[Kuldeep31]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Dear Brothers,



Beyond Visual Range Missiles & the whole dialogue around their usefulness. also for those readers who are not aviation buffs or pilots a little precise on what is a BVR missile and why is Meteor on top and who else is.



Wikipedia is a wonderful source to read on the biology of an organism; not quite balanced or complete on topics of history and often unbalanced on topics of weapons, aircrafts, missiles etc. The data isn't fudged but the context of the parameter isn't stated. Range and warhead size are the two most fudged data points on W. And these have in all probability been written in by company executives or their consultants onto W. Also when we read about comparable aircraft in the general news it is God awfully childish written as it is by journalists typing off a colour brochure.

Wonderfully put together sir. To start with, people following defence updates will remember that starting from 2017-2018 the range of Meteor was reduced drastically by different websites (including MBDA) and Wikipedia. The maximum range for Meteor was quoted to be around 100-120 kms with a NEZ of 60-65 kms by these websites. I still feel the actual range to be around 250 kms with a NEZ of 90kms. Why:
Meteor is a ramjet missile unlike regular BVR missiles like Astra, R-77,AMRAAM, PL-15. These regular BVRs employ solid rocket motors &/ or pulsed rocket motor.
Now Meteor has a Ramjet engine that does not have to carry any oxidiser unlike regular BVRs. The regular BVRs carry both fuel and oxidiser where the oxidiser is way heavier. 1 gram of jet fuel needs around 3.5 grams of oxidiser to properly burn the fuel. In a ramjet there is no need to carry the oxidiser (the heavier component), as they are air-breathing, giving them a longer range on the same amount of fuel. Additionally the extra air that gets pulled along increases the potential reaction mass thereby enhancing propulsive efficiency.
If we look at Astra (single stage solid fuel prop), the range and mass are 110 kms and 154 kgs respectively. Now the mass of Meteor is 190kgs which is around 36 kgs more.
So when I see the claimed range of Meteor to be ~100 kms I get the feeling that certain unknown MTCR protocols are being abided by MBDA and for reasons that are best left unknown, IAF is heavily banking on Meteor and Rafale to fight the attrition of squadron strength.
Regards

[gb97ce6]

I think no other defense acquisition has garnered so much national interest in the recent past. Not sure whether one should be happy about getting one of the best fighter jets or the fact that we are still several generations behind when it comes to cutting edge technology and are nowhere close to even re engineering systems, much less innovating and perfecting them. That said, I think the govt has made a sensible decision for various reasons.

1. There is no point in buying more MiGs and Sukhois. The Chinese have pretty much the same hardware, albeit in much larger numbers. They know these Russian fighters inside out and have basically copied the same for many of their J platforms. More importantly, they have run these fighters in circles around their best ground based radars and AWACS available to them in every possible frequency. This treasure trove of data makes our Russian fighters pretty much useless against China.

This was one of the main reasons why the US has pushed Turkey out of the F-35 program once Turkey signed up for the S-400 system. Likewise, during joint exercises between the US and India, for example, the radars are switched off on fighters to avoid giving away too much information. Choosing the F-21 aka the renamed F-16 was an option with so much pressure coming from our American friends but again, Pak has pretty much the same or could easily upgrade its current fleet to Indian standards.


In the case of a war with China, it might come to a war of attrition between IAF and PLAAF since neither can dominate the other with almost same Russian machinery and China, with sheer numbers on its side will eventually prevail. Here is where the Rafales come in and just a few squadrons of Rafales with the IAF will change this equation to a large extent. They will help us dominate in whatever sectors they are meant to guard.

2. The Western avionics are vastly superior to the russian ones, and this is a known fact. WW2 type visual range fights with fighters flying right and left can only be seen on movies. The current and future theaters of war will be played beyond the visual range and hence whichever side has the best sub systems and air-air missiles that can take out the enemy in BVR mode will come out alive. As such, Rafael has one of the best air to air missile and will strike fear in to the hearts of opposing air forces for a long time to come.


3. IAF has a very favorable view of its Mirage fighters, especially with their high availability. The fact that we lost a few Russian fighters during the Kargil war after which the Mirages came in should not be taken lightly. In the recent past, we shelled out almost $3B to buy their scorpene submarines which adds another dimension to our relationship with the French military-industrial complex.

4. Army gets a lion's share of defense outlays, but the fact is, air power decides the outcome of modern warfare. This has been proven many times especially in the last few decades by the Israelis and Americans. Whether the war is short or long, most land assets including border posts, command posts, radar stations, air fields, bridges, etc etc will be pulverised within a few hours of combat. The Chinese have a huge advantage when it comes to fire power. We simply cannot match them. However having a highly superior air force can change this. It is not a coincidence that we have started purchasing Apaches, Chinooks, C-17s, C-130s, P-8s, SH-60s etc., all from the American stables. The tilt is clearly in favor of superior technology. IAF no longer believes in numbers alone as it is no longer a numbers game and rightly so. China will beat us to pulp if we play the numbers game. Rafale is a good start, in fact it is a great start in the right directions.

There are many more factors at play but sadly, having Rafales will not stop China from moving the LAC by force. Neither can it change the mindset of the Indian govt that deliberately confuses and some times hides the facts on the ground. Oh well, lets stick to the topic.

[Car Fan]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Attachment 2038378Bharat Rakshak
1957. In the late 1950s we wanted to acquire the British Hawker Hunter which was the definitive fighter world wide in the pre-supersonic era. The British said no. Dassault offered us the French Dassault Mystere IV which was the best transonic fighter they had. Top speed 1110 kmph; climb rate 40 metres/second; combat radius ~600 kms with drop tanks; weapon payload ~1000 kgs

This point isn't correct, the Hawker Hunter joined IAF service a little prior to the Mystère IV. In the 1960s, the IAF ordered the MiG-21 because the equivalent English Electric Lightning wasn't available. Perhaps that's what you are thinking of?

In any case, thanks for this detailed and interesting write up.

[locusjag]

I didn't see (or did miss?) any mention of the superior availability rates of French aircraft. Russian aircraft often have abysmal availability rates (as low as ~30% with the Mig 29Ks of the Indian Navy, until Shri.Parikkar stepped in and improved it).

36 Rafales might seem low on paper. But rest assured that - assuming a 80% availability between overhauls etc. - 28 aircraft will be available to the IAF at any given time. How did I pull this 80% figure out of my hat? The Ministry of Defence has a 5 year guaranteed 75% availability rate as a KRA of the contract with Dassault. I assume that the Rafales will do better than the minimum expectation of 75% and fare at ~80% availability.

On the other hand - if 36 Russian aircraft were ordered instead of Rafales - assuming an optimistic availability rate of 60% (which is a lot for Russian made aircraft) - only 21 aircraft would be available to the IAF at any given time. With a more realistic 40% availability, only 14 of the 36 Russian aircraft would be operable!

Disclaimer: I'm fishing for further information from the experts here. Operations is an oft-overlooked aspect of fighter fleets. I'd be glad to be corrected of any misconceptions that I have.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Car Fan

This point isn't correct, the Hawker Hunter joined IAF service a little prior to the Mystère IV. In the 1960s, the IAF ordered the MiG-21 because the equivalent English Electric Lightning wasn't available. Perhaps that's what you are thinking of?

In any case, thanks for this detailed and interesting write up.

Thank you for sharing your point of view. I will admit my knowledge is anecdotal and not something I've read. A relative of mine from the earlier generation was the IAF officer who led the selection and technical part of the deal closure of the Ouragan over 1951-53. They arrived in '53. In 1953 we asked the British for the Hunter which frankly was the aircraft of its times. A pre-production Hunter had set the world speed record for its day! When the British initially refused for whatever geo-political, military or commercial reason Dassault jumped in with the Mystere IV which was a competent but lesser aircraft and as the price was attractive we took it. Seeing one of its potentially largest Commonwealth customers gliding away the UK Govt relented and worked at double quick speed and a deal was signed in 1954 and both aircraft were delivered in 1957. Rationally speaking the Hunter was so far ahead of the Mystere IV there was no logic for acquiring it. Now this is all heresay from the old man in the 1990s a quarter century after he had retired.

I would be pleased to learn more and get clearer data. Thank you for reading the article.

[Turbo_anup]

I can think of few reasons wherein the development as well as operational cycle of most of the fighter aircrafts is now in decades -

- Economy - the effort, time and resources taken to develop a n aircraft system (even with expertise) is huge and generally prohibitive. Hecen, generally we have incremental updates like SU 27 to Su 30 or KA 50 to KA 52 (Hokum), AH 64 D to E

- Current Geo Politics - Most of the innovation as well as fighter aircraft equipments can in one way or the other trace back the roots to either World War II or the Cold war. It was just the necessity and geo-politics of the time that necessiated fast development and deployment of warfare systems. We can also look at missile development in those years spanning from 1940's V2 Rocket to ICBMs in 1970's and onward. Further, now-a-day the new weapon in war is Economics.

- Operational Cost - Development and induction of new warfare system is ok, but the operational cost of maintaining, logistics and training is totally another ball game.

[Car Fan]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank you for sharing your point of view. I will admit my knowledge is anecdotal and not something I've read. A relative of mine from the earlier generation was the IAF officer who led the selection and technical part of the deal closure of the Ouragan over 1951-53. They arrived in '53. In 1953 we asked the British for the Hunter which frankly was the aircraft of its times. A pre-production Hunter had set the world speed record for its day! When the British initially refused for whatever geo-political, military or commercial reason Dassault jumped in with the Mystere IV which was a competent but lesser aircraft and as the price was attractive we took it. Seeing one of its potentially largest Commonwealth customers gliding away the UK Govt relented and worked at double quick speed and a deal was signed in 1954 and both aircraft were delivered in 1957. Rationally speaking the Hunter was so far ahead of the Mystere IV there was no logic for acquiring it. Now this is all heresay from the old man in the 1990s a quarter century after he had retired.

I would be pleased to learn more and get clearer data. Thank you for reading the article.

That's a more feasible story, and I am sure your relative would have got the story right. I was just responding to your original post that said that the British denied us the Hunter "in the late 1950s", since the Hunter had entered service with No 7 Squadron in 1957. That's all

Originally Posted by locusjag

I didn't see (or did miss?) any mention of the superior availability rates of French aircraft. Russian aircraft often have abysmal availability rates (as low as ~30% with the Mig 29Ks of the Indian Navy, until Shri.Parikkar stepped in and improved it).

36 Rafales might seem low on paper. But rest assured that - assuming a 80% availability between overhauls etc. - 28 aircraft will be available to the IAF at any given time. How did I pull this 80% figure out of my hat? The Ministry of Defence has a 5 year guaranteed 75% availability rate as a KRA of the contract with Dassault. I assume that the Rafales will do better than the minimum expectation of 75% and fare at ~80% availability.

On the other hand - if 36 Russian aircraft were ordered instead of Rafales - assuming an optimistic availability rate of 60% (which is a lot for Russian made aircraft) - only 21 aircraft would be available to the IAF at any given time. With a more realistic 40% availability, only 14 of the 36 Russian aircraft would be operable!

Disclaimer: I'm fishing for further information from the experts here. Operations is an oft-overlooked aspect of fighter fleets. I'd be glad to be corrected of any misconceptions that I have.

There is no doubt that Western aircraft have higher serviceability than Russian aircraft in IAF service. However, the Su-30MKI which is a mainstay had a 60% in 2009 and 2010, the last years analysed in the 2015 CAG report. That's not fantastic, but it's not as bad as the naval Mig-29K. Remember the IAF has ordered 33 additional Mig-29s and Su-30s, close to the Rafale number, following the Chinese incursion.

Unfortunately we have no idea what the current situation is regarding serviceability since no CAG reports are available for the post-2014 period that look at this specific question.

[vibbs]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Dear Brothers,

Thank you for going through the photo essay and offering your kind compliments which I graciously accept.
.

Thank you for starting this thread. Your posts are always a treat to read. Crisp, factual, to the point and not afraid to call a spade, spade when needed. This thread is a treasure trove on a topic that has received so much traction over the last few months. The talk is usually hyperbole on the either side depending which side you hear it from. In such times, it is pleasing to read a very balanced view point based on facts.

I have no doubts that Rafale is a good buy. I have only one question though. All said and done, this was something which was developed years back. For more than two decades, we have ourselves not bought anything substantial. While HAL has made some developments, is it not high time that we should really focus on indigenous development of these assets? The west is advanced, but I am still amazed that we are so much behind them despite the huge demographic advantage and a big enough defence budget. I hope our governments really have the drive to set up world class research and development facilities to develop in this regard.

[Red Liner]

Originally Posted by vibbs

The west is advanced, but I am still amazed that we are so much behind them despite the huge demographic advantage and a big enough defence budget. I hope our governments really have the drive to set up world class research and development facilities to develop in this regard.

Unless the HAL gets leaders like Dr Homi bhabha, Dr Abdul Kalam, and Dr Sivan Sirs respectfully, absolutely nothing will change. Politicians or governments alone cannot make things happen. We need a visionary, a dreamer, and an achiever at the helm of an organisation like HAL to truly make the next generation quantum leap in stealth air tech.

Dirty Dan is right, and we must ask ourselves: if we can send space craft to the moon and Mars at a tenth of what it would cost the west and do it successfully, why is our defence tech so Relatively weak. Narayan sir, maybe this is a good topic for a new thread which I would request for you to start and guide the discussions therein. I would be very interested in learning more.

[styx71]

Originally Posted by Kuldeep31

Meteor is a ramjet missile unlike regular BVR missiles like Astra, R-77,AMRAAM, PL-15. These regular BVRs employ solid rocket motors &/ or pulsed rocket motor.

I believe the R-77-PD and the K-77ME variants of the R-77 use ramjets as well.

From an actual range perspective, I am not sure if we will ever get to know the accurate/real numbers - considering these are all classified military information. How effective these are, is something one on take it from what the manufacturers, operators or for that matter adversaries (trying to downplay it) claim.

[R2D2]

@V.Narayan ji, tons of respect to you and your contributions. Thanks for another amazing thread. Being a military brat I believe in Roosevelt's saying "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" When it comes to our neighbours that's the only thing they understand.

[DrPriyankT]

Originally Posted by Red Liner

Unless the HAL gets leaders like Dr Homi bhabha, Dr Abdul Kalam, and Dr Sivan Sirs respectfully, absolutely nothing will change. Politicians or governments alone cannot make things happen. We need a visionary, a dreamer, and an achiever at the helm of an organisation like HAL to truly make the next generation quantum leap in stealth air tech.

Dirty Dan is right, and we must ask ourselves: if we can send space craft to the moon and Mars at a tenth of what it would cost the west and do it successfully, why is our defence tech so Relatively weak. Narayan sir, maybe this is a good topic for a new thread which I would request for you to start and guide the discussions therein. I would be very interested in learning more.

Sir, we are very much ahead in the space technology field, as IMHO, here the producer, manufacturer and end user of the equipment is the same i.e ISRO. However, they too haven't had it all easy. The development of the desi cryogenic engine was an arduous uphill task which took us almost 20 years, after the Americans stopped the Russians from helping us in development of said engine. The false accusations against ISRO scientist Dr. Nambi Narayanan also did us no good. The path of GSLV's launch success was also riddled with failures. However, the major difference between our development of space tech and defence tech. As I mentioned above, ISRO doesn't have multiple agencies developing and manufacturing technology for them unlike IAF which has had to liaison with DRDO, ADA and HAL for development of the Tejas. This can lead to multiple roadblocks in development. It sort of becomes a too many cooks spoils the broth situation, whereby the DRDO develops something, and the IAF ends up wanting something else, and vice-versa. It thankfully has exited development hell for now. Even though I am big votary of the desi Tejas programme, I harshly criticize the sheer amount of time taken to develop it. Surely the post pokhran sanctions stalled its development, however, a development period slightly north of 3 decades is honestly condemnable. The IAF, Army and DRDO need to develop the kind of co-ordination the Indian Navy has with the DRDO and various dockyards, for project timelines to be reasonable.

However, the development of the Tejas, will surely provide a critical mass to development of newer planes, as it has provided us with a wealth of knowledge for critical aviation technologies no nation would be willing to share. I sincerely hope to see India develop a good gas turbine engine. Yes, a gas turbine engine development is the pinnacle of material sciences, as the materials in a turbine engine have to tolerate high temperatures and pressures simultaneously, whilst having multiple power settings in a single usage cycle. We are good at rocket engine development, where also similar conditions exist, hence I am perplexed to know why we cannot develop good gas turbine engines. DRDO needs a nice kick on the backside to develop them, especially since they have a wealth of experience on what not to do, as they have tried developing the Kaveri.We also need to involve our private sector deeply to develop defence technology, case in point being the excellent artillery guns developed by Bharat Forge and Tata.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Somewhat off topic perhaps, but I have often wondered why lead times of the various (military) planes are now measured in decades? ...

Originally Posted by vamsi.kona

I have zero knowledge of the technological aspects, but I think that the Cold war between the the two major powers might have contributed to the fast realisation of products from design stage to actual product...

Originally Posted by Turbo_anup

I can think of few reasons wherein the development as well as operational cycle of most of the fighter aircrafts is now in decades -...

On the topic of lead times you all raise valid points, but without doing past designs a disservice I think the simple issue here can be found in the fact that increasingly a lot of the brain power isn't left in the hands of the humans but in the systems. By that let's take the F-35. For nearly a decade the primary hold up wasn't hardware development issues but rather the fact that the millions of lines of code for it's computer brains, one of the major facets of which is essentially the Link16 data link system that underpins all NATO systems now. Debugging the combat coding between successive blocks of F-35 (and by blocks think of it as versions) is what would take absolutely forever. This was hindered more so by the fact that only Lockheed engineers are allowed to hook up their laptops to the jets at certified facilities to basically issue software updates (rather notoriously Israel managed to finagle their way to being allowed access to not only source code but making their own software patches in Israel without need for Lockheed personnel - predictably this has kicked up a bit of a stink between longtime JSF programme members like the UK and Netherlands). These jets can't fly without their electronic brain anymore. In reality the role of the pilot now is Managing the nexus of the battlespace picture they're afforded through the various sensors and acting on it. Flying these modern jets really has little to do with the man in the loop anymore given how inherently unstable they are by design which in turn meant the computer is the one that's doing the heavy lifting flight control wise.

Back in the days of Kelly Johnson, what you saw was pure engineering on first principles applied to legendary platforms like the Oxcart. I think they were already pushing the limit of what you could achieve with a human handling most of the controls. Once you start bringing in say flying wings etc, ultimately we found ourselves beyond the cognitive limit for a pilot to manage everything and keep the damn thing airborne, let alone prosecute a bombing run. You basically see that massive increase in lead time in civil aviation, passenger car development, everything really. There are just too many interfaces in the development of a new platform in terms of R&D depts, engineering sides, safety compliance, marketing factors and so on and so forth. It was kinda the wild west back then. You developed a specialised tool and got on with it, safety be damned.

I also think the scale of some of these companies also slows them down. There must be some sort of sweet spot in terms of size where you have enough engineering talent and disparity of viewpoints to innovate without getting bogged down in the minutiae of procedural hoops. Funny then that it's still pretty much the Skunk Works model of small teams that really do the most rapid cutting edge work. Or to go back to another favourite analogy of mine, take F1 development teams and the breakneck speed at which they can go from the drawing board to a working prototype.

Originally Posted by Red Liner

Dirty Dan is right, and we must ask ourselves: if we can send space craft to the moon and Mars at a tenth of what it would cost the west and do it successfully, why is our defence tech so Relatively weak. Narayan sir, maybe this is a good topic for a new thread which I would request for you to start and guide the discussions therein. I would be very interested in learning more.

Originally Posted by vibbs

I have no doubts that Rafale is a good buy. I have only one question though. All said and done, this was something which was developed years back. For more than two decades, we have ourselves not bought anything substantial. While HAL has made some developments, is it not high time that we should really focus on indigenous development of these assets? The west is advanced, but I am still amazed that we are so much behind them despite the huge demographic advantage and a big enough defence budget. I hope our governments really have the drive to set up world class research and development facilities to develop in this regard.

I think what DirtyDan was saying is easier said than done. While India clearly is lagging in aerospace development (perversely considering the strides ISRO has taken), there are some bright spots. Colloquially it's easy to assume that rocket science must be the pinnacle but you'd end up finding that from an engineering perspective funnily enough, a nuclear submarine is equally if not more challenging an endeavour. You're looking then at the synergy of nuclear engineering, material science, hydrodynamics, acoustics engineering and so much more. And in this last regard, India took the forward thinking move back in the days of Indira Gandhi (V Narayan has a great anecdote regarding this iirc) which has meant that decades later the IN has a first in class domestic SLBM out at sea. Granted there must've been significant help from Russia and it clearly won't be on par with comparable PLAN boomers let alone any NATO one but it's an important step in the right direction. I think the issues here, beyond visionary leaders and bloated management structures and duplication of efforts can be summarised with two things: time and our attitude to quality. Take the example of Indian car manufacturers. From the time of the Indica, it's taken nearly 2 decades for entirely Indian cars to get to a point where the disparity to Japanese or European offerings isn't laughable. The same with Korean cars, it's only recently you had Dr Piech, about as German as you can get, chiding his VW executives about how Hyundai interiors and their design and quality were putting his own offerings to shame. In the defence sector it'll take time but the issue is there just isn't clarity of vision. The other issue regarding our attitude to quality was starkly brought to light by the extremely frank rebuttals from IN personnel regarding the "chalta hai" attitude to Quality Control HAL takes with it's products and the many compromises our service members take as de rigeur when operating indigenous kit. Why? As a consumer if you find Maruti or Tata or Hyundai slacking with their interior fittings or suchlike you take your custom elsewhere. As a PSU there just isn't enough pressure on HAL to raise it's standards. Were it a private sector firm competing purely on the strength of their offerings they'd have sunk long ago without major overhaul in their whole attitude at an institutional level. They need to learn that there's no shame in admitting they can't do something and saying no, instead we have this viciously perpetuating cycle of hasty proclamations without any due diligence with regard to in house capability and then years later the forces end up back at square one or having to scramble for an emergency purchase to make up for the predictable lack of the HAL offering. It's admirable that they just get on with it but someone at a leadership level has to put their foot down so that the complacency of these defence PSUs is reckoned with.

Originally Posted by DrPriyankT

The IAF, Army and DRDO need to develop the kind of co-ordination the Indian Navy has with the DRDO and various dockyards, for project timelines to be reasonable.

However, the development of the Tejas, will surely provide a critical mass to development of newer planes, as it has provided us with a wealth of knowledge for critical aviation technologies no nation would be willing to share. I sincerely hope to see India develop a good gas turbine engine. Yes, a gas turbine engine development is the pinnacle of material sciences, as the materials in a turbine engine have to tolerate high temperatures and pressures simultaneously, whilst having multiple power settings in a single usage cycle. We are good at rocket engine development, where also similar conditions exist, hence I am perplexed to know why we cannot develop good gas turbine engines. DRDO needs a nice kick on the backside to develop them, especially since they have a wealth of experience on what not to do, as they have tried developing the Kaveri.We also need to involve our private sector deeply to develop defence technology, case in point being the excellent artillery guns developed by Bharat Forge and Tata.

When was the last time there was a truly game changing development in engine design? To me the reason it's so difficult is because all the gains that seem to be made are a result of the sum of incremental changes in various aspects. The last big game changers to me include composites for turbine blades and incorporating geared turbines. Other than that a lot of the newer engines like the GE9X for eg just seem to be maximising your bypass ratio and playing around with the composites. All of which is the engineering equivalent of starting to look for marginal gains in increasingly narrow avenues. No wonder then that we're far behind.

[DrPriyankT]

ads11 sir, we need to develop turbine engines domestically as we cannot be dependant on foreign suppliers for something as critical as an engine for something as strategic as a jet fighter. Also the gains of developing a jet engine for a fighter can rub off in development of naval gas turbines. For becoming a world power, along with development of space tech, nuclear tech, advanced electronics and genetic research, we need to also master the art of developing a quality turbine engine.

[Kuldeep31]

Originally Posted by styx71

I believe the R-77-PD and the K-77ME variants of the R-77 use ramjets as well.

From an actual range perspective, I am not sure if we will ever get to know the accurate/real numbers - considering these are all classified military information. How effective these are, is something one on take it from what the manufacturers, operators or for that matter adversaries (trying to downplay it) claim.

When an armament is pitched by a country to a prospective customer the first inevitable question is if their own defence forces use it. AFAIK, the R-77PD project has been blowing hot and cold for some time now and the Russian Airforce has been cold to inducting R77PD. K-77ME is still in developmental stage proposed to be fitted with T-50. So presently, Meteor is the only operational BVR in use deploying a ramjet.
As you said, these are all closely guarded military secrets which will seldom come into the public domain. Till the time it is used in actual operations we will never know. But what matters here is that the PAF and the PLAAF are definitely aware of this range that will act as a strong deterrent. + when IAF pilots are flying Rafale (RCS of 0.05-0.1) it will potentially be close to a 4.8 G machine to reckon with .