The radar can do that. There's been literally no proof of an RWJ.
Btw, RWJ is just a marketing term. An EW suite generally does not carry antennas with simultaneous functions to prevent interference. Rafale has receive antennas in the inlets and transmit antennas in the canard roots. Mig-29 UPG has a similar layout.
Carrying them together is actually the best method for avoiding interference - as now the both the transmit & receive signals are managed by the same device connected to a Time-Triggered Network. Older systems based on the 1553 databus couldn't manage this effectively.
Rafale's layout is now old. They're probably sticking with it to avoid retesting.
Both our Tejas Mk2 and AMCA will carry combined RWJs. The one for Tejas Mk2 has already been shown at AeroIndia as I posted in the other thread.
No, we gotta pay for integration, they will make sure to bill us for it. Plus we need it with our own mission computer, not an Israeli one.
No we don't. Just like the Rafale customers buying the jet after us don't have to pay extra for integrating the TARGO-II HMD.
Israeli computer is fine. Rafale doesn't have an Indian computer either. Besides, we aren't gonna make the mistake of gold-plating a stop-gap import again. We've learnt lessons from the Rafale deal.
Ah, why? All you need is a functioning brain to guesstimate. Even Mongolia can do that. Hell, I have written posts about the Chinese introducing their 6th gen before 2035 like 10 years ago.
Plus someone released satellite pics of the J-36 many years ago. And the India has remote sensing satellites too.
You can't define your requirements based on guesstimates. Everything needs to be backed by a study with citable references. Otherwise every single RFP would be riddled with corruption. Everything would be pre-tailored to suit a vendor based on 'hunches'. It doesn't work that way.
All you are doing is recommending buying 90 Rafale Ms at the minimum, at the cost of ADA developing a carrier jet.
So buy 145 Rafale Ms?
108 Rafale-Ms are a healthy number for 2 carriers - three squadrons for each. That's the maximum of what we need between now and whenever a 5th gen carrier jet emerges.
And that's if we decide to retire the MiG-29Ks early. If we upgrade with AESA & keep them for longer, then 72 Rafales would be enough for the 2 carriers - two squadrons of Rafale & one squadron of 29K UPG per carrier.
The so-called 75% commonality, actually 70%, is not for the whole jet, it's for the airframe's internal systems like fasteners, landing carriage parts, actuators, pipes, wires, interconnections etc alongside some common parts for the avionics and engines that plug into the core systems, like cooling, electrical interfaces, software etc.
The percentage is in terms of overall parts commonality, including avionics. As is obvious to look at, the airframe & externals are totally different - which means all of the commonality is in the internals.
Core avionics will be different.
No, they won't. That's the whole point of AMCA Mk1.
We're doing all the hard stuff on the Tejas Mk2 itself. Including getting sensor fusion working. We'll just scale some things up where applicable, like a ~1500 TRM radar instead of a ~1000TRM one.
TEDBF will follow suit as well. It will have even greater commonality with AMCA though, very likely carrying the same core avionics and engine, but on a different airframe.
Exactly. Which is why there will be negligible difference in timeframes when making TEDBF as a stealthy fighter instead of its current design. You have to build & certify a new airframe in both cases. So best to do it with an airframe that'll retain its relevance for much longer (stealth + CAT-optimized) instead of a medium-term requirement which is what TEDBF is currently designed for (non-stealthy, STOBAR-optimized).
We already figured out how to make strengthened landing gear & undercarriage in NLCA. We're already certifying a stealthy airframe with IAF's AMCA.
All we have to figure out now is how to combine the two elements on a new airframe that has as much commonality with AMCA as possible while still meeting IN's long-term requirements.
Anyway, it's easier to design a new jet than convert AMCA for naval use, especially CATOBAR.
Fine. Just make sure that new design is a 5th gen. That's all I'm saying (and what IN is saying now too).
Our catapult carriers are a long way off. We have nearly 20 years to get it right.
But not if we waste 3/4ths of that time in building the current TEDBF.
So he says Syria and Russia had air defenses, and once they removed that, the airspace became permissible. And I'm the one making this up.
You read something, but you don't understand it, and then you attack others with your misinformation.
No, that's you.
The point is, for an airspace to be considered permissible, you can't have anything there that can threaten your aircraft - so that any of your assets, even non-survivable ones like bombers, AEWs & tankers, can operate freely. That was my whole point.
Coming back to the original, naval context - I said permissible is inside your BARCAP where your AEWs & refuelers can operate freely, without threat of being shot down. But you were saying that the space outside the BARCAP (where any PLA jet is free to ingress upon) is permissible airspace.
What you're saying (in the Syrian context) is that they should have sent in the B-52s into an airspace that had Syrian/Russian fighters flying around. That's insane.
See the point yet?
It's not their choice. The govt has to take action.
The Govt already did - they went ahead with 2016 GtG deal for the 36 Rafales.
If IAF really wanted more Rafales, all they have to do is announce that the plane we already operate meets all our requirements, and all we need to do is go for follow-on. The Govt was given an even clearer mandate in 2019 than in 2016. So it seems unlikely that Govt inaction is the cause. It's like I said in one of our previous conversations, the IAF is just using MRFA like the carrot tied in front of a donkey to deflect any blame.
The hard pill that many might choose not to swallow: Rafale didn't turn out the way we wanted. This was always a possibility. That's why we always operate jets for a few years to gain experience before deciding whether to go with follow-on or not.
As of why it wasn't all that it was made out to be...it's anyone's guess. My take: the threat environment evolved too rapidly. Spending capex on more Rafales is now hard to justify. But if they say this out loud, both IAF & GOI will be ripped apart by opposition.
They already wanted to turn Rafale into Modi's Bofors. Now imagine if it turned out that the Bofors wasn't even effective. That would add fuel to the fire.
So they'll just keeping saying "tender, tender, tender" every time you ask what happened to MMRCA requirement. Until the time that Tejas Mk2 & Super-MKI are ready to fulfill some of the lower-end MRCA roles, while F-35 import takes over the high-end in order to keep up with the threat environment. The Atmanirbhar bandwagon of Tejas Mk2 provides protection from criticism, while F-35 import can be chalked off as done to please Trump in order to protect Indian businesses from tariff threats.
To penetrate against J-20B/J-35/J-XX? Nice way to get slaughtered.
We need AMCA for that. But till it comes, we need a stop-gap that can do the best job possible given our options. That's the F-35.
Only you believe TEDBF is not survivable, the IN doesn't.
They always wanted a 5th gen because they knew a 4++ won't be survivable in the long term. They only agreed to this as an interim solution that could be delivered relatively quickly.
But now the interim solution itself is turning into a long-term project. That defeats its entire purpose.
That Boeing presentation speaks more with a single picture than a thousand words. If there were "most frequencies" present, the picture would have shown that.
?
If you're talking about the slide I posted, that's from Lockheed. And it shows a cone being emitted from the embedded antennas.
But "most frequencies" do come through the decoy, because the decoy needs to emit at those specific frequencies.
Using the decoy also limits or eliminates stealth to a certain degree, hence finds greater use for EA, not just limit itself to act as missile bait with its higher signature. So the F-35 gets to choose between stealth and EA.
That goes for all aircraft. Jamming is never stealthy, it's not meant to be. You only do it if you're in a tight spot.
That's why unless they specifically state it, it should be taken for granted that it doesn't exist.
They've said it can jam in most frequencies, end of story. Whether it comes through embedded SPJ or a towed emitter is secondary.
What it cannot do is standoff jamming in all frequencies - but then neither can any other jet in existence, unless it's carrying multiple large pods like on EA-18G.
F-35 will be survivable on its own. The Israelis wanted it with an external pod cuz it may have to escort bomb trucks, which may or may not have an effective internal SPJ & can't waste hardpoints on pods.
In our context, it won't matter. All the non-stealth jets our F-35s might even conceivably operate alongside - Rafale & Tejas Mk2 - will have their own internal SPJs, so won't be depending on F-35 for jamming cover.
MKIs & Tejas Mk1As won't have them, but then again it's unlikely for these jets to be in formation with F-35s anyway. They'll have their own unique mission profiles (MKI as a high-altitude launch platform for EBVRAAMs, BrahMos & long-range ARMs while Mk1/1A will just be ADFs) and won't be accompanying a Strike package.
The F-35 does form this localized jamming bubble, that's what that forum post was talking about.
Radar Electronic Countermeasures in Escort Task are performed by airborne platforms provided with Escort Jamming capability.The Escort Jammer (EJ) is a Jamming System installed on board an airborne platform (manned or unmanned) or in an external POD. The EJ platform flies together the defended...
www.emsopedia.org
Those 2 F-35s formed a screen in front of the 4 F-16s to defeat the 8 enemy F-16s.
The more aspects you want to cover, the more F-35s you need, surrounding the strike package, as per the image in the link. But without a repositioning radar or additional anntenas, the F-35 cannot perform EA along other aspects. That's why the exercise limits itself to a frontal attack where they have the radar.
So you see, everything they say about EA ends up limiting itself to the radar.
That's not a localized bubble though - that's straight up standoff jamming. Accompanying aircraft just benefit by being in the same direction from the targeted emitter as the F-35 is.
An EA-18G can do the same thing - except far more effectively & targeting way more frequencies.
The X-GUARD is like ALE-70, unlike ALE-50, so it needs the on-board EW suite to generate jamming signals. It's integrated and deployed.
You can see both of them.
Has this been seen on an IAF aircraft yet?
