. Not to mention it's an obvious upgrade over existing missiles (And no, the R-27 is not better than the Astra). Plus no air force operates with 100% modern equipment. This is elementary. The USAF also operates Astra Mk1 class missiles in the thousands alongside the Aim-120D. And in the future, the Americans will operate the stopgap Aim-260 and the definitive LREW alongside thousands of Aim-120Ds. It's the natural progression of things.
We ordered 400 R77 I don't know if those were SD/PD. would love to see where it specifically says SD variant. We did not order RVV MD, We ordered R77E. Jane's reference is there my posts look it up.
RVV-MD is the export model of R-74. No clue what you meant here actually. If you're referring to the RVV-SD, then it's pretty much confirmed information. The same with RVV-MD. When we procure emergency equipment, we are buying the best that's available. Hence we even got the Verba into the list of emergencies.
Lets break down what you have written here. some if it seems odd.
493 mica's for 45 Mirages
500 Derby Er's for 83 /93 LCA's
1000 Derby's for 272 MKI.
For three times the number of MKI's as LCA mk1A, and given it invariable carries 4 BVRAAM at most times, following the ration, I would think MKI fleet would need close to 3000 BVR's.
2000+ would be more or less correct. 4x2xfleet, not counting wastage. But there may be a mix of Derby ERs, Astras and some leftover R-77s and R-27s. So 1000 of those being Derbys is nothing strange. Btw, it's 123 LCAs.
Read post 2427.
What are astra's complimenting? Derby or Derby ER not clear? if ER how being half in range per you claim?
We aren't buying Derbys, we are going for Derby ER only. We have barely 20 Derbys bought for the Sea Harriers that the LCAs are using, but that's not important. Astra complements the Derby ER financially. Refer to the USAF hi-lo combo they apply even for missiles.
The crux of my argument was that BVR development and procurement was not adequate thus acquiring R77/27ER's now, what we procure at a future state whether that is xxx number of Meteors or xxxx numbers of Astra Mk5 , how does that offset the Missile orders you are placing today. For sure you are ordering R77 and R27's because Astra Mk1 was not ready in time (development), and neither any orders have been placed Derby ER (Procurement). If in a restaurant I complain because the food is delayed, the restaurants counter that We will serve you the best biryani next year doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
That wasn't the discussion. You were thinking 1000 missiles is a lot, so I countered that it's barely anything, like buying those 21 Mig-29s or 36 Rafales when the actual requirement is 450-600 modern jets, or as much as 6000 missiles.
Lastly Mica Philosophy:
I won't be attending the seminar, but sure you would be kind enough to educate me on the topic. you claim, Meteor on an MKI, but you won't get the chance to use it against a MICA-equipped Rafale, ok what about a Derby ER on a MKI vs a MICA-equipped Mirage 2000, or a RVV - SD equiped Mig29 on a Mica Equipped F1? Or a Mica Equipped Rafale against an Aim120D F35...
Were we comparing Missiles or combat system as a whole?
Given we are specifically talking about the missile system itself and not the launch platform, Please do explain how the small "form factor" helps the Mica.
Also by your DERBY ER logic, does the Mica derate to 40Km's at medium altitude to a 100km Derby ER. how does the 40KM Mica Fare against the 100KM Derby ER irrespective of the platform?
The type of comparisons you've listed are irrelevant to the real world.
Half the answer is in the design, and the other half in tactics.
As I've pointed out early on, the Aim-120 drops significantly in range at lower altitude. But the drop for the MICA is much less pronounced, since it was made to operate at lower altitudes more effectively than its bigger and heavier counterparts. Hence the shorter, smaller, less draggy design, with bigger fins and greater lift, and pulls more Gs, suitable for greater air density environments. Similarly, the Israelis designed the Derby around the Python thereby retaining some of the low altitude advantages. But they didn't go the whole hog like the French, and decided to increase the length so that it is a half-way missile, capable of doing adequately well at low altitude and at medium/high altitude. Otoh, the Aim-120 and RVV-AE were designed specifically for the medium to high altitudes. Many missiles have been designed around different combat philosophies, which is why the ASRAAM cannot turn like the IRIS-T, but can burn much longer. And in order to complement the low altitude capabilities of the MICA, the French have added the high altitude capabilities of the Meteor.
This brings us to tactics. Air combat is not 1v1. 1v1 happens when your whole team is dead, or when it has training value. Air combat is about groups and teams and involves team work. Take the example of the French. If you put the MICA up against the Aim-120D at medium to high altitude, the MICA will lose, obviously. The French state it so unabashedly. So you have to consider team effort, where the French will send one team out at a lower altitude for an air strike thereby making use of the low altitude advantage of the MICA, while another team engages the enemy at high altitude with Meteors. With Rafale, M2000, Mig-29, MWF and MKI, we get much greater options than the French do.
The MICA was designed as a platform-specific weapon rather than role-specific like all the others. The French like doing their low altitude penetration missions, with fighter jets designed for the job, and the MICA is the best missile for such a mission. Simply put, it's a CCM with the longest range, and comes with 2 seeker options. And the next gen version will double that range. IRIS-T, ASRAAM and MICA follow completely different philosophies as CCMs.
www.israelnationalnews.com
economictimes.indiatimes.com
