Yes MKI may not have high speed data links but then it was not required as MKI did not had anyone to link up with in IAF. We did not care if MKIs can not link up with NATO AWACS and fighters at that time when whatever IAF had was enough to put their feet into enemy's mouth.
Datalinks have been required since their inception. IAF has been begging for them since time in memorial. Russia doesn't have anything to offer and GoI doesn't want the political football that would come with getting Western datalinks. Such a move would signal India is allying with the West whether they were doing so or not. DRDO has yet to offer an indigenous solution so don't think it is not required. MKI didn't have the foot in the mouth of Red Team according to all available sources, it was in fact the other way around killing Blue Team.
You are not sure whether it included MKI or not so better don't go speculative. MKI's IFF should have served sufficient to avoid friendly fire between MKIs. But i'm still ready to believe, if you bring something which says a blue MKI did shoot down other blue MKI. Waiting!
It doesn't matter if they did or not, the point still remains the high amount of fratricide will occur to IAF forces in war just as they did at Red Flag. The lack of HS datalinks on MKI will not make it compatible with anything new coming into IAF like Phalcon AWACs and the MMRCA. You are missing the importance of situational awareness, it is half the battle.
Believe you or the USAF guy who actually gave birth to "Red Flag and MKI" debate? What Rafale was doing is known to all.
You can believe both as I have denied nothing about Rafale sniffing neutrons, of course they did. They also had time to shoot down six F-16s of the aggressor squadron for only one loss, destroy all ground targets without loss, and have the best performance of any fighter there.
Yes MKI and IAF at that time did not had assets to match with NATO level of SA but it did had enough for whom it matters most. Fratricide has much to do with SA and avoiding it has got very much to do with tactics and mission planing. And chances of IAF fighting as a part of coalition airforce is very minimal. Out goes the complexity, drops the chances of franticides.
No one is talking about IAF flying as part of a coalition but what IAF will face in their own operations. Red Flag is just an example of what WILL happen. MKIs still cannot datalink to a Phalcon or other IAF fighters, or to ground stations so they will have just as bad SA as they did at Red Flag. I highly doubt the mission planning of IAF will surpass that of the experts at Nellis AFB, nor will IAF have the intelligence assets that were provided in mission planning for those simulated missions. Also to note, the Red Flag SAM threat did not include modern SAMs like S-300, Buk-M1, or Aspide-2000. MKIs were shot down by far less ranged or sophisticated threats and they were killed every time.
Mirage upgrade is still hanging in balance, MRCA is still to be bought and no comment on PAK FA, it is generation ahead. Except PAK FA rest look very good on paper but fact of the day is that non of them will be there soon in substantial numbers to help IAF cause. And whenever they will, they will come following MKI MK-3s. So whatever we have on ground is called best and MKI is still the best bet IAF can put against either of the two enemy. And fortunatley our immediate enemy has still to field any equivalent. So be there be a war today or there had been in past, MKI would had and would have enjoyed their feet in their enemy's mouth.
Mirage is a forgone conclusion since squadron numbers have to be maintained. IAF cannot suffer the early retirement of 52 of its best aircraft. The deal would already have been signed if it wasn't for DOFA bungling. MRCA is a forgone conclusion for the same reason, squadron numbers must be maintained as well as new technology must be absorbed. As IAF inducts new fighters, MKI will fall down the totem poll of cutting edge for IAF. It is already obsolete compared to any of the MMRCA and may just have to be replaced as the backbone of IAF. The options for a Russian upgrade to make it comparable does not exist, as already mentioned lack of HS datalinks, also deficiencies include optronics, AESA development and the actual TBO of Russia's uprated engines. As we are finding out, Russian specs for them appear to be bunk from the T-90 to the MiG-35. Exaggerated power output to exaggerated TBOs.
If MKI goes to war in the near future, it will be fighting with an arsenal of R-77s where half suffer from malfunctioning seekers. The US supplied AMRAAMs to PAF will not likely miss. Without the datalinks they will also be shooting down some of their own fighters in any cluttered environment.
IAF must have already selected what datalink it want on its MKI, as well as what datalink it will ask for on Mig-29U and Mirage. Reason behind this is quite understandable considering the fact that integration process of Phalcon with IAF's assets(which includes IAF premier fighter MKI) is already on.
BTW it hardly any matters if IAF selects DRDO datalink or imported one as integration of Phalcon with others is already on.
IAF has been asking datalinks for years... US, Israel and France have been offering them for years. GoI has refused to buy them because they want DRDO to make a common system and avoid the political ramifications of buying a Western set. It does matter if it doesn't select DRDO because the world and Russia will see India actually accepting a link to work with coalition forces. It is a political realignment GoI doesn't want to make. It rather likes sitting on the fence.
Times Now as a source! No comment!!!!!!!!!!!
Try IAF reports of their own missiles regurgitated by TN. No comment on your lack of refutation.
Certain problems are there regarding reliability(which people think are because of poor quality). But at end of the day they are better than copy-cat's and begger's..............People have spoken much about Russians "these are Sub-Humans of europe" etc but at end of the day SA-2 was knocking down Mirages over Sinai and SA-3 knocking "The Grand Invisible Bomber" over Serbia....
They are so great they were better at shooting down their own aircraft than the Georgians got. When casualties of an air war exceed 50% friendly fire, you have a serious problem.
Call it whatever you want, we care less. BTW i had inquired about that triangle and reply was same, be it from DRDO guys or from one Army officer "this is just one glass sheet framed in triangle shape just to show accuracy of missile". If you choose to disagree i don't care. And it seems like Army doesn't care too that is why Army HQ has ordered Block-2 in spite of it carrying DRDO tag.
I know what a radar reflector looks like and it is used every time. DRDO can't fool me but they have you by the nose.
Range vs defined payload of SU-30 MK. MKIs will have better. Note it doesn't talks about drop tanks.
MKI will not have better, it will have worse as the TVC engines weigh more.
Maximum flight range (with rockets, 2xR-27R1, 2xR-73E launched at half distance):
- at sea level, km 1,270
- at height, km 3,000
- with one refuelling (at 1.500 kg fuel remaining), km 5,200
- with two refuellings in flight, km 8,000
Maximum airborne time (pilot-dependent), hours 10
No rockets, just 2 WVRAAM and 2 BVRAAMs that are a total payload of 700kg. It is so inconsequential a payload it might as well be a ferry range.
Get me same on Rafale. I will believe. A request please put range on internal fuel only not with drop tanks.
Why does it have to be on internal fuel? Because MKI don't have drop tanks, an internal ECM, or internal targeting system? All of that has to be carried on pods which Rafale carries internal. Before an MKI can even reach Rafale's basic capabilities it has to load up with 2000kg worth of pods taking 5 hard points. You would need X2 Elta pods, LITENING pod, an APK-8 pod and a Siva pod. You factor all that and MKI doesn't even come close to Rafale's 1000+nm strike radius with all its capabilities internal. Who cares if it needs a couple of tanks when you have 14 hardpoints? Half of the MKIs will used carrying pods.
MKI was always planned as a Multi Role fighter on which multi role capability will be added and enhanced in phase manner. And BTW MKI had in fact actually lead to the writing of new air warfare doctrine for IAF where requirement is for three types of mulirole fighters, each representing its own weight class.
Why would you want three types of multi-role fighters? The very term contradicts itself. I believe that is called an oxymoron. There are 40 MKIs that carry anti-shipping missiles Kh-31A which are being replaced with Brahmos. So that is a naval strike. There are a couple squadrons that carry LITENING pods for LGBs which gives a basic land attack and then all the rest are strictly A2A. It might be fine to take an MKI on a bombing run in uncontested air space, but you really won't if you face Aspide-2000, HQ-7 or S-300. It couldn't even handle the old SAMs at Red Flag so as a bomber, its role is quite limited. MKI will remain the air superiority fighter with the exception of some carrying Brahmos. If MKI ever does get Brahmos as a LACM, it would surely help expand its role but that missile is ungodly heavy at 3000kg. You would never be able to penetrate deeply into Chinese air space with it. 6000kg of Brahmos plus 4X AAMs would burn your fuel so fast you could only get 700km or so after a refuel and add 290km for its range is less than a 1000km strike platform. Rafale can go 1870km with two Scalp plus 4X MICA plus 250km for the standoff for a total penetration range of 2150km. In Rafale's LO strike configuration her RCS is less than 1m^2, an Su-30MKI carrying to honking large Brahmos under her belly will be well over 20m^2, likely 25m^2. No Chinese radar is going to miss that.
Since 1996 IAF opted a doctrine which has space for Muli Role fighters only. And there is little doubt left today that progressively MKI will be upgraded to true multi role capability and project for first 40 is just the beginning.
The upgrade is only to replace the Kh-31A with Brahmos ASMs, there is nothing more multi-role going on with the MKI fleet.
So you are saying that Harpey too do not work? Or just one mole(malfunction) in the report picked by "Times Now" elevated into mountain and shown as an exclusive on "IAF's DUD missiles" is making you say so? Did you noticed reporter speaking "and the missiles had been tested successfully by the Indian Army". Since when Army started operating anti ship URAN missiles? What more, Times Now call IAF missile dud, make an exclusive section on it and at the end of it you have an eminent Indian scientist saying "no body is going to give you what their forces have" and "no matter how brilliant weapon system is, likelihood of its failure always exists".
They never said Harpy had been tested successfully, Russia said Uran had been tested and India was happy, Indian sources inside MoD say it is made of poor quality components and Tactical Missiles refused to comment. The Harpy doesn't work due to failed seekers. Times Now put the former head of DRDO to give an opposing view point because they are more balanced than Faux News. He didn't say anything to contradict the facts, just making excuses of why foreign weapons aren't as good as those of their home armies. Failures always will exist, even more so if you are importing low quality parts. Funny thing is one of the systems portrayed is made by DRDO and quoted as "useless." That report is 1 year old, the latest news on Harpy confirms India only has 5 drones which means the induction is held up do to these faulty seekers.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/India_wants_fleet_of_Israeli_killer_UAVs_999.html
Have too much to say about quality of news from the house of 'Times Group' but for some reasons will refrain myself.
I don't see any problem with the Times Group, they also publish Reuters India, the Times of India and the Economic Times, three quality sources of news. They also have sources inside the government/military as well which most media do not. Just because you do not like the news does not make it false. You are a case of sour grapes.
Complete BS. What reflector you are talking about? And what fooling? IA too have carried out user trials. And if they can not pick out what you called Radar Reflector then who will? IA is not fool. And there is no chance of kickbacks in the procurement of indigenous/JV products because of usual hatred services minus Navy have towards them. In fact scams comes in way to stop home made products from making into services not to take them through back door.
The corner reflectors used on every land target in this video. In one case, the reflector was the ONLY target.
Army did not hate Block-1, it was the best they can have at that time. Only did they asked was for something like PGM version which we know today as Block-2. Above all Army has inducted Block-2 into its artillery regiment not in Missile regiment. It speaks much about facts.
Speaking of facts...
Most advanced version in relative to all models produced before 2010. Well it doesn't stops here, MK-3 is expected to go through complete face lift and MK-3 will be far more advanced than those to be upgraded mid 80s fighters. As well as it will be contemporary to one which IAF is planing to buy.
Doesn't stop until Russia comes into the picture. They do not have the semi-conductor industry to compete with Europe much less USA, they can't even compete with tiny little Israel. Russian upgrade = obsolete ten years ago. You should take your MKIs to Israel, they might be able to do something with it.
Like i said all glass cockpit will be one observable improvement. And DRDO has digital substitute for dial pointers for the purpose of back up.
Like you say, a bunch of inconsequential upgrades... I got that. It doesn't make MKI more up-to-date.
