Sukhoi Su-30MKI

[randomradio]

Well I doubt that. Jaguar can carry two or three droptanks, but not apart from it's regular payload, but sacrificing it's payload for fuel.

For range hit , lets use your own Fuel Fraction idea.


First off On internal fuel Jag has better Fuel fraction than MKI, (0.39 vs 0.308).

Now lets look at your 2500 KG payload,
The centerline and inboard pylons were rated at 1,130 kilograms (2,500 pounds) each, while the outboard pylons were rated at 565 kilograms (1,250 pounds) each. Total stores load was 4,540 kilograms (10,000 pounds). The centerline and inner wing stores pylons were "wet" and could be used to carry up to a total of three external RP36 tanks, with a capacity of 1,187 liters (313 US gallons) each. A retractable inflight refueling probe was fitted on the right side of the nose.
ref https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/jaguar.htm


So for your scenario of two Ext DT, you have three stores left lets say you have 1130kgs at the center, and then out board at 565kg. So Jag in the two ext DT config can only carry upto 2260 and not 2500kg even if it wanted to.
(And in three DT config it can only carry 1130 Kgs at outboard. )
For sake of simplicity lets say your strike combat load is 2260KG.

Now lets look at the fuel weight, internal fuel of as rightly pointed out by @The enlightened , in liters for the Jag is 4120 liters i.e 3254.8kgs

And the external tanks are 1187 liters = 937.73kg but afaik you cannot have a DFT and additional munitions on a multi rack at the same store(correct me if I am wrong) So although rated for 1130, you wont get more than 937.73 kg of fuel on the wet station.

So with two full external tanks = 1875.46 Kgs, Possible payload 2260Kg and empty weight of 7000 kg and filling up the entire internal fuel 3254.8 kgs, the gross weight of a 2260kg Payload in strike config will be 14389.8 kgs.

As far as range estimates from Irkut we know both cruise altitude range and the low altitude range for the MKI.
Су-30МК: летно-технические характеристики -Су-30МК -Продукция

For Jaguar, we know the Low altitude range with ext fuel, but no specific high altitude range, the closest is the 1410km is Hi-Lo-High, so to discount LO aspect of the number, the assumption for the calculation I made is high altitude range for the Jag of 1762 (Half of it's ferry range).

Given we have have some info of the ranges (assumed clean for both) we can calculate the Fuel Fraction for both clean with full fuel.
Given a 2.26 ton strike payload, we can also calculate the Fuel fraction for both and estimate the range hit.


View attachment 2005

Based on fuel fractions MKI might outrange the Jag by almost twice.

in addition it will have exceptional maneuverability and speed compared to the jag with a TWR of almost 0.5 compared to 0.3 for jag at dry and almost 0.83 compared to Jags 0.46 after burner TWR.




Using the same calculations as above
View attachment 2007



Now in a strike role if we want a sluggish MKI, which can at worst go to a 0.39 twr dry, MKI can carry an additional 8.7 Tons of Strike munition than the Jag and still get a 789 Km range based on a 0.248 Fuel Fraction.

You've made mincemeat out of some numbers.

The Jaguar's combat radius at low altitude is 900Km, the MKI's total low altitude range itself is 1300Km.

Also, all your figures give Jaguar the fuel fraction advantage. Higher = better.

And you have overestimated the maneuverability advantage of the MKI at low altitude while carrying heavy loads.

 

[Bali78]

You've made mincemeat out of some numbers.

The Jaguar's combat radius at low altitude is 900Km, the MKI's total low altitude range itself is 1300Km.

Also, all your figures give Jaguar the fuel fraction advantage. Higher = better.

And you have overestimated the maneuverability advantage of the MKI at low altitude while carrying heavy loads.

There are 2 pieces of information missing in the above numbers.

1. Jaguar's lo altitude combat radius of 900km is with external fuel.
2. MKI's low altitude range of 1300km is with internal fuel only.

So it's not an apple to apple comparison.

 

[Milspec]

You've made mincemeat out of some numbers.

The Jaguar's combat radius at low altitude is 900Km, the MKI's total low altitude range itself is 1300Km.

Also, all your figures give Jaguar the fuel fraction advantage. Higher = better.

And you have overestimated the maneuverability advantage of the MKI at low altitude while carrying heavy loads.

Combat Radius 1300KM
ref: Indian Power Projection

Jag's 900KM ranges is with ext fuel tanks, and that too most likely with three ext fuel tanks, that gives you a payload of 1300kgs. sure if that is your bench mark for strike fighter, not much to say there.

Overestimating maneuverability, jag with lower control surface, lower thrust, and lower twr will be more maneuverable than MKI?

 

[Milspec]

There are 2 pieces of information missing in the above numbers.

1. Jaguar's lo altitude combat radius of 900km is with external fuel.
2. MKI's low altitude range of 1300km is with internal fuel only.
.

And that 1300KM range is with typical fuel not full internal fuel, i.e close to 5400kg and not 9000kg full fuel.

 

[randomradio]

There are 2 pieces of information missing in the above numbers.

1. Jaguar's lo altitude combat radius of 900km is with external fuel.
2. MKI's low altitude range of 1300km is with internal fuel only.

So it's not an apple to apple comparison.

It is. Because we are discussing about the total range either aircraft can actually achieve.

 

[Bali78]

It is. Because we are discussing about the total range either aircraft can actually achieve.

Then the range numbers for both aircrafts should be mentioned either with internal fuel only or with external fuel. You can't call a race fair when one guy is asked to run with his hands tied.

Can you provide low altitude range of Su-30 MKI with external fuel tanks? That number can be used for a fair comparison.

I am no expert in the domain of aircrafts, but I don't think comparing Su-30's maneuverability with Jaguar is too far fetched!!

 

[randomradio]

Combat Radius 1300KM
ref: Indian Power Projection

MKI's combat radius is 1300+ Km at high altitude.

Jag's 900KM ranges is with ext fuel tanks, and that too most likely with three ext fuel tanks, that gives you a payload of 1300kgs. sure if that is your bench mark for strike fighter, not much to say there.

The argument was the aircraft can fly more than the MKI can. The Jaguars come with external fuel tanks, hence have more range than the MKI. The MKIs simply cannot match the Jaguar's greater reach.

Overestimating maneuverability, jag with lower control surface, lower thrust, and lower twr will be more maneuverable than MKI?

You didn't get the point here either. Both aircraft are terrible at low altitude. MKI having a bit more TWR does not give it any real world advantage, it's still a bus. Both aircraft will have to lose their payloads in order to get away.

A light aircraft has limited payload, but the Jaguar still outranges the MKI. Since the MKI and Jaguar are not very good swing role aircraft, both need a wide assortment of supporting aircraft to cover them.

Both aircraft basically have the same mission-specific limitations. And most of the disadvantages the Jaguar has will be diminished or completely eradicated with the new engines. So it makes no sense at all to replace the Jaguar with MKIs. The Jaguar's primary mission is to drop bombs and does it reliably. And in time, will do it much more efficiently at a longer range than the MKI.

Otoh, the MKI's primary mission is Air Superiority and has become obsolete for this mission, at least on our eastern border. The MKI provides zero advantage and any new investment towards it is actually a waste of our meager resources. So what if it can carry twice as much as the Jaguar, this capability comes at a far more higher cost for it to be a real advantage. And when either aircraft meets the J-20, it will die.

 

[randomradio]

Then the range numbers for both aircrafts should be mentioned either with internal fuel only or with external fuel. You can't call a race fair when one guy is asked to run with his hands tied.

It's not unfair.

Can you provide low altitude range of Su-30 MKI with external fuel tanks?

That's exactly it. The MKI doesn't come with external fuel tanks.

I am no expert in the domain of aircrafts, but I don't think comparing Su-30's maneuverability with Jaguar is too far fetched!!

Both are buses at low altitude when carrying heavy payloads.

 

[Milspec]

MKI's combat radius is 1300+ Km at high altitude.

At typical internal fuel.

The argument was the aircraft can fly more than the MKI can. The Jaguars come with external fuel tanks, hence have more range than the MKI. The MKIs simply cannot match the Jaguar's greater reach.

A dornier can fly longer, and carry more, slower sluggish. That doesnt mean it is a superior platform. Same is with jaguar. If you want your strike platform to have a 1300kg payload. Sure Jags are awesome 1ton strike fighter.

You didn't get the point here either. Both aircraft are terrible at low altitude. MKI having a bit more TWR does not give it any real world advantage, it's still a bus. Both aircraft will have to lose their payloads in order to get away.

In which world is a TWR of 0.83 vs 0.46 bit more?
Clean config TWR: 0.83 Tornado
Clean config TWR: 0.46 Grumman F9
that's the difference.
Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighters

A light aircraft has limited payload, but the Jaguar still outranges the MKI. Since the MKI and Jaguar are not very good swing role aircraft, both need a wide assortment of supporting aircraft to cover them.

My contention always was that MKI can do strike missions with ease. I dont care about low altitude, you do not need low altitude for air interdiction. (deep penetration strike= DAS= Air interdiction) MKI can effectively do what Jag's can do and do it better at the altitude for which it is optimised. It can carry more, and can easily carry enough air to air munition if it has to protect itself.

Both aircraft basically have the same mission-specific limitations. And most of the disadvantages the Jaguar has will be diminished or completely eradicated with the new engines. So it makes no sense at all to replace the Jaguar with MKIs. The Jaguar's primary mission is to drop bombs and does it reliably. And in time, will do it much more efficiently at a longer range than the MKI.

Let me break this to you, F125IN engines primary performace goal is to improve Medium altitude performance of the Jaguar. that to above 30000 Ft
https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/~/media/aerospace/files/brochures/f125in-turbofan-engine-bro.pdf

Lets say, that from my calculation MKI's cruise altitude range is 1300km, even with MTOW that range still remains 790 KM, even then an MKI delivers 8 tons more ordinance in the config compared to Jags 1.3 tons. Effectively you could have 3 MKI at cruise altitude, delivering a payload that would need a squadron of jags to do the same.

Otoh, the MKI's primary mission is Air Superiority and has become obsolete for this mission, at least on our eastern border. The MKI provides zero advantage and any new investment towards it is actually a waste of our meager resources. So what if it can carry twice as much as the Jaguar, this capability comes at a far more higher cost for it to be a real advantage. And when either aircraft meets the J-20, it will die.

Not Twice. not twice at all. Do your calculation of what a Jaguar can carry with its max fuel vs what MKI can with its Max fuel.
W.r.t to J20 - That is what a generational Gap is. And how exactly will a Rafale defeat the J20 threat, given that it's not 5th gen aircraft either? and please dont say "SPECTRA".

And given that IAF will progressively work to strangle every domestic project, India cannot achieve the same capabilities as PLAAF/USAF/RuAF in the next 5 decades. That's a no brainier.

 

[randomradio]

At typical internal fuel.

It doesn't matter. It's at high altitude.

A dornier can fly longer, and carry more, slower sluggish. That doesnt mean it is a superior platform. Same is with jaguar. If you want your strike platform to have a 1300kg payload. Sure Jags are awesome 1ton strike fighter.

That's plenty. You have to consider the cost per hour and sortie rate also.

In which world is a TWR of 0.83 vs 0.46 bit more?
Clean config TWR: 0.83 Tornado
Clean config TWR: 0.46 Grumman F9
that's the difference.
Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighters

My contention always was that MKI can do strike missions with ease. I dont care about low altitude, you do not need low altitude for air interdiction. (deep penetration strike= DAS= Air interdiction) MKI can effectively do what Jag's can do and do it better at the altitude for which it is optimised. It can carry more, and can easily carry enough air to air munition if it has to protect itself.

Your contention is not my contention. My contention is we can't replace the Jags with MKI when we need to replace it with better stuff than the MKI. Jag to MKI is not an upgrade.

Let me break this to you, F125IN engines primary performace goal is to improve Medium altitude performance of the Jaguar. that to above 30000 Ft
https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/~/media/aerospace/files/brochures/f125in-turbofan-engine-bro.pdf

Lets say, that from my calculation MKI's cruise altitude range is 1300km, even with MTOW that range still remains 790 KM, even then an MKI delivers 8 tons more ordinance in the config compared to Jags 1.3 tons. Effectively you could have 3 MKI at cruise altitude, delivering a payload that would need a squadron of jags to do the same.

Not Twice. not twice at all. Do your calculation of what a Jaguar can carry with its max fuel vs what MKI can with its Max fuel.

Weapons layout do not allow the carriage of 8T while carrying numerous loads. Twice is what will actually be used for the MKI, or else it will bleed so much fuel that it won't do anything worthwhile. Maybe a lot of smaller bombs, but larger bombs are not good for the MKI. You bring in the most used weapons, the 500Kg dumb bomb, then the MKI can carry 10 while the Jaguar can carry 8. Bring in extra range for the Jag on two tanks, the loadout is still 4.

Lastly, it still doesn't justify replacing all Jags with MKIs. That's a complete waste of money and the IAF is not doing it anyway. They will be replacing the Jags with Rafale/AMCA.

W.r.t to J20 - That is what a generational Gap is. And how exactly will a Rafale defeat the J20 threat, given that it's not 5th gen aircraft either? and please dont say "SPECTRA".

The answer is the EW suite, sensor fusion and Meteor.

The Rafale is a 5th gen fighter minus shaped airframe and IWBs. It is still a LO fighter and has an advantage for the next 10 years until newer versions of the J-20 will make the Rafale useless also. It's a short window, but highly necessary. This period is the most important 10-15 years of our existence as a country. It's when we will face the most amount of disadvantages vis-a-vis China until it starts balancing out by the mid 30s.

But the Rafale's main advantage is in being able to defeat SAMs. And it can do that without all the support that the MKI and Jag require, which is a far more useful capability than simply buying more MKIs. Remember, the Rafales entered Libya hours before the NATO's SEAD/DEAD operation began.

And given that IAF will progressively work to strangle every domestic project, India cannot achieve the same capabilities as PLAAF/USAF/RuAF in the next 5 decades. That's a no brainier.

It doesn't matter if India keeps up, only the IAF has to keep up. India will eventually catch up once enough money comes in, just like China did. Our military relevance in the world order depends on the strength of the IAF first.

As for the industrial support itself, the IAF is going for 300+ LCAs, and then Ghatak, AMCA etc. The IAF is now involved in pretty much all the projects in the country.

 

[Milspec]

He can say spectra as much s you say 5th gen. Define both?

Well his contention has been MKI is toast in the next 5 years, given that 50 to 75 J20 will be raised within a year on the Eastern Border.
MKI will be useless while Rafales won't be.
I have no data on what the capabilities of J20 are, But given that J20's threat can be mitigated by Rafales and not MKI's he needs to explain how Rafales counter his perceived capabilities of J20 which MKI's wont be able to.

 

[randomradio]

Tidbit

HAL is pushing a TE option on GoI for obvious reasons. As part of the same, there is a resurrection of the Mig-35 as an option with the usual clauses. The interesting bit remains that the deal being bandied about is similar to the Sukhoi one, of a 60-40 clause. But one catch, as earlier, the 40% clause accrues back to OEM if no worthwhile technical offset is achieved by the customer in specific time.

Let us recall the problems with the Sukhoi and HAL. The production target promised by HAL to IAF at the time of the Sukhoi was @15 per year. The contract called for assembly of 1 Su-30 in a 90 day cycle. It took HAL 180 days to achieve the same. Russians did the same in 37 days, for obvious reasons. Result? Most of the 40% accrued to OEM and we got zilch, for sheer inefficiencies.

Now, due to potential loss of jobs being a hard reality, HAL has adopted to pushing ahead with Mig-35 offer (union is MNS backed at Nashik), and delaying of SE in form of LCA is but a given.

For all our fellow members who champion our DPSUs, hard reality - India has been and is being suckered out by those very organizations that promise big and deliver too late.

HAL can push what they want to replace the Rafale, but they will end up with FGFA.

The Mig proposal doesn't work even on paper. Anyway, IAF's SE tender has collapsed into the LCA program. HAL will be building 200 LCA Mk2 after the Mk1A are delivered.

 

[Milspec]

It doesn't matter. It's at high altitude.



That's plenty. You have to consider the cost per hour and sortie rate also.



Your contention is not my contention. My contention is we can't replace the Jags with MKI when we need to replace it with better stuff than the MKI. Jag to MKI is not an upgrade.

The range advantage that you keep repeating is with three ext tanks and not 2. that brings you payload to 2 500lb bombs, making Jaguar a 1 ton strike element in your strike package, and you suggest that it is needs to stay in operation till 2040.

Weapons layout do not allow the carriage of 8T while carrying numerous loads. Twice is what will actually be used for the MKI, or else it will bleed so much fuel that it won't do anything worthwhile. Maybe a lot of smaller bombs, but larger bombs are not good for the MKI. You bring in the most used weapons, the 500Kg dumb bomb, then the MKI can carry 10 while the Jaguar can carry 8. Bring in extra range for the Jag on two tanks, the loadout is still 4.

Sure MKI will carry 8 500 ton bombs on 8 locations, with another 4 empty to easily carry another 8 ofab 250's. and wing tip R73's. But if you do want to capitalize on the "Range" of the Jag, 2T at 2 DT, 1T at 3 DT's that's all you can get doesn't matter how many engines you add.

But more importantly if "Low Altitude " was indeed that critical aspect, can you show me some Low Altitude Strike missions of Rafales in Libya, Syria or any theater of your choosing? Also why would the Jaguar engine upgrade be focusing on improving 30000+ altitude performance?

Lastly, it still doesn't justify replacing all Jags with MKIs. That's a complete waste of money and the IAF is not doing it anyway. They will be replacing the Jags with Rafale/AMCA.

Being a Multirole aircraft already in 300 odd numbers , we do not need to buy new MKI's to replace JAG, it can easily conduct Strike missions (as its mandate has been from day one) rendering Jags useless, well before 2040!

The answer is the EW suite, sensor fusion and Meteor.
The Rafale is a 5th gen fighter minus shaped airframe and IWBs. It is still a LO fighter and has an advantage for the next 10 years until newer versions of the J-20 will make the Rafale useless also. It's a short window, but highly necessary. This period is the most important 10-15 years of our existence as a country. It's when we will face the most amount of disadvantages vis-a-vis China until it starts balancing out by the mid 30s.

But the Rafale's main advantage is in being able to defeat SAMs. And it can do that without all the support that the MKI and Jag require, which is a far more useful capability than simply buying more MKIs. Remember, the Rafales entered Libya hours before the NATO's SEAD/DEAD operation began.

Rafale is 5thgen fighter minus internal weapons bay and radar defeating airframe
is akin to saying
MKI is 4.5th gen fighter minus AESA radar
or
Mig23 is 4th gen fighter minus the multirole/manuverability
or
F86 is 2nd Gen fighter minus Supersonic level flight

You cant be slightly pregnant. You are or you aren't thus the 4.5th classification. There is no doubt that rafales are capable aircrafts but what is the confidence levels of a rafale beating a tandem fired R77 passive and active seeker? is there any testing done as such. What is the confidence interval? at what altitude, at what speed?

It doesn't matter if India keeps up, only the IAF has to keep up. India will eventually catch up once enough money comes in, just like China did. Our military relevance in the world order depends on the strength of the IAF first.

As for the industrial support itself, the IAF is going for 300+ LCAs, and then Ghatak, AMCA etc. The IAF is now involved in pretty much all the projects in the country.

Is it now? Care to explain PC7 HTT40 backpedal?

 

[randomradio]

The range advantage that you keep repeating is with three ext tanks and not 2. that brings you payload to 2 500lb bombs, making Jaguar a 1 ton strike element in your strike package, and you suggest that it is needs to stay in operation till 2040.

That's how long it takes to replace something. We bought 37 Jaguars after 2000, so they will have life left until 2050 in fact. But spares may be available only until 2040 or so. 2042 is the IAF's date.

Sure MKI will carry 8 500 ton bombs on 8 locations, with another 4 empty to easily carry another 8 ofab 250's. and wing tip R73's. But if you do want to capitalize on the "Range" of the Jag, 2T at 2 DT, 1T at 3 DT's that's all you can get doesn't matter how many engines you add.

You forget about the cost point.

But more importantly if "Low Altitude " was indeed that critical aspect, can you show me some Low Altitude Strike missions of Rafales in Libya, Syria or any theater of your choosing?

Such things are obviously not available.

Also why would the Jaguar engine upgrade be focusing on improving 30000+ altitude performance?

The increase in altitude is just one advantage. It will improve the ability of the Jaguar to drop PGMs. Especially the new ones that are small and unguided, similar in class to the SDB. Harpoon and CBU-105 can be put to better use.

Other advantages are more thrust for running away, a better climb rate, better SFC, better maintenance etc.

Being a Multirole aircraft already in 300 odd numbers , we do not need to buy new MKI's to replace JAG, it can easily conduct Strike missions (as its mandate has been from day one) rendering Jags useless, well before 2040!

What are you talking about? We need 150 more aircraft to replace the Jags.

Rafale is 5thgen fighter minus internal weapons bay and radar defeating airframe
is akin to saying
MKI is 4.5th gen fighter minus AESA radar
or
Mig23 is 4th gen fighter minus the multirole/manuverability
or
F86 is 2nd Gen fighter minus Supersonic level flight

You cant be slightly pregnant. You are or you aren't thus the 4.5th classification. There is no doubt that rafales are capable aircrafts but what is the confidence levels of a rafale beating a tandem fired R77 passive and active seeker? is there any testing done as such. What is the confidence interval? at what altitude, at what speed?

That's not how it works.
"Rafale is 5thgen fighter minus internal weapons bay and radar defeating airframe" that doesn't need them to defeat a "5thgen fighter with internal weapons bay and radar defeating airframe".

With Spectra, you won't need IWB and shaping to defeat the J-20, at least until the J-20 gets even better in time. But the lack of IWB and shaping is why it will be effective against the J-20 over the next 10 years. Rafale would become obsolete same as the MKI and even Super MKI.

The R77 and R73 are ancient by today's standards. Rest assured the Meteor/MICA combo will be fired first.

Is it now? Care to explain PC7 HTT40 backpedal?

HAL proved the commercial viability of the project. The HTT-40 will be cheaper than the PC-7.

 

[smestarz]

Please do elaborate what you mean by "The MKI is a mission specific multirole."
Every MRCA plane, is as multi role as it is armed with, So if on a mission the MKI is armed with say A2A missiles, A2G and ASh missiles then it surely can take out targets its armed for and the same is true for any plane including Rafale, Lets say Rafale is armed for air policing, so it would be armed with drop tanks for allowing it more on time on mission and rest of the armament would be A2A and maybe an A2G,. like say scalp,
The suddenly they see a squadron of enemy tanks approaching, What would the pilot do? Fire scalp at them? or Even A2A missiles which will do nothing to the tanks?
Every plane is mission specific, and the way its armed,

You haven't understood my point though. The MKI is a mission specific multirole.



It's not gimmicky, it's a real capability.

https://fightersweep.com/3818/typhoon-swing-role-part-1/
“Swing-role describes the capability to switch between different roles within a sortie, whereas multi-role and multi-mission implies the ability to reconfigure air platforms for different roles and missions between sorties.”



I have already mentioned the years after which the MKI will fail.

With the J-20 in operation service, even the incomplete one will dominate the MKI. In less than 10 years, the PAF will be operating the J-31 as well. The introduction of both spells doom to the MKI.

 

[smestarz]

In the end, cost point wise, Su-30 MKI might end up having better cost and value for money
For a Jaguar you might need some other planes for their A2A protection, Su-30 MKI does not need any.

Further Rafale spares are way expensive than those of Su-30 MKI. For a mission where Rafale would need 3DTS and hence lesser load, the Su-30 MKI could do that mission without drop tanks and full war load.. So it becomes a difference of putting big load on the target and flying back and taking out any enemy planes in the process, or if in case of Rafale, put a paltry few tons on target and come back and also taking out enemy planes. So when it comes to long range missions deep in enemy territory, Rafale would not be as effective as Rafale,

That's how long it takes to replace something. We bought 37 Jaguars after 2000, so they will have life left until 2050 in fact. But spares may be available only until 2040 or so. 2042 is the IAF's date.



You forget about the cost point.



Such things are obviously not available.



The increase in altitude is just one advantage. It will improve the ability of the Jaguar to drop PGMs. Especially the new ones that are small and unguided, similar in class to the SDB. Harpoon and CBU-105 can be put to better use.

Other advantages are more thrust for running away, a better climb rate, better SFC, better maintenance etc.



What are you talking about? We need 150 more aircraft to replace the Jags.



That's not how it works.
"Rafale is 5thgen fighter minus internal weapons bay and radar defeating airframe" that doesn't need them to defeat a "5thgen fighter with internal weapons bay and radar defeating airframe".

With Spectra, you won't need IWB and shaping to defeat the J-20, at least until the J-20 gets even better in time. But the lack of IWB and shaping is why it will be effective against the J-20 over the next 10 years. Rafale would become obsolete same as the MKI and even Super MKI.

The R77 and R73 are ancient by today's standards. Rest assured the Meteor/MICA combo will be fired first.



HAL proved the commercial viability of the project. The HTT-40 will be cheaper than the PC-7.

 

[Milspec]

That's how long it takes to replace something. We bought 37 Jaguars after 2000, so they will have life left until 2050 in fact. But spares may be available only until 2040 or so. 2042 is the IAF's date.

And still MKI built in 2019 will be useless in 2025.

You forget about the cost point.

Even with cost, your 1 Ton strike fighter is quite expensive. An MKI will deliver 6 ton (8 500, 8 250's) to deliver the same you would need six of them. Jags still seem more expensive ton.

Such things are obviously not available.

But incidentally a bunch of medium and high altitude Air interdiction footage available on youtube for the Rafale. Please do explain to me this low altitude bombing advantage for strike role that cannot be achieved from cruise altitude .

The increase in altitude is just one advantage. It will improve the ability of the Jaguar to drop PGMs. Especially the new ones that are small and unguided, similar in class to the SDB. Harpoon and CBU-105 can be put to better use.

Just out of curiosity are PGM's , cluster bombs dropped from low altitude? F125N does not just increase altitude, but improves performance at 30000+ altitude. That means it has a better OP and in turn CR than the Adour engines and thus can deliver better thrust at lower barometric pressure.

That's not how it works.
"Rafale is 5thgen fighter minus internal weapons bay and radar defeating airframe" that doesn't need them to defeat a "5thgen fighter with internal weapons bay and radar defeating airframe".

What exactly is a 4.5th gen aircraft?

With Spectra, you won't need IWB and shaping to defeat the J-20, at least until the J-20 gets even better in time. But the lack of IWB and shaping is why it will be effective against the J-20 over the next 10 years. Rafale would become obsolete same as the MKI and even Super MKI.

The R77 and R73 are ancient by today's standards. Rest assured the Meteor/MICA combo will be fired first.

Then why even bother with rafale, lets just be content with your 2040 Jag's (just kidding).
I disagree with you vehemently in all of it. MKI wont be rendered useless in 5 years, and rafales wont be rendered useless in 10. 4th Gen aircraft in both borders did not leave the 3rd gen Indian aircraft's useless. You over-rate Chinese capabilities and underrate Indian, which is a good thing. Also I haven't seen the literature that conclusively proves that Spectra can defeat all the threats including r77, (remember there is a k77 seeker in development) RVV-PD/MD/SD and especially the SD which will outrange Meteor.
RVV-AE is not my first choice either, but trust me on this and talk to any Pilot about about the R73, you will be quite surprised.

HAL proved the commercial viability of the project. The HTT-40 will be cheaper than the PC-7.

Try reading the following, and evalaute if HTT40's story was as simple as you present.

Broadsword: Thirteen links that tell the full story of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II

 

[smestarz]

I would like to just put my points here
MKI would be useful to India for atleast another 2 decades, Pakistan has nothing closer to it, China has and its almost equiavalent,
The moment we upgrade Su-30 MKI the balance will be on our side,

And still MKI built in 2019 will be useless in 2025.

Jaguars are useful but not as before, when Jaguars were developed the SAMs and A2A weapons were not really capable, and hence a low flying plane could by pass an enemy defence and hit the targets, but in present situation the enemy is not armed with the outdated SAMS or AA guns but with capable MANPADS and CIWS that are enough to take low flying planes down. So in a way, Jaguar would not be able to perform its older glorious actions, France and Britain have both retired their Jaguars and so has Oman. We are the only ones operating. Jaguars were useless during Kargil. Jaguars could be used in different roles, but if tried to use in the same roles as before, It would be a massacare of the squadron,

Even with cost, your 1 Ton strike fighter is quite expensive. An MKI will deliver 6 ton (8 500, 8 250's) to deliver the same you would need six of them. Jags still seem more expensive ton.

He is talking about last few decades when low flying planes were able to evade Radars and that time Radars were not so common as they are now, Now almost each platform has a radar and that too very very good ones, Maybe he forgot that

But incidentally a bunch of medium and high altitude Air interdiction footage available on youtube for the Rafale. Please do explain to me this low altitude bombing advantage for strike role that cannot be achieved from cruise altitude .

Just out of curiosity are PGM's , cluster bombs dropped from low altitude? F125N does not just increase altitude, but improves performance at 30000+ altitude. That means it has a better OP and in turn CR than the Adour engines and thus can deliver better thrust at lower barometric pressure.


What he said is exactly what the French are trying to say to sell Rafales, Unfortunately which smart country would take a chance on buying 4.5th gen plane when 5th Gen plane is offered to them? Also France cannot develop its own 5th Gen plane because it has not fully used the 4.5th gen plane, and if to develop a new plane,., who has the money ????

What exactly is a 4.5th gen aircraft?

Rafale is a good plane, and of course we need 4th gen planes like Su-30 MKI. Tejas and even Rafale to ensure lower cost of operation
5th Gen planes will be expensive to buy and operate and we cannot use them daily which can be in case of Tejas, and in case of Su-30 MKI and Rafale, we could use them Weekly, but in case of 5th Gen planes, the cost of operation would ensure that we used them 2-4 times a week,
Else the air force budget is going to be crazy.
Most French experts talk only of SPECTRA when cornered, SPECTRA is sensor fusion of various sensors, If SPECTRA was something so wonderful as they make it out, would USA ignore it?
So SPECTRA to me is something like RaGa. if the Radar detects something, they immediately give credit to SPECTRA, but if there is a failure, of some sensor, it would purely be that sensor to blame or the pilot

Then why even bother with rafale, lets just be content with your 2040 Jag's (just kidding).
I disagree with you vehemently in all of it. MKI wont be rendered useless in 5 years, and rafales wont be rendered useless in 10. 4th Gen aircraft in both borders did not leave the 3rd gen Indian aircraft's useless. You over-rate Chinese capabilities and underrate Indian, which is a good thing. Also I haven't seen the literature that conclusively proves that Spectra can defeat all the threats including r77, (remember there is a k77 seeker in development) RVV-PD/MD/SD and especially the SD which will outrange Meteor.
RVV-AE is not my first choice either, but trust me on this and talk to any Pilot about about the R73, you will be quite surprised.




Try reading the following, and evalaute if HTT40's story was as simple as you present.

Broadsword: Thirteen links that tell the full story of the Pilatus PC-7 Mark II

 

[Desi Lover]

I hope we get some new news in the coming posts rather than BITCH FIGHTS.

 

[Bon Plan]

Stop comparing Su30MKI and Jaguar !
Jaguar was developped as a trainer plane, and changed to a light air to ground attack plane. It has a poor agility, medium weapon load, all but stealthy.
MKI is another beast. Heavier, with much modern avionic, nice agility, longer range radar...
No way comparing it !