India and the F-35?

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

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1367
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 03:23

Corsair1963 wrote:“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...


You've forgotten the 5 x S400 systems it was announced India has ordered, earlier this week.

I hear that's a bit frowned on for existing F-35 partners, in general, which could only be read as a strong indication of India's contempt for the very notion of procuring F-35, any time soon. Or of 'aligning' more than it's own national interest strictly requires. If buying F-35s was their faint hope then they just knowingly blew that possibility. A kick to the nether regions instead.

India, Russia To Sign Deal For S400 Air Defence System This Week: Kremlin

The US had last month warned against the deal, saying it would be considered as a "significant transaction" and has a potential for imposing tough US sanctions.

All India | Edited by Stela Dey (with inputs from Agencies) | Updated: October 02, 2018 21:35 IST

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-r ... in-1925719
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1741
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 04:16

Every major fighter manufacturer from Gripen, Rafale, Boeing, LM, Russians (excepting China/Pakistan) has pitched their fighter to India. Its probably a shorter list of fighters that India hasn't or isn't evaluating. The current India interest level in the F-35 is currently no different from getting a brochure at an arms show. Some may choose to read this of getting a brochure is a sign of buying interest, others who realise that that party gets a brochure from everyone may read ihe action a bit differently.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5729
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 05:16

weasel1962 wrote:Every major fighter manufacturer from Gripen, Rafale, Boeing, LM, Russians (excepting China/Pakistan) has pitched their fighter to India. Its probably a shorter list of fighters that India hasn't or isn't evaluating. The current India interest level in the F-35 is currently no different from getting a brochure at an arms show. Some may choose to read this of getting a brochure is a sign of buying interest, others who realise that that party gets a brochure from everyone may read ihe action a bit differently.



My point is simple the F-35 is the only viable option for India to deter China. In addition there is on going discussion between the US and India over the F-35....

Honestly, don't know how to spell it out any simpler???
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5729
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 05:24

element1loop wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:“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...


You've forgotten the 5 x S400 systems it was announced India has ordered, earlier this week.

I hear that's a bit frowned on for existing F-35 partners, in general, which could only be read as a strong indication of India's contempt for the very notion of procuring F-35, any time soon. Or of 'aligning' more than it's own national interest strictly requires. If buying F-35s was their faint hope then they just knowingly blew that possibility. A kick to the nether regions instead.

India, Russia To Sign Deal For S400 Air Defence System This Week: Kremlin

The US had last month warned against the deal, saying it would be considered as a "significant transaction" and has a potential for imposing tough US sanctions.

All India | Edited by Stela Dey (with inputs from Agencies) | Updated: October 02, 2018 21:35 IST

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-r ... in-1925719



I have not forgotten the S400 at all............Yet, nobody believes the US will place sanctions on India over the deal or that is will effect any existing or future arms deals.

Do you have a source or sources that say otherwise??? If, so I am all ears.... :wink:
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 06:40

falcon.16 wrote:
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



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?

It is very simple
Because burn through distance is proportional to square root of RCS:
That means :
(Burn through distance against Mig-29 in km )/(burn through distance against J-31 in Km) = (square root of Mig-29 rcs) / (square root of J-31 rcs )

So (burn through distance against J-31 in Km) = (Burn through distance against Mig-29 in km )/((square root of Mig-29 rcs) / (square root of J-31 rcs ))
Range Bt against J-31 = 300/((3/0.05)^(1/2)) = 39 km
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 07:04

eloise wrote:It is very simple
Because burn through distance is proportional to square root of RCS:


I calculated the f-117 RCS by your method, based on the distance of its location by the s-125. Obtained RCS >0.1 m^2. Is this value it's real RCS?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 07:52

babybat{}.net wrote:I calculated the f-117 RCS by your method, based on the distance of its location by the s-125. Obtained RCS >0.1 m^2. Is this value it's real RCS?

No, in F-117 case, there was no jamming, so you must use the normal detection range equation instead.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=29022&start=105
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 08:59

eloise wrote:No, in F-117 case, there was no jamming, so you must use the normal detection range equation instead.


But I read in many sources that the f-117 was covered by electronic warfare from other aircraft, and jamming was very actively used throughout the conflict.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 09:24

babybat{}.net wrote:But I read in many sources that the f-117 was covered by electronic warfare from other aircraft, and jamming was very actively used throughout the conflict.

Not on the day the aircraft was shot down
Dale Zelko flew the F117 "stealth fighter" - a warplane so advanced that it was all but invisible to enemy radar.

But on the night of 27 March 1999 he was uncomfortable. Weather conditions meant the stealth fighters would not have their usual escort of "Prowler" electronic jamming planes or F16s firing anti-radar missiles.

"I'd never felt so strongly - if there was ever a night, a mission for an F117 to get shot down, it would be this one. I wasn't surprised when it happened," he says.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ ... clnk&gl=vn
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1367
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 10:46

element1loop wrote:The US had last month warned against the deal, saying it would be considered as a "significant transaction" and has a potential for imposing tough US sanctions.

Corsair1963 wrote:Do you have a source or sources that say otherwise??? If, so I am all ears.... :wink:


No need to get all winky. :) I don't think there's an indication except for the fairly clear warning given above which indicates it's a significant fly in the ointment from here forwards. This admin isn't as lax about red-lines and stuff--they knew that. btw, I was laughing with you prior, not at you.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

falcon.16

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 11:22

eloise wrote:
falcon.16 wrote:
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



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?

It is very simple
Because burn through distance is proportional to square root of RCS:
That means :
(Burn through distance against Mig-29 in km )/(burn through distance against J-31 in Km) = (square root of Mig-29 rcs) / (square root of J-31 rcs )

So (burn through distance against J-31 in Km) = (Burn through distance against Mig-29 in km )/((square root of Mig-29 rcs) / (square root of J-31 rcs ))
Range Bt against J-31 = 300/((3/0.05)^(1/2)) = 39 km


Thanks Eloise. now i can understand RCS for J-31 = 0,05 m2, and you calculate burn through range from data we know from Mig 29 and irbis E.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 11:31

falcon.16 wrote:Thanks Eloise. now i can understand RCS for J-31 = 0,05 m2, and you calculate burn through range from data we know from Mig 29 and irbis E.

You are welcome :wink:
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 262
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 22:47

weasel1962 wrote:Indian logic is different. They see things always taking into account the Pakistanis.

weasel1962 wrote:The reality is that Pakistan can't really afford anything better than the JF-17 even if the Chinese have already pitched, re-pitched and practically thrown the J-31 (after pitching the J-10) at PAF's doorstep. Same thing happened with the Z-10 helo.

Some good points. Indo/Pakistani emotions are such that they reside in their own microcosm.
One factor I wonder about is how much support the US can give to India before Pakistan starts going from nominally helpful to actively counterproductive. It's unfortunate that Pakistan squats on a nice piece of real estate for running operations in the region.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5729
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 02:47

element1loop wrote:
element1loop wrote:The US had last month warned against the deal, saying it would be considered as a "significant transaction" and has a potential for imposing tough US sanctions.

Corsair1963 wrote:Do you have a source or sources that say otherwise??? If, so I am all ears.... :wink:


No need to get all winky. :) I don't think there's an indication except for the fairly clear warning given above which indicates it's a significant fly in the ointment from here forwards. This admin isn't as lax about red-lines and stuff--they knew that. btw, I was laughing with you prior, not at you.



The S400 deal with Russia could hold up any potential sale of F-35's to India. Yet, I've heard nothing from my political sources that have suggested that.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5729
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 02:50

eloise wrote:
falcon.16 wrote:Thanks Eloise. now i can understand RCS for J-31 = 0,05 m2, and you calculate burn through range from data we know from Mig 29 and irbis E.

You are welcome :wink:



Like we can calculate the range the IRBIS E could detected the J-31 from unclassified sources??? Especially, considering we don't even know it's RCS.....

:doh: :doh: :doh:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests