We have a 6th gen bomber programme, it is called NEURON.
That's just a small stealth UCAV. It is not a 6th gen program. Heck even we have one. Russia is reported to have one. They had the old SKAT anyway.
We have heard the same old story for the last 13 years... where is the upgraded VVS?
Read up on what gadeshi has been posting all along.
Tactical Missile Corp sells three versions of R-27...
Yes, the seekers come from Russia.
Kind of hard when its max range is 30km head on... which is 20km from point A to B.
30 Km head on is plenty to call it BVR. MICA is 50 Km head on. It is slightly larger.
Yup, they call R-73 a BVR missile.
Why? Tactical Missile Corp has a nice synopsis on their product page.
So read that. Just pointing out that there are 6 versions of R-27. 3 of them are in the same class as MICA and 3 exceed that class.
That was two years ago... where is it today?
MRCA deal was 7 years ago. Where is it today? Give it time since IAF is negotiating the contract.
30km head on vs 70km head on at Mach 2.5 to our Mach 4... how is that similar?
Apples and oranges. MICA's speed and range reduce to 15-20 Km and mach 1.2 at sea level.
Russians of course, MICA has a shelf life of 25 years.
Exactly. It means for every one MICA purchased, the Russians and even Americans have to purchase at least 1.5 missiles to match the life. At the same time, Russian and American versions are upgraded within that 12 years for better range and maneuverability performance. That's why there are various range versions for both Aim-120 and R-77 while there is really only one version of MICA with range performance equal to early R-77 and Aim-120 builds.
Anyway, MICA air to air version has a 18-20 year shelf-life compared to MICA-VL.
Yes, they were invented in WWII and quite obsolete. It requires the aircraft to stay within LOS of the missile and a danger to the aircraft. The F&F weapons of today are far more accurate and safe with large stand-off ranges.
Regardless, they are still relevant. 4-7m CEP is greater than AASM's decametric (10m CEP) GPS guided versions.
The IR version comes with 1m CEP which dwarfs KAB accuracy and does it at far greater range with F&F capability. Russian strike weapons place its aircraft at high risk of interception.
Wrong. IIR version comes with 3m CEP. It is the LGB version that comes with 1m CEP.
I wouldn't disagree about range because AASM comes with a very expensive rocket booster. Regardless, Russian missiles are quite cheap while come with greater range and can carry a wide range of warheads.
Russia's sat guided KAB requires a low altitude drop below 15,000ft. Their LGB seekers are rudimentary and do not give stand-off ranges. Comparing Russian bombs to AASM is like comparing Nintendo to the PS4.
You are comparing 1980s versions with your post 2000s AASM. Tickles my funny bone.
Of course, IAF is not stupid.
It has more to do with the laws of economics than laws of physics. It makes no sense for IAF to integrate Russian weapons when even Israeli weapons are available with all the integration software all ready today. Don't tell me Rafale does not carry Paveways. Paveways are plenty for the job for low value targets and French AASMs for high value targets and with Russian missiles for SEAD.
Heck, AASM is expected to cost $250,000 each. One KH-31 costs just twice that and can shut down an entire SAM site from stand off ranges. Paveways cost $20,000.
Anything that has propulsion is a missile. You are the one talking about bombs.
Semantics. What range does AASM give, 15-50 Km depending on launch height. KH-31 comes with 100+ to 250 Km depending on launch height and even speed.
A rocket propelled grenade is not a missile.
I don't consider ARMs as strike weapons as they only engage one type of target, but if you want to call it such then touchÃ©.
That's the point. Without radar you can't fire missiles. Take out the radar and the SAM site keels over. For this mission, taking out that one target is plenty.
You may not consider ARMs as strike weapons, but please spare IAF, VVS and USAF from your gyan.
Google ARM and SEAD together.
Our equivalent of the Kh-55 is ASMP for that purpose, or SCALP Naval for the cruise type. We make strike missiles over Mach 3 and cruise missiles over 1000km range and both are more accurate.
KH-55 comes in multiple version with ranges of 150 Km to 3000 Km. Nope. SCALP is not an equivalent. 30 or 60 minutes flight time don't give the aircraft any capability against radar systems which can pack up in 5-10 minutes.
ASMP is something else. KH-55 is not an equivalent. Brahmos and KH-31 are better equivalents. But ASMP is very expensive and earmarked for nuke delivery. So it is pointless to compare as far as roles are concerned.
It says Russian industry reveals, but it is Russia seeking a deal with Dassault. Russia is free to seek as much as it wants. Dassault won't even bother to comment on it.
Regardless, it is IAF who want this system. Russian industry reveals because it is their product. Duh. Russia has to sign a deal with France for the integration to happen. What do you think India will do when Rafale belongs to France and KH-31 to Russia?
When Catherines were added on T-90s, the deal happened between France and Russia. India isn't part of that negotiation process.
Uh... who said anything about moving targets? It is a strike weapon. If an S-400 battery is in the process of being moved after launch it is a tactical error by their operator. It takes more than 20 minutes to tear down its radar mast anyways. If they did that, an ARM wouldn't have a chance of hitting it if it isn't transmitting.
Lol. Once a radar is picked up, the KH-31 has guaranteed information that it should simply keep going. The radar does not have to keep transmitting for KH-31 to continue its course.
It doesn't take 20 minutes for any S-400 radar system. The advertised time is 5 minutes for deployment and pack up. That's why KH-31 finishes its entire journey in 3.
Google HARM and ALARM and figure out why they have supersonic speeds.
Yeah, sure it is. US Navy says it is less than AASM range.
Apples to oranges. US was sold a downgraded 50 Km version of the missile, not the ARM version. Barely 10-15 Km at sea level. Remember MICA's range? Is is the same thing here. Missiles will deliver lesser performance at sea level.
IAF has 110+ Km version and latest export version is 250 Km.
Tactical Missiles Corporation JSC
SCALP is stealth cruise missile with 1m CEP. If the target doesn't move within 20 minutes, it is dead.
SCALP's RCS doesn't matter. The radar is packing up, remember? The target personnel have to be complete idiots if they stay there beyond 15 minutes after having packed their radar in 5.
SCALP is too slow anyway. The secondary and tertiary ground defense systems will take it out before it even closes in to the SAM site. Sorry, you need a high-supersonic missile for the job.
Hahaha... I have some interesting reading about that...
So much for Russian radar.
It is called physics. Even your thermal guided missiles will be useless in these conditions.
Anyway, that's not reliable information when the source is not named. Even if it were, it does not take away the fact that this issue does not affect us in our MKIs.
It only compounds the point Russia has horrible stand-off strike capability coupled with poor recon assets.
Google their recon capability.
No No! Already debunked above...
So, are you saying IAF is not buying R-27s? You have a funny definition for debunked.
France has the advantage in every aspect of strike. The first and most important step to a successful strike is target ID. As demonstrated on the Su-34, its SAR radar was incapable of detecting targets through ground clutter.
There is nothing called W-141 on Su-34. So, there goes your claim.
Russia has contracted with Thales to provide Domacles so they can have a decent targeting pod UMOZ has been unable to deliver.
The Russians are smart. They simply bought existing technology for their current aircraft in a competitive tender and are bettering the capability on PAKFA by placing pods and ground strike radars internally instead of carrying pods.
Heck even the Americans license produce Israeli pods. Big deal. Let the kids deliver the small stuff.
You want to spout non-sense of a Kh-31P guiding aircraft having superior capabilities over Rafale's Spectra suite to ID targets when there is nothing, and i mean NOTHING in the VVS that comes close. Not to mention AREOS is decades beyond Russian surveillance. France owns Russia on the digital battlefield.
Don't get carried away by the hype. Spectra is simply a self-protection system. What you need for SEAD is Growler like capability from multiple aircraft if you want to beat multiple double digit SAM sites. Google SAP-14 and see what in France comes close to it.
Spectra is great and all, but it is just an escort jammer. What you really need are standoff jammers and that's what was missing during Libya and Mali. Remember the Americans said they will have to provide Growlers for the strike missions, but the French waived it off saying it is not required. The real fact is France wasn't facing double digit SAMs. So, standoff capability wasn't really required against 1970 systems. Rafales could close-in on SAM sites without major issues and release AASMs. Gambit also pointed out the same thing. Spectra only refines the signal emissions using AESA, basically it does what every other internal jammer in the world does. The only thing special about it is that it is newer and was developed in the void when Russia and US had older but potent already developed systems. Now, both US and Russia have started developing newer systems under new large projects while France can do nothing but upgrade older systems.
So, come back once you have a SAP-14 or greater.
In India's case Rafale strike missions will be backed by MKIs in standoff jamming roles, so it is a good thing for us. So a Rafale with KH-31 and its low altitude performance, low RCS advantage and MKI with SAP-14 with its high altitude performance and large radar is a major SEAD capability to have. Who's complaining here, except you?