Would love if we were able to design the airframe into semi stealth at least for the supersukhoi but we know that ain't gonna happen.
Sukhoi Su-30MKI
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
Do they come fitted for but not with or complete abandonment in favor of drones?
That would imply 2038 rather than the earlier 2040. Not counting delays.
No wonder the Russians might get roped in.
France is moving toward communication antennas and drones, but the mounting points can be used to install multifunction antennas as originally planned, so this will be an option for export, for example, if a country does not wish to use the Rafale F5 in a networked configuration.
It's just like the helmet visor: for a very long time, we didn't want one even though we were capable of making it, and the export market got it before we did.
We are not clear yet if French drones are an option for the IAF. If the choice is between spending another $10M per jet for multiarrays versus $20B for drones just to compensate it can become a long term problem due to the lack of ToT in this segment. So it's good to know at least the option remains.
C'est comme pour le viseur de casque : pendant très longtemps on n'en a pas voulu alors qu'on en était capable et l'export l'a eu avant nous.
But you’ll be able to use your own drones as well—after all, you have projects in the works.
Al-41 is a necessity of we are to take on the major chunk of the PLAAF. Although most will be under threat of the j-20's and pl-17. That's the only way.
Al-41F-1S requires MKI's inlet to be enlarged while Item-177S is a drop fit in MKI's engine bay with same diameter like AL-31FP. Both have equal dry power around 88KN and equal wet thrust too around 142KN, but Item 177S uses AL-51F1 tech so its fuel efficiency, TBO and overall service life is much superior to Item 117S/AL-41F-1S.
J-20s don't employ PL-17. That is a specific weapon of J-16. It's going to be J-20 + J-16 combo vs Rafale + MKI combo for air-dominance. Su-57 shifts the calculus in our favour though.
That would imply syncing Indian radar with French radar, which is impossible without said ToT. They will have to work independently and generate two different fire control data and then pick the best option. That's usual 4th gen, a downgrade from 6th gen.
For France, it seems to be a financial decision rather than technical or operational.
Now the question is if this radar will be deployable before IAF goes for additional orders or if it has to be funded separately by the ones deciding to opt for it. This will be the biggest hurdle.
IAF did not find any use for 117S compared to the cost of procurement and upgrade. And the successor 177S looks promising, but has not been developed yet.
IAF has also prefered to pay more to keep AL-31FP going rather than fall into the quagmire of a new contract for a new engine.
We should see if 177S finishes development and becomes an option, but IAF is unlikely pay for its development. Russia probably won't either, 'cause they have settled for 117S commonality.
The best option is to upgrade AL-31FP with Indian hot core materials, but the Russians are not allowing that 'cause there's too much money to be made here.
Fighters are not threatened by PL-17, its pk will be too low for that.
What matters isn't the individual sensors, but the fusion of data. We know how to fuse data from electronic warfare, radar, and infrared sensors, so we can certainly do the same with two different radar systems. In fact, we'll need to do this with radar from AWACS, ships, and ground-based systems...
That's for processed data, not raw data.
Processed data fusion from multiple sources is a very low-end capability.
I don't see either country sharing raw data from core avionics for a common sensor fusion picture. The radars won't even sync up with each other. With Rafale and Neuron you get multistatic system enabled, but not with Rafale and Ghatak.
There are three types of fusion. One uses raw I/Q data that needs very high amounts of synchronicity. A single computer handles both onboard and offboard arrays. The second type fuses plots. Your radar provides range resolution, IRST provides angular resolution, and you combine the two plots. In the third type, all sensors work at their individual capacity and produce tracking data, then the human pilot or AI helps clean up all the extra data to give you the cleanest information.
Onboard Rafale sensors have the potential to provide the first type natively as long as the internal bandwidth is in Gbps, further enhanced with multiarray systems. So it cannot exist on F4 and below with 1 Gbps and 20 Mbps lines. With drones, it depends entirely on the data link bandwidth. With existing technology, you easily get the third type, just like AWACS + Link 16. With upcoming tech with Gpbs class data rates, you can aim for the second type, and with true 6th gen, 10-100 Gbps and more, you can even get the first type. But all this requires using the same hardware for I/Q-level or plot-level data sharing. With AWACS, ground defenses etc, you only get track level, which is extremely basic (there are multiple levels to this, but it's still basic considering it's from the 80s). So the Rafale + Ghatak combo will only give us track level data sharing.
The only time I/Q class data sharing is possible is with true 6th gen data bandwidth and using the same hardware. For example, LCA Mk2 and MKI MLU will share more or less the same radar hardware as Netra Mk1A/Mk2. If the data bandwidth is sufficient, then it's possible to go beyond the third type of sensor fusion. And it works both ways. Same with satellites when linked up with AMCA using common hardware or even at the translation level, never mind drones. I/Q class data sharing at such distances is not realistic, but current Rafale-class sensor fusion is possible across the whole network once you get to 100 Gbps.
So you can imagine the benefit of multiarray Rafales with I/Q level fusion supported by drones with plot-level fusion. Now you can say you will get the same capability with single array Rafales and drones, but if IAF doesn't go for drones, then a formation of IAF Rafales will have to make up for it using multiarrays, while the Ghataks stay passive and contribute track-level fusion if necessary.
What I'm talking about for the first two types requires source codes though, and that's where we will get stuck.
To perform I/Q or plot-level fusion, we need waveform details, clutter and error models, and processing and data pipelines.
So the only choice here is the third type, where both sensors work independently and then the drone data is fused via MDPU.
The third type is fine for today, maybe even most of the 2030s due to the bandwidth limitations of 4G (<100 Mbps) and 5G (<400Mbps). Due to the limitations of data rate on high mobility vehicles like aircraft, it will temporarily give off the impression that these speeds are good enough for track-level fusion. But once 6G shows up, designed specifically for high speed vehicles where theoretical speeds are 500 Gbps to 1 Tbps, with potential real-world speeds exceeding 100 Gbps, the ones that come out with low-level fusion first will gain spectrum dominance over those using high-level fusion like track-to-track.
Both Rafale+Neuron and Rafale+Ghatak will come with track-level fusion in the beginning. But when the Chinese transition to low-level fusion and we don't keep up, they will gain spectrum dominance. The Rafale-Neuron pair can manage with new software releases but the Rafale-Ghatak pair will fail due to lack of ToT.
Since ToT is not coming, the only arguments that can be made here are for the IAF to make a wasteful purchase of 400+ Neurons, 2 per Rafale, or just maximise the sensor potential of the Rafale to the highest possible so it's less dependent on offboard capabilities.
We should also take into account that AMCA and SCAF/GCAP will supercede Rafale for primary roles in the 2040s. So maximising the Rafale itself would be a better option than spending an additional $20-30B on Neuron.
@Picdelamirand-oil
In the medium term, the most promising approach to countering radar stealth lies in compensating for the reduced detection range of onboard radars with AI-based sensor fusion and collaborative operations across multiple sensor types operating at different wavelengths. Instead of merely exchanging processed tracks, platforms would share raw, unprocessed sensor data. Provided that directional tactical data links—comparable to the F-35’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) but with significantly greater throughput—are widely implemented, it becomes feasible to extend this collaborative sensing capability across multiple platforms, thereby leveraging the advantages of multistatic sensor architectures.
In the medium term, the most promising approach to countering radar stealth lies in compensating for the reduced detection range of onboard radars with AI-based sensor fusion and collaborative operations across multiple sensor types operating at different wavelengths. Instead of merely exchanging processed tracks, platforms would share raw, unprocessed sensor data. Provided that directional tactical data links—comparable to the F-35’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) but with significantly greater throughput—are widely implemented, it becomes feasible to extend this collaborative sensing capability across multiple platforms, thereby leveraging the advantages of multistatic sensor architectures.
Some interesting stuff here.
By using low observable (LO) antennas and arrays, the sensors receive, measure, and extract both radio frequency (RF) and non-RF signals. Raw data are preprocessed, digitized, and routed to the CIPs via 400 Mbps fiber optic buses. Using digital and signal processor modules, the CIPs process raw data into sensor-level track reports which in turn are processed by sensor-track fusion algorithms residing on other digital and signal processor modules. Sensor-level reports are then combined into a single integrated track file and sent to the cockpit displays via fiber optic lines. The two CIPs are connected to one another via a 50 Mbps fiber optic High-Speed Data Bus (HSDB). Finally, the avionics architecture also features Mil-Std-1553 buses to interconnect to other aircraft systems.
The F-22 uses a 400 Mbps fiber line to connect its radar to the computer. The F-35 uses something similar but potentially a higher data rate 'cause of its greater need for imaging radar for A2G and intelligence gathering. The initial F-22 came with analog beamforming at receiver with centralized receiver channels compared to later models while F-35 came with digital beamforming at receiver right from the outset.
As for Rafale, it uses STANAG 3910, which combines the 1553B's 1 Mbps line with a high speed 20 Mbps line. On the Rafale the HS line is copper, on the Typhoon it's fiber. So Rafale does not have fiber for avionics, ie, F4 and below. It just uses several such HS lines between avionics and computer.
And this is why it's clear that the sensor fusion on F-22 and F-35 is at a significantly deeper level than what's possible on Rafale.
www.ampex.com
For a Fighter AESA Radar such as the AN/APG-77 on the F-22 Raptor, which can theoretically generate up to around 10 Gbps of radar data:
So the internal bus speed can go up to 10 Gbps within the radar itself.
The article goes on to show that it's not realistic to consistently achieve those numbers, so more realistic numbers go down to 1-5 Gbps or 100-500 Mbps per target tracked.
This means, the F-22 and F-35 have enough juice to send significantly more raw data over for processing compared to Rafale. So data fusion on the F-22 and F-35 is at true low-level standards compared to Rafale at limited low and largely mid-level standards. At mid-level 10-20 Mbps is sufficient. You can still combine radar range with IRST angle at this point, but it won't be anywhere as good as the information obtained from the F-22/35.
For low-level fusion, each sensor array requires hundreds of Mbps to a few Gbps. For mid-level, a few dozen Mbps is fine. For high-level, only tracks, you only need Link 16 class speeds, which is extremely basic. A 1 Mbps line that comes with 1553B is sufficient.
MKI uses the basic 1 Mbps line, so its data fusion is at high-level. It's unclear if MLU will come with a high speed line yet. But even a 10-20 Mbps upgrade would be helpful to achieve Rafale-class sensor fusion, if not a dedicated fiber line. If it stays at 1 Mbps, then sensor fusion isn't a very high priority for Phase 1.
This shows there's a definite difference between 4th, 4.5th, and 5th gen standards. And Rafale F4 and below do not meet 5th gen standards.
Rafale F5 should catch up by the early 2030s with a point-to-point fiber architecture. The F-22/35 also use P2P architecture to connect sensors to computer, but it's likely that each line on the F-35 offers 2 Gbps, effectively 100 times greater data rate, compared to the F-22's 400 Mbps.
The fact that the F-35 is not yet fully operational gives some space for the Rafale F5 to catch up. And both are expected to achieve similar levels of maturity by 2030, so not all hope is lost for the Rafale.
By using low observable (LO) antennas and arrays, the sensors receive, measure, and extract both radio frequency (RF) and non-RF signals. Raw data are preprocessed, digitized, and routed to the CIPs via 400 Mbps fiber optic buses. Using digital and signal processor modules, the CIPs process raw data into sensor-level track reports which in turn are processed by sensor-track fusion algorithms residing on other digital and signal processor modules. Sensor-level reports are then combined into a single integrated track file and sent to the cockpit displays via fiber optic lines. The two CIPs are connected to one another via a 50 Mbps fiber optic High-Speed Data Bus (HSDB). Finally, the avionics architecture also features Mil-Std-1553 buses to interconnect to other aircraft systems.
The F-22 uses a 400 Mbps fiber line to connect its radar to the computer. The F-35 uses something similar but potentially a higher data rate 'cause of its greater need for imaging radar for A2G and intelligence gathering. The initial F-22 came with analog beamforming at receiver with centralized receiver channels compared to later models while F-35 came with digital beamforming at receiver right from the outset.
As for Rafale, it uses STANAG 3910, which combines the 1553B's 1 Mbps line with a high speed 20 Mbps line. On the Rafale the HS line is copper, on the Typhoon it's fiber. So Rafale does not have fiber for avionics, ie, F4 and below. It just uses several such HS lines between avionics and computer.
And this is why it's clear that the sensor fusion on F-22 and F-35 is at a significantly deeper level than what's possible on Rafale.
Next-Generation Radar Data Management for Aviation | AMPEX
On February 26, 1935, Sir Robert Watson-Watt successfully demonstrated radar for the first time proving that radar...
www.ampex.com
- 10 Gbps = 1.25 GB/s
- TS 640 Max Write Speed = 1,900 MB/s (1.9 GB/s)
- TS 640 Storage Capacity = 300TB (300,000 GB)
So the internal bus speed can go up to 10 Gbps within the radar itself.
The article goes on to show that it's not realistic to consistently achieve those numbers, so more realistic numbers go down to 1-5 Gbps or 100-500 Mbps per target tracked.
This means, the F-22 and F-35 have enough juice to send significantly more raw data over for processing compared to Rafale. So data fusion on the F-22 and F-35 is at true low-level standards compared to Rafale at limited low and largely mid-level standards. At mid-level 10-20 Mbps is sufficient. You can still combine radar range with IRST angle at this point, but it won't be anywhere as good as the information obtained from the F-22/35.
For low-level fusion, each sensor array requires hundreds of Mbps to a few Gbps. For mid-level, a few dozen Mbps is fine. For high-level, only tracks, you only need Link 16 class speeds, which is extremely basic. A 1 Mbps line that comes with 1553B is sufficient.
MKI uses the basic 1 Mbps line, so its data fusion is at high-level. It's unclear if MLU will come with a high speed line yet. But even a 10-20 Mbps upgrade would be helpful to achieve Rafale-class sensor fusion, if not a dedicated fiber line. If it stays at 1 Mbps, then sensor fusion isn't a very high priority for Phase 1.
This shows there's a definite difference between 4th, 4.5th, and 5th gen standards. And Rafale F4 and below do not meet 5th gen standards.
Rafale F5 should catch up by the early 2030s with a point-to-point fiber architecture. The F-22/35 also use P2P architecture to connect sensors to computer, but it's likely that each line on the F-35 offers 2 Gbps, effectively 100 times greater data rate, compared to the F-22's 400 Mbps.
The fact that the F-35 is not yet fully operational gives some space for the Rafale F5 to catch up. And both are expected to achieve similar levels of maturity by 2030, so not all hope is lost for the Rafale.
PL-17's max range is 700+ km.
The only equivalent of the PL-17 right now is the AIM-174B, which is also likely to fall in the 800 km category.
It's unclear if R-37M can match that performance. We are buying it to keep up with any potential purchase of PL-17 by the PAF for J-10 and J-35.
We are developing Brahmos-M as our main capability for anti-AWACS.