Rafale RB of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
4,792
2,580
Size is relative to the wavelength used. Our AWACS uses L band, which is 15-30cm, so it requires such a large antenna. X band is just 3cm. So you effectively need a 5-10 times smaller X band radar to get the same capability as an L band radar.

If we assume the Phalcon uses a 10m long L band radar, then a fighter jet has to carry a 1-2m long radar to become its equivalent. However with advanced technology, like GaN, the difference becomes even more stark. And once you bring resolution into the picture, the difference simply becomes heaven and earth. For the most accurate target data, you need a more or less symmetrical radar. But Phalcon doesn't need such an accurate target data since it's main job is volume scan, which is why it's at best a 10mx2m radar. So from one angle, the Phalcon is as accurate as an advanced fighter jet radar, while from another angle, the Phalcon is shitter than the Mig-21's radar in terms of resolution. Which is why fighter jet radars are symmetrical, either a circle or a square, or a similar fancy symmetrical shape like the Zhuk-AE. In simple words, a fighter jet radar is superior to the Phalcon's radar. So if you get the option of choosing between a symmetric X band radar and an asymmetric L band radar with the X band having similar performance as the best figures for the L band, then the X band is the superior radar. Similarly, most ground radars are symmetric, so are superior to the AWACS radar.

But my arguments about AWACS going obsolete have nothing to do with this. The mil pros have understood. It doesn't matter how advanced the AWACS radar is, the problem is the platform, not the sensors. So you have to carry similarly capable or the same sensors on different platforms. Due to the laws of physics and the limits of human bodies, the options are either fighter jets or drones.
Lets wait and watch whether Fighter plane radars would be able to do these things

Right now we can only compare the Air.to Ground Pictures taken from P8 I in Ladakh with Su 30 Elta 2060 and Rafale.RBE 2 Aesa

Last time I.searched Google
the IAF still is hoping to Get 2 ISTAR Planes from Raytheon , while DRDO.wants to make 4 of them
 

Aurora

Active member
May 18, 2020
268
144
India
You don't even know what I'm talking about, so how would you understand what my core argument is.
Why don't you explain your point then??
Or are you fearing something??


Laughing is all fine, but you should tell the reason too so all of us could have a good laugh too.
Rafale needs protection from SU-30?
Since they had to travel very long distance hence they were flying with only 3 drop tanks. Therefore they needed armed escorts. But don't worry, soon your AF would encounter a much more aggressive version of them.
 

Sathya

Well-Known member
Dec 2, 2017
1,940
970
India
Size is relative to the wavelength used. Our AWACS uses L band, which is 15-30cm, so it requires such a large antenna. X band is just 3cm. So you effectively need a 5-10 times smaller X band radar to get the same capability as an L band radar.

If we assume the Phalcon uses a 10m long L band radar, then a fighter jet has to carry a 1-2m long radar to become its equivalent. However with advanced technology, like GaN, the difference becomes even more stark. And once you bring resolution into the picture, the difference simply becomes heaven and earth. For the most accurate target data, you need a more or less symmetrical radar. But Phalcon doesn't need such an accurate target data since it's main job is volume scan, which is why it's at best a 10mx2m radar. So from one angle, the Phalcon is as accurate as an advanced fighter jet radar, while from another angle, the Phalcon is shitter than the Mig-21's radar in terms of resolution. Which is why fighter jet radars are symmetrical, either a circle or a square, or a similar fancy symmetrical shape like the Zhuk-AE. In simple words, a fighter jet radar is superior to the Phalcon's radar. So if you get the option of choosing between a symmetric X band radar and an asymmetric L band radar with the X band having similar performance as the best figures for the L band, then the X band is the superior radar. Similarly, most ground radars are symmetric, so are superior to the AWACS radar.

But my arguments about AWACS going obsolete have nothing to do with this. The mil pros have understood. It doesn't matter how advanced the AWACS radar is, the problem is the platform, not the sensors. So you have to carry similarly capable or the same sensors on different platforms. Due to the laws of physics and the limits of human bodies, the options are either fighter jets or drones.
Bear with me if I am wrong.,

In case we need 3 latest awacs to monitor entire NW border, how many fighter s needed to do the same job?

X band radar cannot be installed in traditional awacs?

Traditional awacs Being a huge aircraft their electronic counter measures will also be strong right.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,126
5,506
India
Large sized sensors of various types..
360 * continous scanning
Large number of target tracking, large volumes of information transmission.
Long time on station..

Being on air for longer time and group of awacs can indentify low flying aircraft s or cruise missiles... On a continous basis..

More number of controllers and stations to control and co ordinate..

If fighter sized radar becomes powerful and awac sized radar should become super powerful.

If fighters get teeth to target awacs, awacs would also evolve to escape.

I think Tactical fighter sized awacs cannot replace Traditional awacs but can only supplement it.
Maybe they can do more in offensive missions.
Agreed. But that's not the point, the point is survivability.

This is going to be the reality over Europe in less than 2 years.
A2AD.png


The E-3 is completely useless in such a situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya

Aurora

Active member
May 18, 2020
268
144
India
For the most accurate target data, you need a more or less symmetrical radar. But Phalcon doesn't need such an accurate target data since it's main job is volume scan, which is why it's at best a 10mx2m radar. So from one angle, the Phalcon is as accurate as an advanced fighter jet radar, while from another angle, the Phalcon is shitter than the Mig-21's radar in terms of resolution. Which is why fighter jet radars are symmetrical, either a circle or a square, or a similar fancy symmetrical shape like the Zhuk-AE. In simple words, a fighter jet radar is superior to the Phalcon's radar. So if you get the option of choosing between a symmetric X band radar and an asymmetric L band radar with the X band having similar performance as the best figures for the L band, then the X band is the superior radar. Similarly, most ground radars are symmetric, so are superior to the AWACS radar.
Fighters too would suffer from this problem. You can't have equal number of TRM modules in every part ( nose cone, cheeks, fins etc) of aircraft.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,126
5,506
India
Lets wait and watch whether Fighter plane radars would be able to do these things

Right now we can only compare the Air.to Ground Pictures taken from P8 I in Ladakh with Su 30 Elta 2060 and Rafale.RBE 2 Aesa

Last time I.searched Google
the IAF still is hoping to Get 2 ISTAR Planes from Raytheon , while DRDO.wants to make 4 of them
Some numbers of AWACS and ISTARS will be required anyway. Since they are the best intel gatherers during peacetime, because during peacetime you can easily operate 10Km away from the border. Such aircraft also allow civilian passengers, which is necessary for further development of such sensor systems, and is not entirely feasible on a fighter jet. And will be a great training aid for fighter pilots who need to take over these duties during wartime.

But during war, they will have to go back, since they can't operate near the battlespace. More or less totally useless during war. The Chinese already have a very long range missile, and I'm sure they are working on new A2/AD capabilities that can be deployed over the next few years.

Bear with me if I am wrong.,

In case we need 3 latest awacs to monitor entire NW border, how many fighter s needed to do the same job?
Right now, no fighter jet can replace AWACS. None of them have the software or the communications capabilities.

Su-57Mk2 could be the first such aircraft in the near future. If they work towards such a goal, then Rafale F4.2 can also join the list when the time comes, it has most of the hardware planned for it already.

So what a fighter jet will need is an AI-driven battlespace management system, and either an internally mounted, or pod-mounted communications system that can allow the jet to talk to more aircraft than it currently can. Perhaps even a pod-mounted power generation system that can be used to power all the avionics necessary.

A fighter jet can replace an AWACS in a 1 to 1 capacity if it has 360 degree radar capability. For 24/7 capability, you may need 2 or 3, which is less than the number of escorts needed for a large AWACS anyway. In case more controllers are necessary, then ground control can chip in with the manpower. The main idea is since we are switching from the 2G standard of communications to 4G or even 5G, all of this is possible using just datalinks. Earlier, this used to be the biggest weakness.

But this is purely AWACS replacement, and even that's not necessary. Fighter jets can be designed to simply remove AWACS completely from the equation, and replace it with a system of systems set up, where intelligence is gathered from various sources and fused in one place, which can happen in the fighter jet itself. For example, if you need a flying L band radar, then a drone can be equipped with a large radar instead, it's a whole lot cheaper and can stay up in the air almost indefinitely. The information from the radar can then be transmitted to the fighter jet.

X band radar cannot be installed in traditional awacs?
X band is pointless on AWACS, but AWACS-India will come with S band radar along with L band. The S band radar will remove most of the disadvantages of the L band.

Traditional awacs Being a huge aircraft their electronic counter measures will also be strong right.
SPECTRA type capabilities are the future of jamming. Radars are far too intelligent for massive power to work anymore. And AAMs can cue to jamming as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ironhide and Sathya

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,126
5,506
India
What theory?? You still have to produce one. All you had was one irrelevant question which I answered in all possible ways.

Provide a rebuttal, then I will consider it seriously.

Until then:
'Cause I get suckered into pointless, ridiculous arguments that go nowhere.
 

Aurora

Active member
May 18, 2020
268
144
India

Provide a rebuttal, then I will consider it seriously.
I already provided it here.
By incorporating stealthy design. Russia is already building a stealthy transport plane. Other types of support aircraft would follow soon. You simply couldn't negate the advantages of the sheer size of these aircrafts. Once they will get stealth with modern radar tech, they would be able to provide a coverage of 1000 Kms something not possible with a fighter size jet.
Your core argument revolved around the survivability of these assets, I provided the solution of this problem. After that you started throwing your irrelevant question on me.
Until then:
'Cause I get suckered into pointless, ridiculous arguments that go nowhere.
If someone goes through our discussion he would easily identify that who is making pointless arguments.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,126
5,506
India
I already provided it here.

Your core argument revolved around the survivability of these assets, I provided the solution of this problem. After that you started throwing your irrelevant question on me.

If someone goes through our discussion he would easily identify that who is making pointless arguments.
Great. Problem solved. Stealth AWACS. Cheers. I think we are done here.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
8,126
5,506
India
This should explain the situation a bit more.

A2AD.png


The blacked out circle is the S-500, with the (advertised) 600Km range 40N6M.

The two transparent smaller circles are the maximum possible range of the AWACS when it's trying to get a look at the S-500 on the ground. It's impossible to increase the range beyond that.

Scenario 1: I put the AWACS that's outside the SAM ring over Leipzig. But the radar can only see up to where it says Poland on the map. It cannot see beyond the "L" in "Poland". The threat is still more than 200Km away from the maximum range of the AWACS. Hence useless. What it means is everything in the space between "L" and Kaliningrad is Russia's hunting grounds. And any sort of response that NATO can provide within that region is only through the use of their fighter jets. At that distance, neither AWACS nor ground control is of any use.

Scenario 2: But if the AWACS needs to become useful, it need to enter the SAM ring, at approximately the location indicated by the white dot to the east of Berlin. However that's pretty much a red zone for an AWACS. AWACS can't survive in that environment. In fact, even 4th gen fighters will find it difficult to survive there because the 40N6 is simply that good. All that the AWACS can do is try and escape by going below radar horizon.

What's interesting is, if the AWACS can see the S-500, then it's obvious the S-500 can see the AWACS. It's because both are within line of sight to each other. And, as pointed out before, a ground radar is always superior in capability compared to an AWACS radar. And you can bet all your marbles the S-500's radar is going to be far, far, far superior to the practically outdated/obsolete E-3 radar.
 

maint1234

Member
Jul 17, 2020
51
60
Delhi
This should explain the situation a bit more.

View attachment 16968

The blacked out circle is the S-500, with the (advertised) 600Km range 40N6M.

The two transparent smaller circles are the maximum possible range of the AWACS when it's trying to get a look at the S-500 on the ground. It's impossible to increase the range beyond that.

Scenario 1: I put the AWACS that's outside the SAM ring over Leipzig. But the radar can only see up to where it says Poland on the map. It cannot see beyond the "L" in "Poland". The threat is still more than 200Km away from the maximum range of the AWACS. Hence useless. What it means is everything in the space between "L" and Kaliningrad is Russia's hunting grounds. And any sort of response that NATO can provide within that region is only through the use of their fighter jets. At that distance, neither AWACS nor ground control is of any use.

Scenario 2: But if the AWACS needs to become useful, it need to enter the SAM ring, at approximately the location indicated by the white dot to the east of Berlin. However that's pretty much a red zone for an AWACS. AWACS can't survive in that environment. In fact, even 4th gen fighters will find it difficult to survive there because the 40N6 is simply that good. All that the AWACS can do is try and escape by going below radar horizon.

What's interesting is, if the AWACS can see the S-500, then it's obvious the S-500 can see the AWACS. It's because both are within line of sight to each other. And, as pointed out before, a ground radar is always superior in capability compared to an AWACS radar. And you can bet all your marbles the S-500's radar is going to be far, far, far superior to the practically outdated/obsolete E-3 radar.
Doesn't a AWACS have a advantage due to altitude ? I would have guessed low flying planes would be more easily detected by a AWACS due to horizon limitations on a ground based radar ? Horizon limitations would also tell on the range of a ground based radar for targets at all altitudes.
 

STEPHEN COHEN

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
4,792
2,580
Fair enough,we shouldn't expect anyone to give any tech like a loser....what a shit attitude we have...TOT is probably most embarassing this thing to do or ask
We did NOT have any other choice
Other than the Rafale

1 . We did not trust the Americans
So F16 and F 18 cancelled

2 . We did not want MiG 35
So Russia Ruled out

3 . WE did Not want to negotiate with 4 countries for.Eurofighter

Because Germany and UK.are always
Lecturing and Interfering in things like Kashmir

Germany especially loves to halt export of weapons as they did with Saudi Arabia

4 Gripen was small and clashed with Tejas Mk 2

So Rafale was our Only.Option

If Su 57 ie PAK FA had become operational , then we might have even gone for it