Know Your 'Rafale'

[patriots]

I have a stupid question........
Though rafale is medium category..

And su 57 is heavy weight

But how rafale and su 57 is compared witj cost performance...
Is it possible to buy su 57 instead of rafale......
As su 57 can be produced by hal......with license

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...t-be-the-best-choice-for-the-indian-air-force

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

I have a stupid question........
Though rafale is medium category..

And su 57 is heavy weight

But how rafale and su 57 is compared witj cost performance...
Is it possible to buy su 57 instead of rafale......
As su 57 can be produced by hal......with license

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...t-be-the-best-choice-for-the-indian-air-force

Russia is not offering TOT for Su57 unlike TOT for Su30 MKI. But Rafale is coming with TOT & indigenous mmanufacturing.

 

[Kchontha]

Better has to be "quantified". Merely better is insufficient What do ou mean by betetr? How can you get better design when already the design is highly computer optimised?

You see, 5th generation differs from 4th generation in terms of stealth and AESA radar, both of which were possible due to advanced computation caused by semiconductor miniaturisation. So, what technology enhancement will be the basis of 6th generation?

Though a little bit old the following source gives a lot clue about the sixth gen concept. Rest assured.

https://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2015/02/americas-sixth-generation-fighters-f-x_18.html

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Defcon 1]

I have a stupid question........
Though rafale is medium category..

And su 57 is heavy weight

But how rafale and su 57 is compared witj cost performance...
Is it possible to buy su 57 instead of rafale......
As su 57 can be produced by hal......with license

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...t-be-the-best-choice-for-the-indian-air-force

That is a future secondary option if LCA Mk2 or AMCA fails. This will never be the primary option since IAF is decidedly looking at medium fighters considering the manpower, maintenance and operational cost requirements of heavy fighters.

As for TOT & indigenous manufacturing, we will get it for Su57 as well if we ask for it, but we aren't going to, for now.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Though a little bit old the following source gives a lot clue about the sixth gen concept. Rest assured.

https://manglermuldoon.blogspot.com/2015/02/americas-sixth-generation-fighters-f-x_18.html

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

GaN radar will not make a plane 6th generation. It will still remain 5th generation with enhanced AESA. GaN functions like GaAs except for melting point. The range increases by 50-60% but operating method is same as GaAs. It will be an upgraded AESA but not enough for 6th generation

All-aspect stealth is impractical as maneuverability needs vertail control surfaces which hinders all aspect stealth and only frontal stealth is feasible

DEW is very impractical as powering 100kW to 150kW weapon on a plane will require enormous power and circuitry, wiring etc which makes it too difficult. Even then, the lasers will need lot of time to burn through skins which will not be available in a high speed fight. Also, focusing on target which is maneuvering is extremely difficult. Even an inch shaking can make laser ineffective.

Autonomous flying is the only thing which can make it 6th generation but even its practicality is in question.

 

[Kchontha]

GaN radar will not make a plane 6th generation. It will still remain 5th generation with enhanced AESA. GaN functions like GaAs except for melting point. The range increases by 50-60% but operating method is same as GaAs. It will be an upgraded AESA but not enough for 6th generation

All-aspect stealth is impractical as maneuverability needs vertail control surfaces which hinders all aspect stealth and only frontal stealth is feasible

DEW is very impractical as powering 100kW to 150kW weapon on a plane will require enormous power and circuitry, wiring etc which makes it too difficult. Even then, the lasers will need lot of time to burn through skins which will not be available in a high speed fight. Also, focusing on target which is maneuvering is extremely difficult. Even an inch shaking can make laser ineffective.

Autonomous flying is the only thing which can make it 6th generation but even its practicality is in question.

GaAn based radar is far better than GaAs based one. That is why US is buying gaAn based radar technology from the Swede. Then there is also radio photonic radar system currently under development in countries such as US and Russia for application to their 6th gen fighters.


Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

GaAn based radar is far better than GaAs based one. That is why US is buying gaAn based radar technology from the Swede. Then there is also radio photonic radar system currently under development in countries such as US and Russia for application to their 6th gen fighters.


Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

Yes, GaN based radar is better but is does not make it th generation. It will need some more advanced technology to make it 6th generation. For example, Su30 PESA radar has excellent range, even over some AESA radars. Still, it is not considered advanced. Similarly, some enhancement in range along can't be criteria for generation advance.

We were talking of 6th generation fighters and there are very little proven technology which can make 6th generation fighter. Most of the 6th generation specification imaginary

 

[asianobserve]

GaN radar will not make a plane 6th generation. It will still remain 5th generation with enhanced AESA. GaN functions like GaAs except for melting point. The range increases by 50-60% but operating method is same as GaAs. It will be an upgraded AESA but not enough for 6th generation

All-aspect stealth is impractical as maneuverability needs vertail control surfaces which hinders all aspect stealth and only frontal stealth is feasible

DEW is very impractical as powering 100kW to 150kW weapon on a plane will require enormous power and circuitry, wiring etc which makes it too difficult. Even then, the lasers will need lot of time to burn through skins which will not be available in a high speed fight. Also, focusing on target which is maneuvering is extremely difficult. Even an inch shaking can make laser ineffective.

The spectre of DEWs on fightets maybe closer than we think.

U.S. Fighter Jets Could Soon Be Armed With Lasers
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a27376996/fighter-jet-laser/

In fact Raytheon already delivered a poded laser for Apache helicopter for testing.

Autonomous flying is the only thing which can make it 6th generation but even its practicality is in question.

The Air Force Is Developing an AI Fighter Pilot
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.engineering.com/amp/18845.html

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

The spectre of DEWs on fightets maybe closer than we think.

U.S. Fighter Jets Could Soon Be Armed With Lasers
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a27376996/fighter-jet-laser/

In fact Raytheon already delivered a poded laser for Apache helicopter for testing.

Firing laser is not a problem. We already have a laser guided bombs. The problem comes when you try to take out enemy missiles with it. Missiles are made to withstand high temperature from Mach 5 speed friction. The laser can at est harm IIR seeker based WVR missiles. But the time to lock will be too low for WVR counter measure. WVR are fired from 20km or less and will hit target in 15 seconds. that is not enough time for locking and laser shooting.

Laser on Apache will anyways have low power as choppers don't have heavy generators. Even laser on planes will not have enough power for one shot kill.

Look at the video:
The laser has to literally point at the exact point for several seconds (which the video has partially edited out) for it to burn through the material. Since drone is slow, this is possible but if the object is fast and maneuverable, the actuator of the laser would not be able to keep up the speed and point at the exact spot.

The Air Force Is Developing an AI Fighter Pilot

Yes, but this is too far away. Replicating human instincts have been very difficult for AI till now.

 

[Armand2REP]

Firing laser is not a problem. We already have a laser guided bombs. The problem comes when you try to take out enemy missiles with it. Missiles are made to withstand high temperature from Mach 5 speed friction. The laser can at est harm IIR seeker based WVR missiles. But the time to lock will be too low for WVR counter measure. WVR are fired from 20km or less and will hit target in 15 seconds. that is not enough time for locking and laser shooting.

Laser on Apache will anyways have low power as choppers don't have heavy generators. Even laser on planes will not have enough power for one shot kill.

Look at the video:
The laser has to literally point at the exact point for several seconds (which the video has partially edited out) for it to burn through the material. Since drone is slow, this is possible but if the object is fast and maneuverable, the actuator of the laser would not be able to keep up the speed and point at the exact spot.


Yes, but this is too far away. Replicating human instincts have been very difficult for AI till now.

A self defence laser is the only one that makes sense with the current range limitation of mobile lasers. If they can mount ATHENA on an aircraft it should be sufficient to protect them from incoming missiles. To shoot a hole in the thin skin of the fuselage would not take long to destroy it as the fuel is highly flammable.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

A self defence laser is the only one that makes sense with the current range limitation of mobile lasers. If they can mount ATHENA on an aircraft it should be sufficient to protect them from incoming missiles. To shoot a hole in the thin skin of the fuselage would not take long to destroy it as the fuel is highly flammable.

The hole in fuselage will not be made like in Star wars laser shots. The laser has to be aimed and fired for several seconds. The problem here is that enemy planes/missiles will not be flying in a straight line. So, at speed of 3-4mach, changing the direction of laser to keep targeting the exact spot is difficult.

 

[Armand2REP]

The hole in fuselage will not be made like in Star wars laser shots. The laser has to be aimed and fired for several seconds. The problem here is that enemy planes/missiles will not be flying in a straight line. So, at speed of 3-4mach, changing the direction of laser to keep targeting the exact spot is difficult.

The process is done at the speed of light, the computer targeting to the laser itself. The whole thing is milliseconds to get a beam on target. To use this laser defence effectively you would turn to evade as most fighters would and hit afterburner, this would give several more seconds for the laser to do its work increasing the closing time of the missile. Four seconds should be enough to burn a hole to the fuel and explode it.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

The process is done at the speed of light, the computer targeting to the laser itself. The whole thing is milliseconds to get a beam on target. To use this laser defence effectively you would turn to evade as most fighters would and hit afterburner, this would give several more seconds for the laser to do its work increasing the closing time of the missile. Four seconds should be enough to burn a hole to the fuel and explode it.

There are 2 questions here:
1) Laser accuracy must be within 10cm to hit missile exactly. At distance of 10km, the angle of 10cm is 0.00006 degree. Do we have actuators which stick out of the airframe and thus have to withstand high air pressure, friction and fluctuation of plane due to turbulence and still have fast and stable actuators which can target with such accuracy?

2) The missiles have speed of 4 Mach and are designed to withstand massive heat which can be generated shile flying at that speed. The warhead, especially has thermal strength of 1000 celsius or so. Can the laser break through such a case easily?

 

[Armand2REP]

There are 2 questions here:
1) Laser accuracy must be within 10cm to hit missile exactly. At distance of 10km, the angle of 10cm is 0.00006 degree. Do we have actuators which stick out of the airframe and thus have to withstand high air pressure, friction and fluctuation of plane due to turbulence and still have fast and stable actuators which can target with such accuracy?

Targeting is the easy part as long as the missile is not doing wild maneuvers. They have already shot down artillery rockets which is the same in principle.

2) The missiles have speed of 4 Mach and are designed to withstand massive heat which can be generated shile flying at that speed. The warhead, especially has thermal strength of 1000 celsius or so. Can the laser break through such a case easily?

The aircraft will be evading at Mach 1 or greater and the missile will be losing energy, as long as it is not Meteor, at Mach 3. The closing speed will be Mach 2. This will give the aircraft 10s+ to put a beam on target. It will not shoot the warhead, it will shoot the missile body to make the fuel explode.

 

[Advaidhya Tiwari]

Targeting is the easy part as long as the missile is not doing wild maneuvers. They have already shot down artillery rockets which is the same in principle.

Targeting from ground is easier as the ground system is fixed. But the system on a plane is moving. So, in addition to movement of missile, it also has to consider the movement, maneuver and turbulence of the plane on which it is fixed. This is the challenge

The aircraft will be evading at Mach 1 or greater and the missile will be losing energy, as long as it is not Meteor, at Mach 3. The closing speed will be Mach 2. This will give the aircraft 10s+ to put a beam on target. It will not shoot the warhead, it will shoot the missile body to make the fuel explode.

When the missile is pointed towards the plane, hitting the body will be difficult. If the body is not directly visible, it can't be hit. WVR/BVR missiles don't have wide wings and big control surfaces to be hit. These missiles are like a tube with small fins

 

[Armand2REP]

Targeting from ground is easier as the ground system is fixed. But the system on a plane is moving. So, in addition to movement of missile, it also has to consider the movement, maneuver and turbulence of the plane on which it is fixed. This is the challenge

We are not talking about Pakistan here, the US knows how to make a tracking algorithm. Not to mention lasers at higher altitude have better range than lasers on the ground due to better atmospheric conditions.

When the missile is pointed towards the plane, hitting the body will be difficult. If the body is not directly visible, it can't be hit. WVR/BVR missiles don't have wide wings and big control surfaces to be hit. These missiles are like a tube with small fins

Are you expecting the actual target to be doing the lasing? NATO aircraft travel in pairs at the very least. One will protect the other and get the off angles to lase it in the center. A strike package of twelve protecting each other could annihilate everything that is shot at it. It will make missiles obsolete.

 

[Kchontha]

Yes, GaN based radar is better but is does not make it th generation. It will need some more advanced technology to make it 6th generation. For example, Su30 PESA radar has excellent range, even over some AESA radars. Still, it is not considered advanced. Similarly, some enhancement in range along can't be criteria for generation advance.

We were talking of 6th generation fighters and there are very little proven technology which can make 6th generation fighter. Most of the 6th generation specification imaginary

Agreed we are talking about 6th gen. however, you can't compare su30 with f22 or 35 since they are a gen apart. A fifth gen aircraft wasn't properly defined when f22 was in conceptualised stage called as advance tactical fighter (atf) or senior sky or yf22. Similarly, a sixth gen fighter is not properly defined since it is in conceptualisation stage, therefore scaf, USN next gen air dominance programme (F-xx), USAF penetrating counter air etc etc are not properly defined. It will come into picture when it flies in 2030-35 timelibes. In addition to that Russian has their own concept of a sixth gen aircraft in the form of mig41. Their definition of 5th or 6th is quite difference from the western counterparts. All the above explain that there is no universally agreed upon definition of a sixth gen aircraft until n unless definitive bird came into being.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

 

[BON PLAN]

I have a stupid question........
Though rafale is medium category..

And su 57 is heavy weight

But how rafale and su 57 is compared witj cost performance...
Is it possible to buy su 57 instead of rafale......
As su 57 can be produced by hal......with license

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/a...t-be-the-best-choice-for-the-indian-air-force

I don't think Sukhoi knows exactly the Su57 price yet, as the plane is not fully developped.
So it's a little bit early to compare.
Russian jets were and are cheaper to purchase than west ones, but were and are also expensive to operate. Add to that a poorer disponibility. It's not easy to compare.

And comparing a heavy fighter to a low medium one (Rafale is a 10T jet, when a SH18 also in the medium cat is 14T) is not fair.

 

[Armand2REP]

I don't think Sukhoi knows exactly the Su57 price yet, as the plane is not fully developped.

They were talking about 170 billion RUB for 76 which makes it cheaper than a JF-17.

 

[BON PLAN]

They were talking about 170 billion RUB for 76 which makes it cheaper than a JF-17.

LOL.
Take me 12