Do tell me which exercise did Su-30 MKI get slaughtered, I would be glad to know it,
The Exercise against Eurofighters, am not even talking abt those, about Garuda V there were already some debates as to how the Rafales were humped by Su-30 MKI in WVR fights, but they were beaten in BVR and some give reason that Su-30 MKI were not allowed to simulate their long range missiles at the range that they are capable of.
So that means in WVR, Su-.30 MKI is way better than Rafale and/or Indian pilots are better trained then the French ones.
Su-30 MKI has a BARS radar, which is quite capable, so just a point, why have the french invested in AESA radar when Radar is la problem as you said? So Dassault is a stupid company as per you, correct?
BTW do post credible links about Su-30 MKI being slaughtered during Red flag exercises.
Of course I am serious. Every exercise MKI partakes it gets slaughtered in BVR and by SAMs. Garuda V results were never known so you must be talking about the claims against Eurofighter which were rejected by the British pilots. MKI isn't survivable because it has RCS bigger than a bus, shines a spotlight of a radar telling all of its enemies where it is, has a deficient RWR and no MAWs. The results of Red Flag clearly demonstrated its lack of survivability in the strike role being slaughtered by outdated SAM systems.
YES it does, The French were just playing weekend soldiers very much the same American National Guard is, rather the French were just there to "avenge" the hit on Paris, but they had no clue how to go about it.
Now many of you French have highlighted how strong the French are,. The Aircraft Carriers, Rafales, Mirage 2000 and how you single handedly defeated Libya, So what happened in Syria? Libya had stronger forces than ISIS so where did your camel sneeze? For a year you were in Syria and IS was being stronger,. So that does lead people to realise that French were present only as Token, they did not really want to play an active part. What would they be getting? It was all expense and no benefit., But on the other hand, the Russians were invited by Syria, who is also an ally and purchases Russian weapons, so the Russians came with a determination to defeat anti Syria forces. and they conducted in a month more strikes than the French did in last 6 months and changed the tide of conflict. The Russians were effective and had a plan, the French were there just because they were pushed to get into Syria, a political requirement for French people.
Is that supposed to mean something?
Actuall the problem is with French and Americans, technically you are in cluster Fck. Everyone in your team is enemy of other.. Turkey, YPG, FSA.,.there are few groups which are anti assad and pro IS and they are in the group too. On other hand the Russians are most clear, anyone Anti Assad is an enemy. And actually after the Russians entered the conflict there was true progress of defeat of IS. If the French feel that US were inefficient, you had the reason to lead, after all you were there to avenge the attack on Paris. So the Americans were able to rein in French poodle?
Russia hasn't been doing much of anything against ISIS. They have been focusing on the FSA. The lack of progress has less to do with airstrikes and more on the inefficiency of US lead Iraqi Security Forces.
Every fighter plane is an MRCA all it needs is the right avionics. and of course pylons to carry the load.
It is the French trying to pimp the word "omni role" to just try to get Rafale to sell nothing else. It is true that planes like Su-30 MKI, MiG-29 and also F-15 were designed as air superiority planes, but each of these planes has the avionics, and weapons for it to conduct most roles For example Su-30 MKI can handle air dominance, A2G, A2Sh and various other roles including Deep Strike, thanks to missiles like Brahmos, So if a plane that can carry out all these roles with excellence, its a Polyrole Combat plane, and no need to use the French pimped term like Omni role, which also means Multi role. Do see the list of missiles that are approved and available for Su-30 MKI first.
Why would it mean that? Rafale is omni-role, MKI is not.
You are actually answeing the point what I was saying, That todays generation planes need not get too close to target, they get to use it from Stand off range. That is the beauty of it, I never said Rafale was bad, I just said Su-30 MKI is more better. Well why would French use AASM, one of the reason might be money. The French govt is trying to have budget cuts and trying to save money. That is one of the reason for many of developments
a) France does not implent CFTS but prefers the planes to have just Drop tanks
b) Meteor which French are touting so much , France even doesnt want to use it themselves, They dont have any active conflict for which they need this missile
c) HMS. this is good for cueing missile for WVR combat, but the french have no plan for that. because of budget.
So the good answer is budget and thats why you use AASM .
Because SCALP extends the strike range by 500km and completes it strategic bomber requirements. If Rafale was so bad why would it forgo using ARMs an instead use AASM for SEAD? It is that good is why.
There is one Red Flag I do remember where Su-30 MKI and Rafale did participate and its quoted too,
IAF pilots were focusing on their mission and did well. and the french Rafales seems least interested to do any missions but seems kept following Su-30 MKI all over to try and to sniff the avionics to develop their libraries.
If the French are not really going to participate and just keep chasing someone to learn their avionics secrets then surely they are not going to be shot down, Non competing participants are not shot, just ignored.
MiG-29 is not and was not designed as deep strike plane, but any role like A2A, A2G and A2Sh, it can handle. and it is doing so with competence.
Like I said , the French were not really participating, they were just trying to lean the radar mods of Su-30 MKI. so why would they be shot down?
MiG-29 doesn't have the range for deep strike. MKI has the range but it would be detected and intercepted before it got anywhere close to its target. Even if you used large numbers of aircraft in a strike package it would still be highly vulnerable to SAMs as demonstrated at Red Flag. Rafale in the same exercise didn't lose a single aircraft on its strike missions.
Already the "deficiencies" that you talk, have been discussed and IAF now is on same page as MoD. Perhaps you did not get that., Whatever IAF wants would be there in India specific Su-57 which will be Su-57 MKI or what we call FGFA. It would have item 30 engine, and some avionics from Israel and France . The French are trying to push IAF to try and demand 36 more planes and IAF is giving presentation to buy 36 more as the cost would be cheaper, but at present the GoI is refusing to do anything as the option for more planes will be open way beyong 2019 so there is no hurry.
According to the IAF the Su-57 suffers from 43 critical deficiencies which is why it is unable to recommend its purchase and instead recommends further purchase of Rafale.
