India and the F-35?

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

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 03:42

Corsair1963 wrote: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:

Estimation from manufacturer claims.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1736
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 08:03

lbk000 wrote:
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.


India has always been suspicious of US motives eg Nixon's support of Pakistan in 1971 which is a basic countervailing strategy to avoid single power supremacy on a regional level. What has changed since 1971 is China adopting the same strategy and hence a reduction of US influence. That's why India has never relied on US arms. Sure, Pakistan's location does lend some use to the US but by and large, its the countervailing strategy that prevails. Today, some central asian countries have reduced US dependence on that real estate to an extent.

Of course to a political ignoramus, the F-35 might be the only viable option to the Indians, that is as much simplistic as it is unlikely. Even if the US guarantees full support and no embargo (which in itself requires a fair suspension of disbelief esp across different presidents), the IAF has operated a different fighter inventory and maintenance doctrine. To India watchers, the explanation of why F-16/18s first has been explained in so many articles, posts that there is no point repeating.

P.s. the RCS of 0.05m2 is not a manufacturer claim. Those who do understand RCS knows that its not a constant throughout every single angle. 0.05m2 is an Internet speculation which has not been validated.
Offline
User avatar

edpop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 510
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 20:43
  • Location: Macomb, Michigan

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 08:45

Vietnam veteran (Combat Engineer) 1967
Retired from Chrysler Engineering
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 08:51

weasel1962 wrote:the RCS of 0.05m2 is not a manufacturer claim. 0.05m2 is an Internet speculation which has not been validated.

Didn't it come from the chief designer interview on television?
Image
weasel1962 wrote:Those who do understand RCS knows that its not a constant throughout every single angle

Of course, RCS isn't constant, but it is still possible to get a rough average value
Image
Offline

falcon.16

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 10:25

Corsair1963 wrote:
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:

If you know estimate RCS of the Target (J31-0,05 m2) and you know detection data from Irbis E on a Mig-29 (350 kms- 3 m2 in a narrow beam/ 200 kms-3 m2 in a normal search), then you can estimate detection range for the J-31 or for other fighter which you know its RCS

But on this case, it was calculate detection range considering irbis E is being jamming for J-31 radar or other asset.

And really it is a big difference.

IMO i think on the case of the F-35, only you could detect it when you see it visually....if you use active jamming.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1268
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 11:11

With a head-on RCS of 0.05 sq m the J-20 would be spotted at about 4 times the distance it spotted a F-22/F-35 given equivalent radar performance (which is doubtful too). Stealthy against other aircraft ? Yes. Against F-22/F-35, not really. Look forward to PCA raising the bar again.

p.s. The Su-57 would be spotted at 5 times, Su-27/30 at 15 times.
Last edited by marsavian on 04 Oct 2018, 16:28, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3447
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 14:26

Thought the Irbis E only flew on the SU-35?? (not Mig-35)
Offline

falcon.16

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 19:34

mixelflick wrote:Thought the Irbis E only flew on the SU-35?? (not Mig-35)


And you thought correctly. Irbis E only stay inside Su-35s
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1736
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Oct 2018, 02:17

Looks like the deal will be signed today (Friday, India time).

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 077335.cms
Offline

tphuang

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post05 Oct 2018, 17:13

I've said this many times, but IAF is making a huge mistake going with S-400. I guess it already has a lot of Su-30 so a super-30 program is expected. But either way, they are not going to be very useful against PLAAF. The reality is that since China has these systems, they are going to very quickly find out every strength and weakness of Irbis radar, Su-30, Su-35 and S-400. They will have su-30/35 signature profile from every angle with every configuration. They will know exactly how to best avoid Irbis or S-400 radar. You can bet China will be doing a lot of exercises pitting J-20 and J-10B/C against flankers and S-400 line up that IAF will be throwing out. China's fortunate that India is so notorious slow with decision making of any kind. Because if I were India, I'd get F-35 asap if that was offered along with the latest SAM that western countries are willing to export. Other that, continue bringing in Rafael. That's a very fine aircraft that PLAAF will not be able to practice against.

As for J-31, you really can't take what they say on TV very seriously. It's really still early in development. In a couple of years, they will pick up the pace. They are going to wait until WS-19 is ready before this goes into production. It will be able to have reap all the fruit from the initial operational experiences of J-20. Unlike with J-20, PLAAF is not in a rush to get this into production until all the elements are in place. The Russians may think J-31 is not up to their specs, but its stealth, sensors, networking and situation awareness will be much better than anything that Russians will be able to produce in near future. And it's maneuverability will be sufficient once it get WS-19.

At this point, what's the status of Russia's AAM programs? Do they have anything to replace R-73/77 that will complete development in the next 10 years?
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post05 Oct 2018, 18:06

tphuang wrote:The Russians may think J-31 is not up to their specs, but its stealth, sensors, networking and situation awareness will be much better than anything that Russians will be able to produce in near future. And it's maneuverability will be sufficient once it get WS-19.


That's a very bold statement. :D
And while the reality is - the best that PLAAF has is the export version of su-35..

tphuang wrote:At this point, what's the status of Russia's AAM programs? Do they have anything to replace R-73/77 that will complete development in the next 10 years?


"RVV-MD" and "RVV-SD" programs
The indices of the serial products you can find in the in open sources.
Both products are purchased and are in service..
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post05 Oct 2018, 18:53

eloise wrote:
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


Thank you, I saw the value of f-117 RCS in the russian air defense directories and it is really much less than 0.1m^2.
So, if there was no jamming , then everything is more or less clear.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Oct 2018, 19:04

Keep in mind that the F-117 was shot down at a range of less than 10 miles and since it had no RWR, it had no idea that the radar was even out there or looking for it. Modern fighters will not have that problem.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1736
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post06 Oct 2018, 03:58

tphuang wrote:I've said this many times, but IAF is making a huge mistake going with S-400. I guess it already has a lot of Su-30 so a super-30 program is expected. But either way, they are not going to be very useful against PLAAF.


Once all other probabilities are eliminated, the only remaining option, no matter how improbable could be the right one. In this case, that could be how the Indians really think of the probability of fighting the PLAAF.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/china ... 97489.html

On reports about the presence of over 50 Chinese aircraft in the Tibet region, Dhanoa said it is not a threat


Can't fault the IAF chief's statement on facts. no matter how much one might disagree the actual threat really is.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 656
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post24 Apr 2019, 16:54

BAE Systems proposes its aircraft carrier design to Indian Navy

Writing in Australian Defense Magazine published on April 4, Nigel Pittaway quoted a representative of BAE Systems as saying the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier design was being offered to India. The HMS Queen Elizabeth is in service with the Royal Navy and is said to be the most powerful aircraft carrier after the US Navy's nuclear-powered carriers, the Indian newspaper The Week comments...

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... -navy.html
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eagleowl and 31 guests