Trump Offers F-35 Jet to India in Push for More Defense Deals
- Thread starter Ginvincible
- Start date
That wasn't what he said.
Why do we need F-35 to fire off unstealthy HARMs at IADS? If that's what the F-35 has been reduced to.
Nah, the Su-57's two-seat variant for penetration will be developed much faster than AMCA. Different story that we no longer need it of course.
But we are definitely going to use it as a fallback threat if the US continues threatening India's domestic programs.
US has no choice in the Pacific. In our case, we won't need to due to our geography.
MKIs with Rudram-3 flying within secure airspace can comfortably address SEAD from extremely long standoff ranges that even AARGM-ER can't match (550km vs 300km).
All that our F-35s will have to do is penetrate.
To do that we need to develop or procure an alternative engine to the F404/414 that can go on Tejas & AMCA. Otherwise there's no real leverage.
Even beginning a program to certify the LCA with a new, non-American engine can send the message. The question is, what are our options?
Considering the whole unreliability when it comes to GE, getting license production for the 177s and r-37m doesn't seem to be a bad idea at allThat wasn't what he said.
Why do we need F-35 to fire off unstealthy HARMs at IADS? If that's what the F-35 has been reduced to.
Nah, the Su-57's two-seat variant for penetration will be developed much faster than AMCA. Different story that we no longer need it of course.
But we are definitely going to use it as a fallback threat if the US continues threatening India's domestic programs.
Too late.
The purchases have been made....
This 3 scorpene may have been less costly if India decided to purchase it before ending the production of the 6 others : workers will have to be trained a second time.
I think one of the big reasons why the +3 Scorpenes are more expensive is because we want to replace SUBTICS with our own combat management system, which would then allow easy & cheap integration of several weapons & equipment later on (Nirbhay, BrahMos-NG etc).
"...Both leaders commended progress in collaboration in construction of Scorpene submarines in India, including indigenization, and in particular the work carried out with a view to the integration of DRDO developed Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) into P75-Scorpene submarines and the analyses conducted regarding the possible integration of the Integrated Combat System (ICS) into the future P75-AS submarines."
I'll just leave this here. Ab aur kuch bolunga toh vivaad hojayega.
Read the highlighted part.
Hope that settles it regarding the existence of a combined RWJ. I can't believe people argue that it's impossible due to physics even after they displayed the damn thing at an Air Show and said plainly what it's for:
@randomradio
Read the highlighted part.
Hope that settles it regarding the existence of a combined RWJ. I can't believe people argue that it's impossible due to physics even after they displayed the damn thing at an Air Show and said plainly what it's for:
@randomradio
The US is practically in charge of penetrating enemy airspace for NATO.
Rudram-3 is an ALBM, it fits into a different segment. Our equivalent of the AARGM-ER is Rudram-1.
With Trump, the risk to F404/F414 is gone. By the time a new administration comes in, both programs will be in full swing. The ToT cycle for F414 is also pretty small. They say by 2030-31 almost the entire engine will be produced in India, so ToT would have finished within Trump's time. No point of roadblocks by then.
There is a risk to AMCA's engine if we choose American.
There are other JVs planned too, like Stryker, more UAVs with local production. We want Boeing's jetliner assembly line and a production deal for the LM2500 for NGD, NGF, and Vikrant II. It's these future deals that can be held hostage. The LM2500 requirement alone is for 80-100 engines over the next 15 years.
If there's a second Republican term, all the risks disappear. So we need leverage for after 2028, if they lose. We don't want the Democrats crapping on all our Trumpian deals once again. And that's probably how long the Su-60 will take as well.
Rafale NG = Rafale F5 and plan B is already active....
Remember that old larger stealth design with weapons pods?
That's not a "combined RWJ."
You show off an antenna design, but that's common to a transmitter, receiver, and a transceiver. It's the full system that counts.
You need a HPA for transmit and an LNA for receive, that's a transceiver. You can also have just the HPA for transmit without the LNA for reception. And this connects to the Vivaldi antenna. Just looking at the antenna alone will not tell you if it's a simplex, half-duplex, or full duplex.
Difference between Simplex, Half duplex and Full Duplex Transmission Modes - GeeksforGeeks
Transmission modes include Simplex (one-way communication), Half-Duplex (two-way communication one at a time), and Full-Duplex (simultaneous two-way communication), each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.
www.geeksforgeeks.org
Typically all RWRs are simplex. It keeps things cheap and the TRM is always ON, meaning it's constantly receiving signals without having to turn off the receiver circuit. That's what the F-35 has in its wings and other areas.
The radar is half-duplex, but it just divides up the work required across many TRMs 'cause it has many TRMs and provides the illusion of multifunctionality. That's why big array, good; pods have small arrays, bad. So when a TRM is transmitting, its receiver channel is off. You can see how that's a disadvantage on an RWR. Now if you take a single tiny array and divide up the TRMs, you simply get a significantly less sensitive receive function with lower gain (technical term, not profit/loss), and the transmitter may not be able to match the power of the enemy signal so the jammer signal will fail.
There is a new TRM design that allows full duplex capability. But it's new and is slowly being introduced, the F-35 doesn't have it yet. This allows simultaneous transmit and receive. But the flaw here is you need a frig load of special filters and circulators in order to isolate the signal and reduce interference. It's a pain in the butt, the better option is to just use a single transmit channel but multiple receive channels, and that works a bit if you have a lot of TRMs around. Large arrays good, pods bad. The same thing follows.
Given the cost and all the associated difficulties, the easiest option is to have fully digital multiple receive channel TRMs for RWR and a separate set of digital transmit TRMs for the jammer. And this is generally co-located or separately located on an aircraft. But you don't wanna be sticking them both on a single array. That's why even Arexis comes with 2 physically separated arrays instead of a single larger array, and it must be entirely digital.
As for your misunderstanding of the term RWJ, it's purely a DRDO marketing term. The earliest development of EW systems by DRDO came with an internally located RWR and an externally carrier pod based jammer, like the EL/L-8222. So the MKI, Mig-21, Mig-27, LCA Mk1/A, and Jaguar DARIN I/II came with Russian and Israeli pods. Mirage 2000 and Mig-29 too, but with respective foreign RWR and pod-based jammers. So this is called RWR by DRDO. And RWJ is simply an internal RWR combined with an internally mounted jammer. That's all.
IN's Mig-29Ks are newly equipped with a Belarussian ECM pod called Talisman. And the Mig-29UPG comes with the D-29 RWJ, which combines a DRDO RWR with an Italian AESA jammer that's internally mounted within the aircraft.
Basically, Mig-29UPG, Mirage 2000UPG, LCA Mk2, AMCA, and Jaguar DARIN III come with RWJs, internally-mounted ECM. Whereas Mig-29K, LCA Mk1/A, and MKI come with RWRs, they have to carry separate ECM pods. Some day Mig-29K will get an RWJ.
That's not a "combined RWJ."
You show off an antenna design, but that's common to a transmitter, receiver, and a transceiver. It's the full system that counts.
The brochure clearly describes what the system is. A solid state transmitter-receiver unit. Meaning the same unit (array LRU) performs both functions.
View attachment 41388
You need a HPA for transmit and an LNA for receive, that's a transceiver. You can also have just the HPA for transmit without the LNA for reception. And this connects to the Vivaldi antenna. Just looking at the antenna alone will not tell you if it's a simplex, half-duplex, or full duplex.
Simplex mode is a uni-directional communication. Half Duplex mode is a dual directional communication but one at a time. Full Duplex mode is a two-way directional communication simultaneously. In simplex mode, sender can send the data but that sender can't receive the data.Difference between Simplex, Half duplex and Full Duplex Transmission Modes - GeeksforGeeks
Transmission modes include Simplex (one-way communication), Half-Duplex (two-way communication one at a time), and Full-Duplex (simultaneous two-way communication), each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.
Typically all RWRs are simplex. It keeps things cheap and the TRM is always ON, meaning it's constantly receiving signals without having to turn off the receiver circuit. That's what the F-35 has in its wings and other areas.
The radar is half-duplex, but it just divides up the work required across many TRMs 'cause it has many TRMs and provides the illusion of multifunctionality. That's why big array, good; pods have small arrays, bad. So when a TRM is transmitting, its receiver channel is off. You can see how that's a disadvantage on an RWR. Now if you take a single tiny array and divide up the TRMs, you simply get a significantly less sensitive receive function with lower gain (technical term, not profit/loss), and the transmitter may not be able to match the power of the enemy signal so the jammer signal will fail.
There is a new TRM design that allows full duplex capability. But it's new and is slowly being introduced, the F-35 doesn't have it yet. This allows simultaneous transmit and receive. But the flaw here is you need a frig load of special filters and circulators in order to isolate the signal and reduce interference. It's a pain in the butt, the better option is to just use a single transmit channel but multiple receive channels, and that works a bit if you have a lot of TRMs around. Large arrays good, pods bad. The same thing follows.
Given the cost and all the associated difficulties, the easiest option is to have fully digital multiple receive channel TRMs for RWR and a separate set of digital transmit TRMs for the jammer. And this is generally co-located or separately located on an aircraft. But you don't wanna be sticking them both on a single array. That's why even Arexis comes with 2 physically separated arrays instead of a single larger array, and it must be entirely digital.
You're finally getting what I mean by allocating a set of TRMs for each role, but again you're mixing up things. There is literally no problem with interference until & unless your system is 'dumb' i.e. the computer managing the EW suite has no idea what you are transmitting and cannot tell your receivers to ignore those specific frequencies (which rapidly change over time). Separating the arrays does nothing for that purpose either.
A lot of the limitations of such an arrangement that you're thinking up actually aren't limitations at all.
Because in the end, you only have a set amount of real estate on a given airframe where you can mount anything you want.
Mounting things separately is overall a less efficient usage of available space. It's no mystery as to why we want to avoid that if the technology makes it possible to do so. If you have space for mounting 4 arrays, mounting 4 multifunction arrays is preferred to mounting 2 transmit-only & 2 receive-only arrays.
Because as far as the hardware is concerned, the combined array essentially can act as either/or, as per need. It's just vastly more efficient & vastly more capable that way. The 16-TRM can either be 8-transmit, 8-receive, or 16-transmit or 16-receive, or any number in between. There's no hardware limitation for that anymore. This can be changed on the fly, probably automatically by the system based on threat (jamming incoming AAM seeker takes precedence over updating the track of a distant emitter.). I don't know what to say if you can't see the advantage of that as opposed to a single-function array.
Additionally, going ahead we'll also be taking CCAs/net-centricity into account for this. The CCAs may or may not have a main FCR (though HAL has shown the Warrior with a radar before), but they're guaranteed to have RWR (probably even RWRJ as it saves space when adding an SPJ function) as they have to act as sensor nodes. With arrays like this, we can jam through the CCAs, while the mothership stays passive with all TRMs acting as receivers, while letting the drones do the ECM. Or vice versa, as per need. Use drones to collect data on bearing of emitters, then jam/destroy them using standoff ordnance from the mothership.
The fighter can maximize its capabilities based on the networked battlefield. You may not need to jam at all if CCAs/other fighters are in position to do that for you. Your jammer arrays are essentially wasted space in such conditions - but now you can turn them into extra RWRs that increase your ESM capability. There's literally no downside, only upside.
The multifunction array offers a lot more flexibility of operation than the single-function arrays of old. This is the approach we've chosen for Tejas Mk2 (and AMCA as well, most probably). It's a nice evolutionary improvement over what we've had before. I don't see what the big deal is.
Yeah well we've never implemented multifunction arrays before so that bit is new. The designation of the overall system is now called UEWS. Probably as it includes significant integration with the FCR as well (which wasn't possible on our older jets as we were dealing with multiple OEMs).
On Tejas Mk2 (and I think even Mk-1A, though it doesn't have internal jammer) the UEWS refers to the entire system as a whole - the arrays, the processing units, & the software they run which allows them all to work in conjuction.
Whereas now RWRJ is simply referring to the type & configuration of the array used to carry out the transmit/receive functions - earlier, we used to have them separately, now we're combining them.
To put it in simple terms, if UEWS is the whole TV, the 'RWRJ' I'm talking about is just the screen. I'm just saying we upgraded from an LCD to an OLED.
IN's Mig-29Ks are newly equipped with a Belarussian ECM pod called Talisman. And the Mig-29UPG comes with the D-29 RWJ, which combines a DRDO RWR with an Italian AESA jammer that's internally mounted within the aircraft.
Basically, Mig-29UPG, Mirage 2000UPG, LCA Mk2, AMCA, and Jaguar DARIN III come with RWJs, internally-mounted ECM. Whereas Mig-29K, LCA Mk1/A, and MKI come with RWRs, they have to carry separate ECM pods. Some day Mig-29K will get an RWJ.
No, you're talking about entirely different things. I'm specifically talking about the internally-mounted 16-TRM array which reportedly can act as both RWR array & SPJ array. Not the suite as a whole. We use UEWS to describe the suite now.
Tejas Mk2 is the first IAF aircraft this will be implemented on.
Last edited:
That's not what you think it means though.
What a waste of time.
A transceiver system can perform both functions, but will do so one at a time. A radar has the same limitation.
Portugal canceled their order and the Canadians are mulling over canceling theirs. Might be a lot of line availability or just discounted platforms up for grabs in the next 1-3 years.
Why do you think these nations are either cancelling or mulling to cancel F-35 order? Think about the answer before suggesting this plane to IAF.
Trump said Modi was his friend. Leverage the relationship.
Either way Portugal and Canada have luxuries that India doesnt. They don't face the prospect of a 2 front war against nations fielding 5th gen platforms against them like India does, and they have more robust alliances to come to their aid. Unless Trump starts making good on his threats, in which case F-35 or not won't save them.
It could be because of budget cuts. Portugal has a tiny AF anyway and the Canadians have previously evaluated and rejected the Eurocanards. There's no going back from the F-35 for them.
It's also because of their tussle with the US over tariffs. If the Canadians are that serious, they should exit NORAD.
I wouldn't pay attention to their anti-Trump shenanigans. It's just a pressure tactic. The Canadians have already signed the deal, they can't back out now. Portugal can get away with it alongside Spain. Not sure if the Germans can back out too.
They probably plan on using the F-35 as leverage for the trade war.
Trump will find new markets, the F-35 is on its way to become export grade for third parties like the ME and ASEAN.
Useless non events
Not exactly because for sovereignty reason The portuguese defence minister have ask to reject F-35 and search for a european solution. In fact it was in total contradiction whith all tke otehr customers saying that there is no kill switch.
"The world has changed ... and this ally of ours ... could bring limitations to use, maintenance, components, and everything that has to do with ensuring that aircraft will be operational and used in all types of scenarios," Melo said.
Portugal rules out buying F-35s because of Trump
The country’s air force has recommended buying the jets, but the outgoing defense minister said “the predictability of our allies” must be taken into account when making procurement decisions.
Portugal rules out buying F-35s because of Trump
“We cannot ignore the geopolitical environment in our choices," Portugal's outgoing Defense Minister Nuno Melo said. | Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images
Portugal ruled out replacing its U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets with more modern F-35s because of Donald Trump — in one of the first examples of the U.S. president killing a potential lucrative arms deal.
The country's air force has recommended buying Lockheed Martin F-35s, but when outgoing Defense Minister Nuno Melo was asked by Portugese media Público whether the government would follow that recommendation, he replied: “We cannot ignore the geopolitical environment in our choices. The recent position of the United States, in the context of NATO ... must make us think about the best options, because the predictability of our allies is a greater asset to take into account."
With the dramatic realignment taking place under Trump — who said again today he would annex Greenland and threatened Canada — there are fears the U.S. government could decide block access to software updates and spare parts needed to make the F-35 fully operational.
"The world has changed ... and this ally of ours ... could bring limitations to use, maintenance, components, and everything that has to do with ensuring that aircraft will be operational and used in all types of scenarios," Melo said.
He added: "There are several options that must be considered, particularly in the context of European production."
A spokesperson for the jet-maker said: "Lockheed Martin values our strong partnership and history with the Portuguese Air Force and looks forward to continuing that partnership into the future. The F-35 is the most advanced, survivable and connected fighter aircraft in the world, enabling 21st Century Security® and allied deterrence. Questions about foreign military sales of the F-35 are best addressed by the U.S. government."
Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said earlier this week that the Netherlands would not cancel its contract for the jets. However, Lisbon hasn't signed a deal yet.
Portugal is holding a snap election after the collapse of its center-right government.
Last edited: