BrahMos Cruise Missile

[ppgj]

brahmos is way better than the yankee counterpart BGM-109TOMAHAWK

nirbhay is more like indian tomahawk version. but it is yet to be tested.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070720/asp/nation/story_8080771.asp

 

[blade]

A humble request to everyone..lets not make a fool out of ourselves by comparing a brahmos with tomahawk just like wht pakistanis do by comparing brahmos with babur.They have completely different strategic and tactical values so lets not compare apple with oranges.

[mod]Despite several requests you are continuing with entire posts in bold font, please do not repeat this. Next time you will have to be warned[/mod]

 

[AJSINGH]

nirbhay is more like indian tomahawk version. but it is yet to be tested.

The Telegraph - Calcutta : Nation

we dont need nirbhay ,we already have brahmos with high speed and precision ,rather they should modified it into AWACS killer ( although russia is developing that missile with the help of india ) considering that russia is signatory of START treaty ,it cant develop missile of range of excess of 300km,hence india role in brahmos 2 will be greater

 

[Vladimir79]

A humble request to everyone..lets not make a fool out of ourselves by comparing a brahmos with tomahawk just like wht pakistanis do by comparing brahmos with babur.They have completely different strategic and tactical values so lets not compare apple with oranges.

[mod]Despite several requests you are continuing with entire posts in bold font, please do not repeat this. Next time you will have to be warned[/mod]

Babur has no conventional value, it is a nuklear strike missile as in an inferior Kh-55. Brahmos is far more significant as it can strike any ship, any coastal target, and large interior targets.

 

[ppgj]

we dont need nirbhay

the three services need it.
quote from the link-

“Every modern military needs to have missile options. The requirement for Nirbhay was projected by all three armed forces to fill a gap in our missile programme,” Avinash Chander, the director of the Advanced Systems Laboratory, Hyderabad, who is in charge of the project, told The Telegraph in Delhi today.

please go through the link.

 

[blade]

Babur has no conventional value, it is a nuklear strike missile as in an inferior Kh-55. Brahmos is far more significant as it can strike any ship, any coastal target, and large interior targets.

I completely disagree with you.Even subsonic cruise missile like tomahawk or babur dose hav significant conventional role to play as have alreay observed the role played by tomahwak in the gulf war. Now about babur its highly likely that its no way as accurate as it claims to be and thus reducing its conventional value but it will always leave a space for furture upgradation.But even in the conventional area long range subsonic & super sonic short range missiles have completely different roles to play.So lets not compare them.

[mod]please don't put entire post in bold letters[/mod]

 

[blade]

I am sorry sir. i am new so i didnt know this.

 

[nitesh]

I am sorry sir. i am new so i didnt know this.

hey no problem mate it happens

 

[p2prada]

I completely disagree with you.Even subsonic cruise missile like tomahawk or babur dose hav significant conventional role to play as have alreay observed the role played by tomahwak in the gulf war. Now about babur its highly likely that its no way as accurate as it claims to be and thus reducing its conventional value but it will always leave a space for furture upgradation.But even in the conventional area long range subsonic & super sonic short range missiles have completely different roles to play.So lets not compare them.

[mod]please don't put entire post in bold letters[/mod]

What Vladmir means is the Chinese have not yet developed capable seekers for conventional roles. At that distance the babur will miss the target.

 

[AJSINGH]

even if babus is accurate , one should notice the speed of the missile ,the lesser the speed ,the more time you give to intercept the missile , if you see babur with its subsonic speed would take 22 minutes to reach 300km targer ,where as brahmos will take just over 3 minutes for same distance
greater speed =lesser chance of intercpeting in mid course

 

[enlightened1]

Brahmos new test EXCLUSIVE videos

YouTube - BrahMos test

YouTube - BrahMos test

 

[enlightened1]

YouTube - BrahMos test

 

[bengalraider]

brahmos fitted on kashin 2

the brahmos missile has replaced the lower styx missiles in the IN kashin 2(rajput class destroyers)pics of the same below

for comparison a pic with all four styx missiles on the rajput class

all pics from bharat-rakshak

 

[bsn4u1985]

brahmos test

see this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9w6BhJmPQ

 

[enlightened1]

^^
Already posted http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/military-photos-media/6718-brahmos-new-test-exclusive-videos.html

 

[black eagle]

Tests on air launch version of BrahMos to be over by 2012 IDRW.ORG



BY : PTI

Experiments on the air launch version of the supersonic BrahMos missile will be completed by 2012, a top Defence Research and Development Organisation official said here on Friday.

Preparations are also on to launch the missile from submarines, Dr Sivathanupillai, Chief Controller, R and D, DRDO and also CEO and MD, BrahMos Aerospace, told reporters.

The sea and land-based versions of the 290 km range BrahMos, which have been successfully launched, have since been inducted into the Navy and Army respectively.

The missile has the capability to travel three times faster than the speed of sound, he said.

 

[AJSINGH]

Post office have released stamp on brahmos missile ,will upoad the picture soon

 

[nitesh]

still stuck with the land:

BrahMos phase II: Deadline for land set

 

[p2prada]

Lets just look at Brahmos real quick. Russians won't only share the ToT for the components, leaving India just a software and marketing role, but the land attack capability touted in the missile is pretty much a lie.

The only Russian component that we have not yet reached an agreement on is the propulsion system. The guidance is our own, seeker ToT has been provided and has been modified in India, the airframe ToT too has been provided. The rest is upto you to nitpick on since you like to do that a lot.

Have you ever seen the test videos of those targets laying right on the beach or in the middle of the desert? Standalone structures in the middle of nowhere don't make a land attack capability.

Deserts and beaches or even the sea provide excellent challenges to any radar system. The logic is the same as "a needle in a haystack." When an object or impurity is introduced into a large homogenous medium, it becomes extremely difficult to track such an object even with the naked eye let alone a machine.

Ask any seaman how difficult it gets to detect and track a ship at sea and you will know? And the sea's radar returns are barely anything compared to the clutter found on dry land.

But here is the real lie, every one of those tests had the target with a radar reflector on it. Watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HDVhX7PZHg

That is a big radar reflector like the ones used to decoy by naval vessels. What building or military target is going to have one of those put on it so Brahmos can find its target? Brahmos is only capable of hitting naval vessels.

Since you have proven yourself to be an idi*t I will explain using a graphical representation of the use of the reflectors.

Now you know, maybe.

Su-30MKI is only better than Russian planes because it has Western components. India wouldn't buy it with the poor level of Russian avionics and defence suites.

India could not opt for Russian equipment because they are not available for export. Russian EW kits is a strict no-no even with India. And can you tell me what are the so called western components in the MKI(barely even 5%). FYI, French components are due to be replaced or are already replaced.

Radar, Engine, Navigation, Communication....all these systems are Russian. The only major equipment used on board is the Israeli Jammer because we don't have access to Russian jammers. The rest are Indian.

There is also a SAGEM GPS T/R module. I wonder why we went to French for the GPS system. Oh! I know, it is because the Russians don't use GPS.

Russian technology hasn't been able to hold its own on the export market for big ticket items without France, Su-30MKI and T-90S are the big examples.

What a joke! The Catherine Thermals we bought from France melted on the very first day of the T-90 trials. They have since been replaced by Indian BEL made Thermals.

PAK FGFA will have ZERO French or Israeli components, Russians won't let us near this bird.

Forget Russians, even we will not let the French near the PAKFA. PAKFA will have only Russian and Indian components. What makes you think we will be sourcing western equipment even 10 years later? We are already developing cutting edge technology thanks to the Israelis. We will also commence development of new avionics for the MCA program that will be used in PAKFA too.

Russia has been unable to meet India's needs without us and the Israelis, do you feel confident they can come through without it?

Yes they will come through. If they don't we will come through. This is not the 90s.

I don't say Indian MoD are "dunderheads" with Su-30MKI, they knew it needed our equipment because they aren't "dunderheads." We won't be able to give saving grace to the PAKFA.

We don't need your saving grace thank you. We are already replacing French stuff from the MKIs.

More like plain capability. Russian R&D has been unable to close the gap where they could even make those platforms. Do you know the base of their R&D complex averages 50+ years in age? The braindrain of the good Russian talent to the West has crippled their research efforts. The Soviet competition for design has collapsed with the consolidation of defence companies. Just look at their UAV efforts, the Generals call them inferior pieces of crap. Medvedev has said repeatedly the MIC has failed to come up with anything knew, just upgrading existing Soviet tech. This is out of the mouths of their own people.

More foolish talk. The Russians have sent more missions to the ISS than the Americans without even a single accident. The Americans have been blowing up shuttles like the Fourth of July.

F-15SE is said to have similar frontal RCS to the F-35 which is 0.001m2. 1m2 is no leap in technology to legacy F-16s with the 'Have Glass' RCS reduction. .001m2 or anything in the same decimal place up to a .009 or even .09 even is a game changing capability to high threat environment on up to China and Russia itself.

Do you have a link or a source? I need a genuine link right from the mouth of a genuine Boeing official.

Let me tell you a little more about the modern warfare environment. LPI is not only good for SEAD but also air-to-air. These high threat environments have IADs which share from ground and air based platforms. When you have a radar you can't lock down they can not only scan to their hearts content without fear of detection, but don't have to worry about jamming either. It makes all the difference in an air battle where your Russian radar is a dead giveaway to your position no matter what your craft's RCS. As great as the Su-35 is in flight performance, the Irbis is going to make it toast to F-35 or F-15SE firing AIM-120D which will detect it long before they are picked up.

Most of this coming from your notion that the SH and SE are stealth. The Australian public have been harassing the Australian govt simply because they tricked the voters into believing the SH is stealthy. Anything that carries only in external stores is not a stealth plane.

First off, there is no R-77M. If you don't believe me go to the Tactical Missile Corps website, they list all the missiles they have and will soon produce. RVV-AE is the best Amraamski they have and is limited to 80km. SH has a frontal RCS that is quite low and won't be picked up by the Bars before SH has a clear lock. With MKI lighting up the sky looking for intruders would give it away like a mini AWACs. Lets say they don't even do that and keep the power down, the APG-79 can power up to several hundred kilometres range and with LPI, won't have to worry about what MKI's TWR sees because it won't go off. One on one there is not much hope for MKI so lets go ahead and throw the great PHALCON AWACs in support. MKI will be outbound protecting so it won't get a full max range benefit, SH will be head on running to take it out with a complement of AIM-120Ds. MKI can keep the radar off and run on the data links, but MKI's 12m2 will give it away so SH can engage at its leisure even if PHALCON picks it up. The combination of LPI, low frontal RCS, and extended range missiles make the SH the clear winner in any air-to-air engagement even if you throw in a nice Israeli radar system.

What the heck is several hundred kilometres. The sun is several hundred kilotmetres from the earth. Be more specific or bugger off. When you talk technical there is nothing called several or some or little or any of those stupid assumptions.

Here is a link that claims the existence of Ramjet missiles in Russia and perhaps India.

Air Force Looks For Long Range (120Kms) BVR Missiles | India Defence
This sudden move has spurred IAF officials to make quick efforts to purchase 120-km range air-to-air missiles. The acquisition of such missiles, which sport ramjet propulsion, will make IAF the lone Air Force in Asia to have such an unparallelled capability, top IAF officials said.

It's a 2007 news.

They won't have to merge, AIM-120D will kill you long before that is necessary for all the reasons I have already stated.

You have stated nothing but fanboy fantasy. Nobody shoots a BVR and be assured of a kill. BVR engagement does not deliver 100% results.

Eurofighter doesn't have AESA because theirs isn't deployable yet. RBE-2 AA is going on the latest tranche of Rafale F4 for the ALA in 2012.

I don't doubt that. But we will see as to how much the Europeans can spend in order to get the AESA on board. Developing is one thing and operationalizing is another.

Australia wouldn't buy Super 'Bugs' if it didn't come with APG-70. Singapore wouldn't buy F-15SG if it didn't have APG-63(V)3, UAE wouldn't buy F-16 Block 60 without APG-80. Every partner nation buying a watered down stealth F-35 wouldn't buy it without an AESA with an LPI capability which still keeps its relevance on the modern battlefield. There is a reason AESA is the benchmark for modern radars, it makes all the difference.

I never doubted the capability of the AESA as a system. Currently, the bone of contention between us is in the AESAs capability against a non AESA equipped aircraft.

If you take two radar sets with the same range and TWS, AESA will still give you a distinct advantage. The PESA will give away its position long before the AESA will, combined with a long ranged BVR can mean an instant victory. If still using a medium ranged missile will still give the AESA pilot the innitiative in angle of approach which can be the difference of life and death.

Sure, we can formulate many strategies for it. However, there are so many ways for an inferior fighter to fight back too.

Only because it doesn't fit with your argument. Multi-role planes are just that and you know AESA gives such a huge advantage you don't want to mention it. Countries don't just buy dedicated fighters anymore and AESA makes all the difference in air-to-ground capability.

The Russian version of PAKFA will be an air superiority fighter. I has already been made clear about that. Also, strike capability cannot be used to compare 2 fighters head to head. Simply because F-15C does not have strike does not mean the AESA is superior. With the same logic the F-16 is a far superior bird compared to the F-22 because of its strike capability. So, strike is not a part of the discussion. We are mainly discussing the impact of AESA against a non AESA aircraft, which according to you is a 100% advantage.

The first jet engined plane, Me-242 also never claimed a 100% advantage against older aircraft of the time. A 100% advantage is something like the F-22 against every other bird with a 108 to 1 kill. A 100% advantage should give you an insane advantage vis a vis the F-22, not lesser.

When a pilot can only handle 9 Gs before they blackout, flight performance isn't that important when modern missiles come with a 22 G-load.

Astronauts handle more Gs. French and Indian pilots are known to have experienced more than 11Gs on the Mirage-2000. A missile does 22G simply because of the speed. the radius of turning is very very big for high supersonic missiles. Compared to fighters a missile is like a stationary object. One of the reasons why BVR is not a 100% guaranteed kill. The fighter can always out-maneuver a missile. The missiles only depends on its kinetic energy to guarantee a kill. Same as a Brahmos.

What is far more important is the protective countermeasures your aircraft can employ. Russians have fallen so far in this field MiG-35 has to be installed with Italy's ELT/568(v)2 self-protection jammer and MKI had to take Israel's EL/L-8222 just to make sales to India. MoD is not full of "dunderheads" and know they have to outsource where Russia has fallen behind. You won't be able to do that with PAK FGFA.

Like I said, Russians will not sell counter measures suite to India due to policy. (Hopefully it will change in the future). Mig corp is just showing off their capability to install avionics of multiple countries as a selling point. And it is a very very big selling point. Till date the Russians(and Indians) are the only ones who have managed to successfully integrate avionics of multiple countries that were not originally developed for the program.

We don't need to do that with the PAKFA since we will either develop our own systems or collaborate with Russia on that too.

Pulse-repetition-frequency (PRF) power for PESA radars is far lower than for AESA. Even the advanced PESA Captor is limited in its scan range without raising its intercept quotient. The multiple T/R modules on an AESA allow it to define a very tight , powerful, and narrow beams with such fast scanning that the PESA just cannot match. PESA is limited in software usage since the number of frequencies are on a monopulse planer array AESA can go full range without fear while PESA has to turn down the heat. It is an obsolete technology India has recognised on and even before the RFP for MMRCA was sent out.

Yeah! Yeah! And where is the advantage in a 1v1? According to Gambits, even if your radar can track multiple targets(64+) the pilot will restrict it to 10 or 15 high priority targets. If you have just one target in the air even that advantage disappears. All you spout is some nonsense that has nothing to do with the current discussion. You said a F-15SE will have a 100% advantage against something like the Su-30MKI. How? AESA will not cut it. It is only a radar. Radars don't kill.

Cooling, beams, LPI etc don't matter as much to give a 100% advantage.

Tell that to the MKI pilots who whooped F-15C in Red Flag. Even MiG-21bis was causing them problems. Pit it against an AESA equipped Eagle and the game changes radically.

That was only tactics used by inferior aircraft against superior aircraft. Mind you that you are not talking about Red Flag but Cope India 2004. The Mig-21 managed to get close to a superior F-15C due to the tactics employed. A F-15C can see the Mig-21 a 3m2+ target from very far. But, an inferior aircraft like the bison still managed to get close enough to score kills.

In CI-2004, the most advanced aircraft in the group were the F-15Cs. The second most advanced in the group were the Mig-21 Bisons. The Su-30K (not MKI) had their radars turned off and the Mirage-2000 were not exactly as good as the Bisons. It's all in the tactics. The Man beats Machine.

The advantage here lies in the RCS. Meteor will be one of the best missiles in the world, but it doesn't really matter if the radar doesn't detect the opponent. While a Captor equipped Eurofighter is keeping the power down on their monopulse array, SH has detected and locked it. Or if EF lights up the horizon with radiation, SH will be able to see it even further off and come at the angle of the weakest scan. Either way the AESA has the initiative.

This is assuming SH is a F-22. But, SH is not stealth. It is just another fighter.

F-15SE will be far stealthier than anything with external hardpoints.

And anything with external stores is not stealth.

US has kept guns on their planes ever since Vietnam because gunless F-4s with error prone Sparrow missiles was a bad idea as well as keeping dogfights in aggressor training.

So mistakes in the 60s and 70s is an excuse now. F-22s don't use those vintage Sparrows now do they? And sidewinders are also not required. So, why still develop them for the F-22? And why does the USAF still buy them for the F-22? Heck just go armed with AMRAAMs and finish them all. The guns too. I guess they are for show.

However, modern air combat has shown it is decided well beyond gun range. From Yugoslavia to Iraq, it has been shown the game has changed to missiles, mostly BVR. The only kill Iraq made by Lt. Zuhair Dawood was from a MiG-25 firing a BVRAAM, R-40DT. Dogfights aren't over and you should be prepared and trained to use guns, but it is by far not the norm of modern air combat.

Tactics matter. Technology is just an enabler. If you want to kill you have to kill. The guns and missiles won't kill for you. And 1 kill does not matter in the long run.

The essence of BVR is to shootdown the opponent at beyond visual range. Failure to do so is a the last ditch to merge for a knife fight.

Silly assertion. Fighting Yugoslavia, Iraq and Al Qaeda has fanboys convinced that the Russians, Chinese and Indians fight like donkeys and that only US knows what an Airforce is.

You can't simply have a BVR fight against the MKI and think you will do better in a dog fight. The MKI simply has way more legs, more power, more speed etc to either beat the enemy or run away. And this has nothing to do with AESA.

Economics and technology are invariably linked. Russia's R&D capibility has dropped off drastically as I have already mentioned why, coupled with little money it is a deadend.

Why do you think the Russians no longer have no money? Is it simply because your govt said so? They have more money than France. They are the largest oil exporter in the world, if you did not know. They receive funds from India for R&D too. It may have been true in the 90s and early 2000s. But, not now.

Su-35BM is the attempt to bring a stopgap until PAKFA is ready but more importantly to give the Su-27 the modernisation it needs to stay competitive on the export market. With 15 years without a fighter order, they have no choice but to order it regardless of how many delays come with PAKFA. The Soviet stocks that sit unmodernised aren't even worth it for how old most of them are.

Wrong. The Su-35BM is only meant to capture more of the export market before the arrival of the PAKFA. The old stuff that need to be replaced will be done only after PAKFA development has progressed well. The PAKFA requirement for both IAF and RuAF is unknown. But, it could be a 1000 between them.

Same can be said for you. My opinion based facts of tried and tested Western systems vs your opinion based on Russian fantasy and dreams. It is really a case of reality and fantasy which the West has proven in battle its capabilities while Russia rots in stagnation to the point where they have to import French equipment.

Nothing Western is tried and tested against a worthy adversary. Russia against Georgia, India against Mujahideen, US against Iraq are not worthy adversaries. I would simply call them Kitten Kicking.

Alors, your AESA "facts" are fed by Russian fanboys that think R-77M exists and PESA can hold a candle to AESA. Thats fine that you have such faith in the Russian promises, after watching for years how their MIC can't keep up with the West, their fate is evident.

Yes, yes simply remove P and add an A to ESA and it will do wonders. ROFL!
You have been swallowed up by too much hype.

After watching for years and what? The Americans build the F-15, the Russians build something better called the Flanker. The Americans build the F-16 and the Russians come out with the Mig-29. Till date there is not a single plane that matches the Mig-31. All those Russian dreams and fantasies already exist.

Heck even if your country broke into 15 pieces I doubt you would be as resilient as the Russians have been. Their economy fell by 500% and they are still managing to hold their own.

 

[Armand2REP]

The only Russian component that we have not yet reached an agreement on is the propulsion system. The guidance is our own, seeker ToT has been provided and has been modified in India, the airframe ToT too has been provided. The rest is upto you to nitpick on since you like to do that a lot.

I believe you are mistaken. The MTCR doesn't allow for the transfer of any critical technologies. ToT hype on this missile has been just that.

Deserts and beaches or even the sea provide excellent challenges to any radar system. The logic is the same as "a needle in a haystack." When an object or impurity is introduced into a large homogenous medium, it becomes extremely difficult to track such an object even with the naked eye let alone a machine.

The seeker on an ASM is geared to go after the largest radar return on the horizon. The more complex the software and scanning the wider range of targets can be programmed. A structure standing out in the middle of the desert or on the beach is not going to pose a difficult problem for much of any ASM when it is the only real target on the horizon. When you stick a reflector on it then the acquisition becomes that much easier.

Ask any seaman how difficult it gets to detect and track a ship at sea and you will know? And the sea's radar returns are barely anything compared to the clutter found on dry land.

Sea skimmers are on a limited horizontal search pattern, the objects they are looking for are quite distinct against the horizon which is how they find them. The clutter you are referencing is associated with a top-down search pattern where ground clutter gets in the way. That is far more difficult to differentiate than what a sea skimmer sees.

Since you have proven yourself to be an idi*t I will explain using a graphical representation of the use of the reflectors.

Now you know, maybe.

The flight profile of Brahmos is low/high/low which means once it passes the terminal high flight will hit the deck to seek out its targets. Your graphical representation depicts a high profile in the active phase which is not correct. It is clear from the test video that the missile was coming in on a low approach from the impact angle. The radar reflectors are usually towed by ships to give the impression of two targets hoping the missile will go after that as in this image...

In the tests the reflectors were used to guide Brahmos to its target. For a LACM, this test is useless. It only proves Brahmos is good at going after naval decoys.

Now you know, maybe. Hope you learned something.

India could not opt for Russian equipment because they are not available for export. Russian EW kits is a strict no-no even with India. And can you tell me what are the so called western components in the MKI(barely even 5%). FYI, French components are due to be replaced or are already replaced.

Radar, Engine, Navigation, Communication....all these systems are Russian. The only major equipment used on board is the Israeli Jammer because we don't have access to Russian jammers. The rest are Indian.

Don't have access?

Indian order demanded they were to have foreign components. Russia would much rather sell you their equipment without involving foreign companies. India required Western components because the Russians are obsolete.

There is also a SAGEM GPS T/R module. I wonder why we went to French for the GPS system. Oh! I know, it is because the Russians don't use GPS.

Russians do use GPS, they use dual GLONASS/GPS recievers in their new upgraded nav equipment. The few army units lucky enough to get a nav unit get GPS recievers. GLONASS has been too unreliable to use up to this point. Even Indian MiG-29K is getting Thales Top-Sight helmets as well as Sagem. Looks like their reliance on France isn't going anywhere since they are supposed to be the masters of target cueing systems for helmets. Malaysian Flankers are full of French systems from HUD, NAVFLIR, and Damocles targetting pods. They even added South African systems on top of the Israelis. The Damocles targetting pods will be the new standard for Flanker variants in the future as Russians have bought a license for that.

What a joke! The Catherine Thermals we bought from France melted on the very first day of the T-90 trials. They have since been replaced by Indian BEL made Thermals.

The Catherine's needed to be tropicalised so they didn't fog up which is a far cry from "melting." They work fine now, so much so the Russians are license producing them by the hundreds annually starting next month. They are largely for export for the Indian contract since they only make 60 T-90s per year for themselves. Bharat Electronics doesn't have anything stating the IGMS will be going on the T-90 Bhishma. The press releases go back two years.

BEL - News

Forget Russians, even we will not let the French near the PAKFA. PAKFA will have only Russian and Indian components. What makes you think we will be sourcing western equipment even 10 years later? We are already developing cutting edge technology thanks to the Israelis. We will also commence development of new avionics for the MCA program that will be used in PAKFA too.

Of course India is making great strides for indiginisation with help from Israeli and French ventures. It doesn't mean you will be able to cut out Western hardware in 10 years unless you want to go the way of China. They feel confident enough to cut out their only source of military hardware in Russian imports except for engines; yet I dare say they are not ready for primetime. India may be above China in the technical field, but it doesn't come without assistance from countries far more advanced than China.

Yes they will come through. If they don't we will come through. This is not the 90s.

Did Kaveri come through? Did Shakti come through? Is that why you need Snemeca to help you develop engines? I will be the first to admit India is making some pretty good advancement, I love the NAG, awesome missile, Jaguar upgrades are great too, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. DRDO still has significant problems. It was not only the 90s, but the first decade of 21st century that still sees significant delays in domestic Indian production. That isn't going away in the next ten years either. Defence technology will not wait for you to catch up to it. IAI, Elbit, Thales, Raytheon, they are all continuing development on things India isn't up to par yet.

We don't need your saving grace thank you. We are already replacing French stuff from the MKIs.

So you buy more "French stuff" for MiG-29K... fantastique.

More foolish talk. The Russians have sent more missions to the ISS than the Americans without even a single accident. The Americans have been blowing up shuttles like the Fourth of July.

Russian R&D failure is quite evident when their generals refuse to buy their products calling them "inferior." It is a great boon for French and Israeli defence exports.

Do you have a link or a source? I need a genuine link right from the mouth of a genuine Boeing official.

Brad Jones, F-15SE project manager,

The company is hoping the U.S. government will agree to release a frontal RCS level equivalent to that offered by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “Internationally we are looking for a level playing field,” Jones says.

Boeing Unveils New Stealthy F-15 | AVIATION WEEK

Most of this coming from your notion that the SH and SE are stealth. The Australian public have been harassing the Australian govt simply because they tricked the voters into believing the SH is stealthy. Anything that carries only in external stores is not a stealth plane.

SH isn't really stealth with external hardpoints, but better than any other fourth generation fighter with frontal RCS reduction developed in its inception. It makes a decent stopgap which is exactly what it is intended for. Silent Eagle is a far greater reduction with internal weapon bays. As much as I like Kopp and Goon from Oz, their anti F-35 campaign hasn't done a thing to sway ADF's mind and turned APA from a quality source of information into a speculative and disingenious analysis. Kopp's downfall started when he advocated buying Flankers instead of Super 'Bugs', like that was ever going to happen. It really hit rock bottom when he stooped to the level of giving interviews to Russian state run media to advocate how superior Russia was. I don't consider a couple of angry F-22 fans to constitute any meaningful opinion of Australian voters.

What the heck is several hundred kilometres. The sun is several hundred kilotmetres from the earth. Be more specific or bugger off. When you talk technical there is nothing called several or some or little or any of those stupid assumptions.

Around 300km if MKI is powering up her radar. The only assumption is the hypothetical scenerio you have created for yourself. USN fighters will never be fighting the IAF and MKI will not be going up against such advanced adversaries.

Here is a link that claims the existence of Ramjet missiles in Russia and perhaps India.

Air Force Looks For Long Range (120Kms) BVR Missiles | India Defence
This sudden move has spurred IAF officials to make quick efforts to purchase 120-km range air-to-air missiles. The acquisition of such missiles, which sport ramjet propulsion, will make IAF the lone Air Force in Asia to have such an unparallelled capability, top IAF officials said.

It's a 2007 news.

"Acquisition of these missiles is being undertaken in tandem with moves to induct combat aircraft with active phased array radars."

Alors, those missiles are going to be either Meteor or AIM-120D depending on who wins MMRCA since they are talking about AESA. The mention of Ibris going on MKI is not a reality. India wants AESA, not PESA radars.

You have stated nothing but fanboy fantasy. Nobody shoots a BVR and be assured of a kill. BVR engagement does not deliver 100% results.

Nothing delievers 100% results, that is why you fire two to make sure.

I don't doubt that. But we will see as to how much the Europeans can spend in order to get the AESA on board. Developing is one thing and operationalizing is another.

I never doubted the capability of the AESA as a system. Currently, the bone of contention between us is in the AESAs capability against a non AESA equipped aircraft.

Sure, we can formulate many strategies for it. However, there are so many ways for an inferior fighter to fight back too.

You want to be the one needing to resort to assymetrical tactics like China to defeat a superior technologically advanced adversary, or do you want to be the superior technologically advanced adversary? I think you want to be the later as would I.

The Russian version of PAKFA will be an air superiority fighter. I has already been made clear about that. Also, strike capability cannot be used to compare 2 fighters head to head. Simply because F-15C does not have strike does not mean the AESA is superior. With the same logic the F-16 is a far superior bird compared to the F-22 because of its strike capability. So, strike is not a part of the discussion. We are mainly discussing the impact of AESA against a non AESA aircraft, which according to you is a 100% advantage.

That is what you have turned it into from a topic of straight AESA capability. I have no problem with that since AESA is superior in all operational modes. Lets just not forget people aren't just buying planes to be fighters, they want a multi-role bomber capability just as much as air-superiority.

The first jet engined plane, Me-242 also never claimed a 100% advantage against older aircraft of the time. A 100% advantage is something like the F-22 against every other bird with a 108 to 1 kill. A 100% advantage should give you an insane advantage vis a vis the F-22, not lesser.

Since you have changed this discussion to just air-to-air from multi-role, it will change the margin of advantage, but my comment also includes the F-15SE having superior radar range, TWS and LPI. That is just the AESA advantage. Then you include the above mentioned frontal aspect RCS reduction and it is clear a 100% advantage is there over F-15C. F-22 has nothing to do with my OP.

Astronauts handle more Gs. French and Indian pilots are known to have experienced more than 11Gs on the Mirage-2000. A missile does 22G simply because of the speed. the radius of turning is very very big for high supersonic missiles. Compared to fighters a missile is like a stationary object. One of the reasons why BVR is not a 100% guaranteed kill. The fighter can always out-maneuver a missile. The missiles only depends on its kinetic energy to guarantee a kill. Same as a Brahmos.

It depends on the angle and speed of the missile, but modern BVRAAM's flight envelope will always be greater than the phyical limitations of a piloted aircraft. If the first missile with a 90%+ PK doesn't get them, the universal statistics are the second will.

Like I said, Russians will not sell counter measures suite to India due to policy. (Hopefully it will change in the future). Mig corp is just showing off their capability to install avionics of multiple countries as a selling point. And it is a very very big selling point. Till date the Russians(and Indians) are the only ones who have managed to successfully integrate avionics of multiple countries that were not originally developed for the program.

I don't believe Russia won't sell it. I believe India doesn't want it since Russia doesn't have any problem selling their systems to Algeria and Yemen.

We don't need to do that with the PAKFA since we will either develop our own systems or collaborate with Russia on that too.

You will be collaborating a long time.

Yeah! Yeah! And where is the advantage in a 1v1? According to Gambits, even if your radar can track multiple targets(64+) the pilot will restrict it to 10 or 15 high priority targets. If you have just one target in the air even that advantage disappears. All you spout is some nonsense that has nothing to do with the current discussion. You said a F-15SE will have a 100% advantage against something like the Su-30MKI. How? AESA will not cut it. It is only a radar. Radars don't kill.

Since you find Gambit such a good source, why don't you ask him what he thinks. F-15SE vs Su-30MKI, should be a good reponse.

More to come...