India and the F-35?

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1557
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 10:25

babybat{}.net wrote:In an interview with a Chinese newspaper, he claims that RCS j-31 is lower than RCS j-20.


A guy with a shinny sequined jacket is advertising what appears to be booze? ... authoritative source ... got anything better?
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 10:29

babybat{}.net wrote:Okay, let's count.
For export version of Irbis-E for example:

Dmax = 400/((3/0.05)^(1/4)) > 140km

If I made a mistake in my calculations, I would be happy to hear your comments.

If you read the whole paragraph, the interesting part isn't in the detection range.
burn-through.png

Irbis E can detect airborne targets with a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of three square meters at ranges of 350-400 km. I will make a very generous assumption in favor of Irbis-E and say that the burn through range against the same target (rcs=3m2) is 300 km or only 14-25% reduction from detection range.
Let count.
Range Bt against J-31 = 300/((3/0.05)^(1/2)) = 39 km
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 10:33

element1loop wrote:A guy with a shinny sequined jacket is advertising what appears to be booze? ... authoritative source ... got anything better?


Better then chief designer?
I don't think so :D
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 10:35

A salesman will always claim that their products are the best etc....as much credibility as claims of massive numbers of J-31 that will eventually enter service. More important are the facts on the ground like how many J-20s / J-31 are actually in service.

At this moment, I really can't see how in its procurement strategy that India is taking the PLAAF seriously. The focus is still on Pakistan.

P.s. as a result, I don't think the RCS of the J-31 is actually 0.05m2 regardless of what might be said on TV shows (esp CCTV).
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 10:38

weasel1962 wrote:
Not conclusive since the actual RCS of the J-31 is not known. Whilst the J-31 has stealth characteristics, the assumption that the aircraft has comparable stealth RCS as an aircraft like the F-35, cannot be validated.

Even in the context of RCS reduction paint, the PLAAF might apply the best for the J-20 but may not do the same for an export variant.

If one considers the power output of a radar like Irbis e.g. 20kw, the raw output could ensure detection of LO aircraft (not VLO) at adequate missile firing ranges.


We have little hard data that is for sure. Yet, it would be a big stretch to believe the Flanker with a RCS of a Barn Door. Is likely to be able to detect, target, and kill even a LO (low observable) like the J-20 and/or J-31.
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 10:51

eloise wrote:If you read the whole paragraph, the interesting part isn't in the detection range.
burn-through.png

Irbis E can detect airborne targets with a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of three square meters at ranges of 350-400 km. I will make a very generous assumption in favor of Irbis-E and say that the burn through range against the same target (rcs=3m2) is 300 km or only 14-25% reduction from detection range.
Let count.
Range Bt against J-31 = 300/((3/0.05)^(1/2)) = 39 km


This formula is for active response radar.
It is not applicable in this case.
In case of passive response we should use ^(1/4).
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 10:57

babybat{}.net wrote:This formula is for active response radar.
It is not applicable in this case.
In case of passive response we should use ^(1/4).

No, the formula is for radar in general (both AESA and PESA included)
You can refer to this https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... s-part-ii/
AESA and PESA are very similar
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 11:24

eloise wrote:No, the formula is for radar in general (both AESA and PESA included)
You can refer to this https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... s-part-ii/
AESA and PESA are very similar


Do you mean radar range in the face of radar jamming and electronic countermeasures?
It strongly depends on the type of noise, its algorithms, signal level and some other factors, parameters and algorithms of jamming and location.
Unfortunately, my English level does not allow me to continue this topic. We have different terms. But thanks anyway)
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1131
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 12:04

Corsair1963 wrote:Nonetheless, in the case of China. Russia has been more than willing to provide China with just about anything it wants. Assuming it would need more engines from Russia in the first place. As it is making good progress along that front.


What Russian engine Chinese can put in J-31 to match F-35 T/W ratio? None.

Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, to claim any Flanker is likely superior to a Stealth Fighter even the J-20 and/or J-31 is nothing short of naïve.... :?


Did I claim that? Nope. I wrote J-31 lacks engine, if you think it isn't problem okey. BTW don't compare J-20 with J-31. J-20 got lot more funds then J-31, there isn't engine problem for J-20, they are finishing WS-15 and if it sucks they have 117 for Su-35 and later type-30 espeacilly now when India isn't imporant for PAK-FA.

Only if USA is willing to gave Chinese F414 tech then J-31 could be relevant :mrgreen:
Last edited by milosh on 02 Oct 2018, 12:06, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 12:05

babybat{}.net wrote:Do you mean radar range in the face of radar jamming and electronic countermeasures?

Yes
babybat{}.net wrote:It strongly depends on the type of noise, its algorithms, signal level and some other factors, parameters and algorithms of jamming and location.

Regardless of the type of noise and algorithm used, J/s ratio is a big factor. You can visit this topic for better explainations
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=29022
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... asure-ecm/
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 12:38



Thanks for a good article)
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 15:43

Corsair1963 wrote:Only real option for India is the F-35. As it is the only fighter that will guarantee India Air Superiority over the PLAAF for the foreseeable future.


Excuse me sir, but how many times do you have to spew your uninformed drivel before you keep it to yourself? The f-35 is not the only real option for India. Even if they wanted the f-35, they are not getting it. People have already explained this in this thread. Please learn to read.
Offline

falcon.16

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 104
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post02 Oct 2018, 21:24

eloise wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:Okay, let's count.
For export version of Irbis-E for example:

Dmax = 400/((3/0.05)^(1/4)) > 140km

If I made a mistake in my calculations, I would be happy to hear your comments.

If you read the whole paragraph, the interesting part isn't in the detection range.
burn-through.png

Irbis E can detect airborne targets with a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of three square meters at ranges of 350-400 km. I will make a very generous assumption in favor of Irbis-E and say that the burn through range against the same target (rcs=3m2) is 300 km or only 14-25% reduction from detection range.
Let count.
Range Bt against J-31 = 300/((3/0.05)^(1/2)) = 39 km



Eloise, can you explain this formule? I do not understand...

You are calculating Burn thorugh for J-31 chinese fighter, and radar its a Irbis.Why do you use data (300 kms and 3 m2) from a Mig-29 type fighter. Why do you not use data from J-31?

And 0,05, what represent this number?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 01:18

white_lightning35 wrote:
Excuse me sir, but how many times do you have to spew your uninformed drivel before you keep it to yourself? The f-35 is not the only real option for India. Even if they wanted the f-35, they are not getting it. People have already explained this in this thread. Please learn to read.


Really, Russia has cut the Su-57 to pretty much a research program. While, India has left it altogether. While, future 5th Generation Fighter Programs like the TF-X, KF-X, and AMCA are a good "20 years" off maybe more....


So, you tell me what other options does India have to counter Chinese Stealth Fighters (J-20/J-31) post-2025???

As for the US allowing the sale of the F-35 to India. Many credible sources have hinted that they do.........
:wink:



USPACOM boss Admiral Harry Harris Jr. is quotes as stating the following:



“At the moment, India is considering a number of U.S. systems for purchase, all of which USPACOM fully supports: the F-16 for India’s large single-engine, multi-role fighter acquisition program; the F/A-18E for India’s multi-engine, carrier-based fighter purchase; a reorder of 12-15 P-8Is; a potential purchase of Sea Guardian UAS; MH-60R multi-role sea-based helicopter; and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter...



...India will be among the U.S.’s most significant partners in the years to come due to its growing influence and expanding military. As a new generation of political leaders emerge, India has shown that it is more open to strengthening security ties with the U.S. and adjusting its historic policy of non-alignment to address common strategic interests. The U.S. seeks an enduring, regular, routine, and institutionalized strategic partnership with India. USPACOM identifies a security relationship with India as a major command line-of-effort...


https://www.stratpost.com/u-s-pacom-bos ... -to-india/
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 01:57

milosh wrote:
What Russian engine Chinese can put in J-31 to match F-35 T/W ratio? None.



The current RD-93's in the prototype J-31's are adequate at ~19,000 - 20,000 lbs each. This would give the J-31 ~40,000 lbs vs the F-35A's ~ 43,000 lbs. That is assuming that China is unable to develop the New WS-13E's (22,000 lbs) to it's satisfaction. (I wouldn't take that bet!) As for weight the F-35 and J-31 are in a similar range....(i.e. ~30,000 - ~70,000 lbs)

Honestly, a slight difference in T/W is hardly a non-starter...
:doh:



Did I claim that? Nope. I wrote J-31 lacks engine, if you think it isn't problem okey. BTW don't compare J-20 with J-31. J-20 got lot more funds then J-31, there isn't engine problem for J-20, they are finishing WS-15 and if it sucks they have 117 for Su-35 and later type-30 espeacilly now when India isn't imporant for PAK-FA.




I wasn't talking to you...........as for your remarks you clearly have no idea what your talking about. :shock:



Only if USA is willing to gave Chinese F414 tech then J-31 could be relevant....




Again "absurd" as China is finally making good progress. Honestly, it's only a matter of time before China overtakes Russia in this department. Which, shouldn't be surprising as Russia is still having both reliability and durability issues with it's fighter engines. (i.e. AL-31, AL-41, RD-33, etc.)
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests