People's Liberation Army Air Force : News & Discussions

[_Anonymous_]

I speculate based on pics, diagrams, calculations which you don't. I could be wrong too. If IDK then i write "IDK". But you are not humble.

Buddy , don't wish to intimidate you or even offend you , but you're arguing with someone who claims to have worked in the DRDO most likely in ADE whose output in the real world matches his in the virtual world as I wrote earlier . So as you can see he can afford NOT to be humble.

He also claimed to have 3PoVs at any given point in time , once upon a time , one from the scientist's / developer'd PoV , 2nd from the user's PoV & 3rd from the lay man's PoV. So you have to ask him which hat is he donning now but you've to be humble about it ?

Further he also recently claimed to have a better rate of prediction than Baba Vanga. Now for God's sake don't ask who's Baba Vanga ? So as you see he knows what he's talking about. Oh yes , before I forget , he's NEVER wrong & he doesn't apologize for NOT being wrong.

Thought I should inform you of the ground rules so you have a good grip about whom you're engaging . Now that you're aware , all the best to you .

 

[screambowl]

Electrical power is more about sensors than computers. The amount of computing and the power required is actually quite miniscule in comparison.

For example, the F-22, F-35 and Rafale were introduced with a bunch of PowerPC processors slapped together which combined wouldn't even cross 50 W. Graphics processing for GUIs need more processing, but a modern gaming PC is much more powerful.

My point is for example the Radar Target Detection and Automated Target Recognition will become so powerful with use of deep learning and neural network used in processing that active stealth on aircraft could fail in front of such new gen radar signal processing, which will come along 6th Gen aircrafts. The algorithm as you know decides whether the target is actually a target or a false target.

For example application of Multiple Layer Perceptron will make detection very accurate. Which is a very important aspect in 6th gen stealth technology.

Chinese are really trying to get a breakthrough in such kind of technology and become master AI, be it swarm intelligence, object tracking and image recognition.

And such kind of sensors and radars bundled together will require a lot of power which is in kilo watts. The data link may also change to feed more data from sensors to processing unit.

 

[randomradio]

If sword is not powerful enough to penetrate shield then it may not be worth.
Not just DAS/IRST but all kinds of detection has everything to do as shown in old diagram which i didn't make. Detection is the 1st step to counter something. If a jet has good RF stealth but poor IR stealth then it will obviously caution enemy who might setup an ambush or somehow nullify the attack. It can be used in Asymmetric situation where enemy doesn't have long range good IR sensors.
Such a jet has been rumored since 1990s like Aurora, SR-91, XR-7, etc, People called them "Black Triangles", so many people either already understand its basic theory, operation, mission & flight profile or try to understand

- when it will dash,​

-when it will slow down,​

-at what speed it can launch a conventional or nuke weapon,​

-its turning radius in both slow & high speed, etc,​

-how can it be detected & countered.​

So such a sleek body jet can intercept, strike do BVR but it has to make L or U turn & bug out fast.
But before making anything, every country tries to explore all its aspects if it is feasible by

-technology,​

-cost,​

-numbers,​

-geopolitically,​

-geographically, etc.​

Such a jet would be very costly due to

-special materials,​

-special manufacturing,​

-special training,​

-special maintenance,​

-even special fuel, etc.​

USA might make some being tech leader & capitalist country, but to be used asymmetrically.
Russia will watch its citizens die rather than bending before West. That's why just like cold war days, it might make something.
China IDK.
India... 1st make Kaveri Turbofan & 5gen AMCA. IMO we don't require it
So you can't just mention something & expect others not to analyse & discuss all these aspects, especially when you have not even mentioned these aspects even after asking many times.

All that's irrelevant today. Your argument is similar to saying since radar was invented in 1935, all aircraft are dead since they can be spotted, even though it took decades to create radar stealth.

You see how wrong your conclusion is.

I speculate based on pics, diagrams, calculations which you don't. I could be wrong too. If IDK then i write "IDK". But you are not humble.

Actually this is irrellevat comparison of MiG-31 Vs Su-35 when one is Interceptor & other is dangerous Dogfighter.
Anyways, for some people 25% may a lot, for others not so much. it is like arguing over "the glass is half empty or half full". PERCENTAGE & Absolute Values have their separate importance mathematically. PER CENT or PER 100 units, we reduce large absolute values to order of 100 to understand easily, that's all.
SR-71 required repeated refuelling, so does MiG-31 & so will MiG-41 & so will HySo jet if made.
If F-22 can supercruise at Mach 1.8 & Rafale at M 1.5 then J-36 with 3 WS-15 engines might be able to SuCr @ M2. Nobody is expecting it to dogfight. It can strike & do BVR.

You were literally arguing about SR-71 having a high turn radius. And you were speculating Mig-41's design being restricted to the SR-71's design. You think Mig-31 vs Su-35 is irrelevant, but you are perfectly fine comparing Mig-41 to what's practically a jetliner.

Anyway, Mig-41 is expected to supercruise at mach 3.

Different vocabulary can be used. "Turn" is a generic word. Yes, agility does mean Gs & corner speeds, meaning tight turns, L turn, U turn, V turn, etc. Hence i said about turning radius. So that means Interceptor by design cannot be agile.

Mig-31 is very agile. It can do 4.5 - 5G turns. It's only exceeded by the F-22 that can do 6G turns, but at lower speeds.

Even best dogfighters perform their best turn rates at 5-6G at subsonic speeds, or more specifically at corner speeds.

You tripped on your own argument 'cause you were comparing a fighter design with a 30m long non-agile jetliner-style design. SR-71 turns at 1.5G.

So your DAS argument was already nonsense, now your turn argument became nonsense.

ROFL! We are not at all speculating the same thing.

True. We aren't. I know what you are speculating about, and I know what I'm speculating about, but you have no clue what you are doing, looking at both your nonsensical arguments.

But we are literally both speculating the same thing using data that has no official information. The fact that you don't get this astounds me. You've literally decided the IAF wants NGAD 15 years after NGAD is inducted, and you don't even understand how superfluous that is.

Hell, you feel you are so important that even when the USAF says they are not sure about NGAD and that a drone can supersede it in 10 years, all mentioned by someone no less than the chief of the NGAD program, and you decided to dismiss it, you literally called it an internet opinion. You literally decided to dismiss what the J-36's designer said about 7th gen too.

You's speculating undefined 7gen & HySo fighter in 15-20yrs for IAF, but not me, not even IAF chief.

15-20 years is too far. The French claim they will have their own propulsion systems for near-space at maturity by 2035. The Chinese are flight testing theirs. The Russians and Americans are already at the prototype stage. And even India will be at flight testing stage in 2-3 years. So 15-20 years is just...

The Chinese, the J-36's chief designer actually, say a standard 7th gen will have very high speed as an organic feature. It will come with an airframe that will deform and carry a photonics radar and operate near-space at the bare minimum or in space.

Our only choice, if necessary, is to import this tech until we can build our own for fielding in the 2050s. For me that's 25-30 years for indigenous tech, which puts a stopgap availability between 2035-45, ie, either the Americans or Russians have to supply it in case the Chinese get a similar system within that time.

And here you are trying to hang on to a capability the USAF is unsure of and the Chinese have already dismissed.

 

[randomradio]

My point is for example the Radar Target Detection and Automated Target Recognition will become so powerful with use of deep learning and neural network used in processing that active stealth on aircraft could fail in front of such new gen radar signal processing, which will come along 6th Gen aircrafts. The algorithm as you know decides whether the target is actually a target or a false target.

For example application of Multiple Layer Perceptron will make detection very accurate. Which is a very important aspect in 6th gen stealth technology.

Chinese are really trying to get a breakthrough in such kind of technology and become master AI, be it swarm intelligence, object tracking and image recognition.

And such kind of sensors and radars bundled together will require a lot of power which is in kilo watts. The data link may also change to feed more data from sensors to processing unit.

Okay, I gotta agree to that. Miniaturization to fit into a jet is gonna take a decade or more though.

 

[randomradio]

Ha-ha, Ignorants. Let me give you an example with Kaveri.

GTRE wants French tech. IAF wants Indian tech. HAL wants American tech. That takes three different perspectives.

That's the perspective of the designer, the user, and the producer. Now it takes only a small amount of thinking to get why all three have such different opinions.

GTRE wants to finish the program and move on to higher goals, or they will get stuck with it. HAL wants American production tech for their own "nefarious" (selfish) purposes, and their recently achieved Maharatna dream. IAF wants as much indigenization as possible for Kaveri since other tech is coming in via exports. See, 3 different perspectives, one from each vertical.

Fast forward to today, GTRE is still stuck with Kaveri. HAL gets F414 and AMCA tech. IAF gets an indigenous engine and 2 foreign-assisted engines with different degrees of indigenous control.

You can apply this pretty much everywhere. Figure out what the user wants, see where the designer is at, figure out if producer can deliver. The problem is people here end up stumbling at the very first step. They have been so deeply subverted by the domestic lobby that they have no idea what the forces want.

Different perspectives play such a huge part that, that's the reason why many competitors do not even get shortlisted in military tenders even though they think they have a winning product. ATAGS is a good example of this gap in perception. And people with no clue what the user wants will always get stumped over it.

Hell, we have a living example of that happening here as well. A French naval pilot and the IAF wanted towed decoys on the Rafale, to which Picdel said it's not necessary, and Thales did not have the ability to provide one so we had to look at Israeli options. That's 3 perspectives from the user, designer and producer right there. And when a third person asks somewhere else, I can provide literally all 3 opinions, none of them mine, all second-hand, but all three from the main stakeholders. It's all 'cause I have the simple habit of listening. So simple.

And then you can speculate so many cases out of just these three opinions.
If Picdel's right, the IAF wasted money.
If Picdel's wrong, the IAF made a good investment.
Perhaps Picdel is right or wrong, but the IAF knows something else Picdel doesn't or they just want to add another layer of protection.
And Thales does not have one either 'cause it's not necessary or they will make one once funds are released, like the new helmet.

That's how discussions become fun. But sadly most members have been subverted and are stuck with biases, whereas I have always been contrarian. For example, I argue for the Rafale when up against Rafale haters and for the F-35 against F-35 haters. So when Indian members are being deep in their India stronk moment, their reactions to inconvenient truths are much more emotional and start projecting their hate instead. Ignorants is a living example of that.

 

[Parthu]

Most detailed CGI so far:

Seems to have forgotten to mark the cheek radars?

 

[LX1111]

Ha-ha, Ignorants. Let me give you an example with Kaveri.

GTRE wants French tech. IAF wants Indian tech. HAL wants American tech. That takes three different perspectives.

That's the perspective of the designer, the user, and the producer. Now it takes only a small amount of thinking to get why all three have such different opinions.

GTRE wants to finish the program and move on to higher goals, or they will get stuck with it. HAL wants American production tech for their own "nefarious" (selfish) purposes, and their recently achieved Maharatna dream. IAF wants as much indigenization as possible for Kaveri since other tech is coming in via exports. See, 3 different perspectives, one from each vertical.

Fast forward to today, GTRE is still stuck with Kaveri. HAL gets F414 and AMCA tech. IAF gets an indigenous engine and 2 foreign-assisted engines with different degrees of indigenous control.

You can apply this pretty much everywhere. Figure out what the user wants, see where the designer is at, figure out if producer can deliver. The problem is people here end up stumbling at the very first step. They have been so deeply subverted by the domestic lobby that they have no idea what the forces want.

Different perspectives play such a huge part that, that's the reason why many competitors do not even get shortlisted in military tenders even though they think they have a winning product. ATAGS is a good example of this gap in perception. And people with no clue what the user wants will always get stumped over it.

Hell, we have a living example of that happening here as well. A French naval pilot and the IAF wanted towed decoys on the Rafale, to which Picdel said it's not necessary, and Thales did not have the ability to provide one so we had to look at Israeli options. That's 3 perspectives from the user, designer and producer right there. And when a third person asks somewhere else, I can provide literally all 3 opinions, none of them mine, all second-hand, but all three from the main stakeholders. It's all 'cause I have the simple habit of listening. So simple.

And then you can speculate so many cases out of just these three opinions.
If Picdel's right, the IAF wasted money.
If Picdel's wrong, the IAF made a good investment.
Perhaps Picdel is right or wrong, but the IAF knows something else Picdel doesn't or they just want to add another layer of protection.
And Thales does not have one either 'cause it's not necessary or they will make one once funds are released, like the new helmet.

That's how discussions become fun. But sadly most members have been subverted and are stuck with biases, whereas I have always been contrarian. For example, I argue for the Rafale when up against Rafale haters and for the F-35 against F-35 haters. So when Indian members are being deep in their India stronk moment, their reactions to inconvenient truths are much more emotional and start projecting their hate instead. Ignorants is a living example of that.

What you said gave me a feeling of confusion. Do the IAF and HAL know what they are doing? This is war, not child's play. Does the IAF know what tactics it needs to adopt in the future? Can HAL design fighter jets based on IAF's future tactics? I feel like they are like hucksters, choosing what looks good in the world's arms market without coming up with their own plans.
You see, Pakistan always develops its own tactics around F-16/J10, no matter how strapped it is for funds, while India, my God, India now has a large number of Su-30, Rafale, and M2000. Who is responsible for fighting for air supremacy ，who is responsible for ground strike? who is responsible for SEAD, who is responsible for electronic jamming, it feels like chaos.

 

[Ashwin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1875442811925098630

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

All that's irrelevant today. Your argument is similar to saying since radar was invented in 1935, all aircraft are dead since they can be spotted, even though it took decades to create radar stealth.
You see how wrong your conclusion is.

Then tell all jet makers to exclude DAS.
"That's irrelevant"
"Your arguement"
"how wrong your"
"conclusion is"
This is personal attack & manipulation even after i mentioned multiple aspects of the concept, real situation of countries & stating that USA & Russia might still make some. Ideally everybody want to have superior/assymetric weapon, but even after then if cost woud be high & numbers very less then only top nations will/may make it. Many projects since 1950s got cancelled.
You should go for MBA degree & Manager position or at least talk to Management grads & professionals. But 5-10yrs of good industrial experience should be good to understand how important it is to consider all aspects of a project/product before even allocating funds for it.
Since radar was invented, RF stealth hiding & detection techniques have come up.
Since jet engine was invented, IR hiding & detection ways have come up like engine/airframe cooling, IRST.
So Radar > RF stealth > anti-stealth RF techniques.
hot jet engine > IRST > cooling techniques.
But it is difficult to hide a big long plume & jet wake, perhaps impossible, especially in presence of evolving military satellites.
As another example, XB-70 Valkyrie was another Mach-3+ jet but was cancelled due to cost, less payload, etc, & then BMs also started evolving.
With time the spy-sats killed the SR-71.
If China makes such a jet then what would India do? ICBM launch can be detected in launch phase itself, doesn't mean the ICBM is dead, but its launch will result in counter ICMB launch, that's a nuclear war & probably a World War. Similarly a HySo will/should be detected & counter-HySo platforms will/should be activated to welcome the jet & ambush.
And SR-71 had the A-12 version with AIM-47 AAMs, but future of such a huge FIGHTER was shortlived. At max we see Su-35 Fighter & MiG-31 Interceptor.

To counter A-12 & SR-71 the SAMs & AAMs were not good like today's missiles.

But today we have ABM & ASAT weapons, HySo AGMs & AAMs are R&Ded.
Still i'm NOT CONCLUDING that a HySo attack jet cannot or should not be made. But all these factors & aspects have to be discussed & after that it seems only top R&D nations can afford it in short numbers.

You were literally arguing about SR-71 having a high turn radius. And you were speculating Mig-41's design being restricted to the SR-71's design. You think Mig-31 vs Su-35 is irrelevant, but you are perfectly fine comparing Mig-41 to what's practically a jetliner.

No, you mentioned corner speeds & i told you based on airframe design as per Supersonic Area Rule that expecting sleek jet to be agile is like comparing to airliner which shoud NOT be done which you're doing by comparing MiG-31 with Su-35, 2 different categories.

Anyway, Mig-41 is expected to supercruise at mach 3.

Supercruise mean without afterburner, so less IRS. That's very good. Russia needs it for its HUGE continental, largely inhabited territory.
But afterburning SCRamjet is totally another thing.

Mig-31 is very agile. It can do 4.5 - 5G turns. It's only exceeded by the F-22 that can do 6G turns, but at lower speeds.
Even best dogfighters perform their best turn rates at 5-6G at subsonic speeds, or more specifically at corner speeds.

You talk like Russian in disguise or taking their side rather than being neutral Indian. F-22 & even Su-57 can do hard braking & a V-turn by TVC.
MiG-31 or any interceptor is not even designed to do it at subsonic corner speeds or they will stall.

You tripped on your own argument 'cause you were comparing a fighter design with a 30m long non-agile jetliner-style design. SR-71 turns at 1.5G.

You are expecting a HySo jet to be agile Fighter, you were comparing Interceptor to Fighter, while i simply tried to understand fuel requirement affecting size & speed requirement affecting agility. I tried cautioning you not to compare 2 different categories

So your DAS argument was already nonsense, now your turn argument became nonsense.
True. We aren't. I know what you are speculating about, and I know what I'm speculating about, but you have no clue what you are doing, looking at both your nonsensical arguments.

So tell jet makers to exclude DAS/IRST
I already explained multiple aspects of a project/product, that's the only way to work in industry. Insulting me repeatedly by caling me nonsense, if i say that with this ignorance, arrogance & insulting attitude you'll never get a job or rise up the heirarchy then you'll also feel bad.

But we are literally both speculating the same thing using data that has no official information. The fact that you don't get this astounds me. You've literally decided the IAF wants NGAD 15 years after NGAD is inducted, and you don't even understand how superfluous that is.
Hell, you feel you are so important that even when the USAF says they are not sure about NGAD and that a drone can supersede it in 10 years, all mentioned by someone no less than the chief of the NGAD program, and you decided to dismiss it, you literally called it an internet opinion. You literally decided to dismiss what the J-36's designer said about 7th gen too.

No, we're still not speculating same thing, bcoz like i said many times that USA's military R&D & achievements, geography, geopolitics, global agenda is different that ours. NGAD is generic term, NEXT, whatever it may come. I said in past that :
- India or any country should try to catch up will latest global tech but looking at all the aspects.
- eventually USAF will become UCAV-AF but it'll take time in decades. They can't just fire all pilots or stop recruiting them when they still have their F-15EX, F-16 Bl-70+ being made & F-18 getting replaced by F-35s.
- 5 fingers are different everywhere, so even USA citizens & LM/NG/Boeing/USAF/USN employees (Freshers to CEOs) have difference of opinions. What 1 chief/politician/CEO says is not what 1,000s/10,000s/100,1000s might agree. They all will be divided.
You're very concened about Chinese J-36 designer rather than our situation But at least i tried to have a common scale to compare all jets rather than crying & fight on personal gen #.

15-20 years is too far. The French claim they will have their own propulsion systems for near-space at maturity by 2035. The Chinese are flight testing theirs. The Russians and Americans are already at the prototype stage. And even India will be at flight testing stage in 2-3 years. So 15-20 years is just...

I do check the DRDO & PSU updates many times but it is still not near to global R&D. So it is not convincing that we'll be in flight testing stage of HySo jet when AMCA, TEDBF, MWF & full size UCAV are struggling to takeoff on time. The HSTDV is just a model of engine part, not a complete jet.
Our DoD wil have to test a real engine sized Ramjet/SCRamjet on ground 1st then on a jet & then a prototype. You're saying that it'll be done in 2-3 years? Ok, let's see but it doesn't seem so.

The Chinese, the J-36's chief designer actually, say a standard 7th gen will have very high speed as an organic feature. It will come with an airframe that will deform and carry a photonics radar and operate near-space at the bare minimum or in space.

It is natural for Chinese, Americans, Russians, Europeans, Indians to say something about future in media. Our IAF chief said just 1 line on 6gen roadmap. So 1st
- define 6gen completely,
- bring all the jets on a common scale of features to understand rather than fighting on personal gen #
then talk about 7gen. Someone might wanna call Space fighter as 10gen
Our economy & tech R&D is 30-40yrs behind West & 20yrs behind China's.
The Space Shuttle was so damn costly to maintain & caused 2 disasters ultimately causing retirement. it is easy to go up with brut force engine power but very delicate to come down facing high heat due to friction.

During this phase it cannot maneuver too much & be completely vulnerable to AMB & ASAT weapons.

Our only choice, if necessary, is to import this tech until we can build our own for fielding in the 2050s. For me that's 25-30 years for indigenous tech, which puts a stopgap availability between 2035-45, ie, either the Americans or Russians have to supply it in case the Chinese get a similar system within that time.
And here you are trying to hang on to a capability the USAF is unsure of and the Chinese have already dismissed.

Every citizen wants its country to be leader or at least among leaders, but there has to be action & official definition & statements 1st. So let there be some official statement by GoI/MoD/DoD on timeline of High Supersonic (HiSu) &/or HyperSonic (HySo) jet then only it will be convincing to income tax paying citizens. To have a stopgap in 2035-40 there has to be a serious official statement today. But if our IAF can't define 6/Next gen roadmap in form of a notional diagram, static model beyond AMCA then it is not convincing to citizens.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

Buddy , don't wish to intimidate you or even offend you , but you're arguing with someone who claims to have worked in the DRDO most likely in ADE whose output in the real world matches his in the virtual world as I wrote earlier . So as you can see he can afford NOT to be humble.

He also claimed to have 3PoVs at any given point in time , once upon a time , one from the scientist's / developer'd PoV , 2nd from the user's PoV & 3rd from the lay man's PoV. So you have to ask him which hat is he donning now but you've to be humble about it ?

Further he also recently claimed to have a better rate of prediction than Baba Vanga. Now for God's sake don't ask who's Baba Vanga ? So as you see he knows what he's talking about. Oh yes , before I forget , he's NEVER wrong & he doesn't apologize for NOT being wrong.

Thought I should inform you of the ground rules so you have a good grip about whom you're engaging . Now that you're aware , all the best to you .

Reminds me of a western Tv serial "The Pretender", a super IQ person who can be doctor, engineer, banker, lawyer, soldier, scientist, anything & everthing.
(The Pretender (TV series) - Wikipedia)

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1875442811925098630

Doesn't look like it got rotating rudder-stab.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Doesn't look like it got rotating rudder-stab.

This is not J-XDS or J-50, rather another TD or AI CCA version. If you see closely, you'll see that it is much smaller as compared to J-50. Also take a look at its IWB and then compare it with J-50

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

This is not J-XDS or J-50, rather another TD or AI CCA version. If you see closely, you'll see that it is much smaller as compared to J-50. Also take a look at its IWB and then compare it with J-50

So it is a proper 2 engine UCAV with IWB. Nice progress. Now it needs to demonstrate proximity formation flying without collision.

 

[Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik]

This is not J-XDS or J-50, rather another TD or AI CCA version. If you see closely, you'll see that it is much smaller as compared to J-50. Also take a look at its IWB and then compare it with J-50

Elsewhere it is still speculated to be J-50

May be a different model, like Navy Vs AF?
Time will tell soon.

 

[Rajput Lion]

So it is a proper 2 engine UCAV with IWB. Nice progress. Now it needs to demonstrate proximity formation flying without collision.

Elsewhere it is still speculated to be J-50

View attachment 39437
View attachment 39438

May be a different model, like Navy Vs AF?
Time will tell soon.

Could also be an early prototype of J-50 or as I said earlier a smaller CCA variant. With due time we shall definitely know more.

 

[Speedster1]

This is not J-XDS or J-50, rather another TD or AI CCA version. If you see closely, you'll see that it is much smaller as compared to J-50. Also take a look at its IWB and then compare it with J-50

Now we know why the Chinese put the J-20 and J-35 on display at Zuhai-24. Their next gen aircraft were ready to take to the skies. It's possible that they have a CCA in the works as you suggest because they also showed off strategic UAVs lik WZ-7, etc which the press captured in vivid detail.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Quite a nice assessment of PLAAF 6th gen fighters:

@randomradio, @Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik, @Speedster1, @_Anonymous_ , @Innominate

 

[_Anonymous_]

So GTRE wants French M-88 core , IAF insists on indigenous development & HAL wants American tech . Let's break this down . GTRE operates on shoestring budgets & is expected to deliver cutting edge state of the art technology with literally one arm tied behind its back.

The FTB is ONLY one of their demands since long , there have been various such justified demands which have been cast aside by baboons in the MoD or the FM or both. Frustrated they take the easy way out.

IAF is right to insist on indigenization as that's the core of our National Security Strategy which we have in some form prevalent in the senior echelons of our security management apparatus which hasn't been articulated in granular detail nor is something which has been brought before parliament & thru it made public.

That's also the reason you have PSQR or its equivalent & final SQRs with a strong emphasis on indigenization much before atma nirbharta became a bye word in this administration , which then becomes the guiding document for the entire project wherein every deviation has to conform not only to letter but also the spirit of these SQRs besides being sanctioned by respective authorities from the user department upwards. It's a time & tested system with its own checks & balances. May not be the most effective but it usually works partly because of our dogged determination given the pathetic amounts of funds we make available.

That's what guides our defence policy if it does not dictates it , dare I say. And if the IAF doesn't perform its job , everyone upwards from the MoD , the Raksha Mantri to the CDS to the CCS to the PMO will step in to check it .

As far as HAL goes , this is the first time I'm hearing of them canvassing for US tech. If the reference is to the GE -404 & its successor , the decision goes way back to the IG era where her government decided they can't be beholden to the then USSR for all their defence requirements as apart from strategic dependence the Soviets also started squeezing us asking for what we know in Hindi as manmaani rates since the rouble then wasn't pegged to the USD.

Hence the Mirage 2000 as India under IG had an excellent equation with the then French President Francois Mitterand which continued in RG's tenure. It was also in IG's tenure that it was decided to mend fences with the Americans after the animosity with Nixon Kissinger duo.

To add to it , Paxtan had emerged as a frontline state against the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan resulting in aid money & defence equipment pouring in like water . You had the F-16 , the Huey Cobra hptrs , rumours of the M1Abrams , you name it .

We also knew we had to take the next step from defence mfg under ToT which was a polite term for screwdrivergiri to designing & development of critical technology. What better way to marry both - the need for state of the art technology & an outreach to the Reagan administration ?! That resulted in IG getting US support for the LCA vide a commitment to supply the GE-404 TF , help Indian scientists develop the FCL apart from consultancy on other stuff pertaining to the LCA project including the Kaveri TF.

It helps to know the history behind such decisions instead of merely indulging in R&D - Read & Dump aka regurgitating stuff one has little or no knowledge about . This is the the reason I've stated before RST had no knowledge whatsoever of how technology organisations operate for he hasn't been in one nor does he have any insight for the life of him on how decisions at the top are made , what guides them , how're course corrections effected , how're deviations handled etc.

All he has is bookish knowledge which leads him to think he knows it all. I could go on for the other examples cited but trust people have got the gist. Sitting on one's backside penning novel size paragraphs full of half knowledge is one thing & getting into the real meat & bones of the matter harking back to First Principles in case of doubts instead of indulging in confirmation bias is another which incidentally is what the rest of his rant is all about.

Contrarianism - my *censored*. He just gets OCD about certain things , marries them to information in the public domain , makes wrong analyses hence comes to the wrong conclusion thus makes wrong predictions ( I've yet to see a single prediction of his come true in the 10 years I've spent reading his posts . I've actually dared him to cite them here & he comes up with Baba Vanga ) , spends half a dozen years defending it & usually has egg on his face & rest of the body when we have a final decision just like in the HTT-40 case wherein once it became clear Pilatus was out , he TRIED deftly maneuvering himself by changing goalposts & declaring victory much like Paxtan does or Paxtanis do on P D F .

 

[randomradio]

What you said gave me a feeling of confusion. Do the IAF and HAL know what they are doing? This is war, not child's play. Does the IAF know what tactics it needs to adopt in the future? Can HAL design fighter jets based on IAF's future tactics? I feel like they are like hucksters, choosing what looks good in the world's arms market without coming up with their own plans.
You see, Pakistan always develops its own tactics around F-16/J10, no matter how strapped it is for funds, while India, my God, India now has a large number of Su-30, Rafale, and M2000. Who is responsible for fighting for air supremacy ，who is responsible for ground strike? who is responsible for SEAD, who is responsible for electronic jamming, it feels like chaos.

We have spoken about this twice. Out of all P5+India countries, only France and India have true multirole requirements. It means all of IAF's aircraft at all times are required to do all missions. There are some exceptions like Mig-21 and Jaguar, or restrictions for single-engine fighters, but when you look at new aircraft, they will all be multirole, performing all missions to some degree.

Sweden and France have Gripen E and Rafale respectively, so all their missions are conducted using just one aircraft by both their air forces. Our equivalents are LCA Mk2 and Rafale, and both will perform the same missions as Sweden and France. MKI already performs all missions, and AMCA will too.

The other 4 countries are not like that. Only they have role-specific aircraft. We don't play that game.

 

[randomradio]

Then tell all jet makers to exclude DAS.
"That's irrelevant"
"Your arguement"
"how wrong your"
"conclusion is"
This is personal attack & manipulation even after i mentioned multiple aspects of the concept, real situation of countries & stating that USA & Russia might still make some. Ideally everybody want to have superior/assymetric weapon, but even after then if cost woud be high & numbers very less then only top nations will/may make it. Many projects since 1950s got cancelled.
You should go for MBA degree & Manager position or at least talk to Management grads & professionals. But 5-10yrs of good industrial experience should be good to understand how important it is to consider all aspects of a project/product before even allocating funds for it.
Since radar was invented, RF stealth hiding & detection techniques have come up.
Since jet engine was invented, IR hiding & detection ways have come up like engine/airframe cooling, IRST.
So Radar > RF stealth > anti-stealth RF techniques.
hot jet engine > IRST > cooling techniques.
But it is difficult to hide a big long plume & jet wake, perhaps impossible, especially in presence of evolving military satellites.
As another example, XB-70 Valkyrie was another Mach-3+ jet but was cancelled due to cost, less payload, etc, & then BMs also started evolving.
With time the spy-sats killed the SR-71.
If China makes such a jet then what would India do? ICBM launch can be detected in launch phase itself, doesn't mean the ICBM is dead, but its launch will result in counter ICMB launch, that's a nuclear war & probably a World War. Similarly a HySo will/should be detected & counter-HySo platforms will/should be activated to welcome the jet & ambush.
And SR-71 had the A-12 version with AIM-47 AAMs, but future of such a huge FIGHTER was shortlived. At max we see Su-35 Fighter & MiG-31 Interceptor.
View attachment 39405

To counter A-12 & SR-71 the SAMs & AAMs were not good like today's missiles.
View attachment 39406

But today we have ABM & ASAT weapons, HySo AGMs & AAMs are R&Ded.
Still i'm NOT CONCLUDING that a HySo attack jet cannot or should not be made. But all these factors & aspects have to be discussed & after that it seems only top R&D nations can afford it in short numbers.

That's the problem. You bring in everything under the sun, never the point.

You've literally never argued a single point even once. It's called straw man.

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.

Me: Russians define 6th gen that includes high speed, with ramjet or scramjet.
You: Ah, but DAS can detect a missile launch. So scramjet is unrealistic on fighters.
Me: What's that got to do with Russians defining 6th gen?
You: Ah, but scramjet has insane turn radius. Look at SR-71. Even Mig-41 will turn like SR-71.

There is literally no sequence to your thought process. You are just trying to find every excuse possible to dismiss not just me, but the Russians, Americans and Chinese, and specifically all the top minds of these countries.

No, you mentioned corner speeds & i told you based on airframe design as per Supersonic Area Rule that expecting sleek jet to be agile is like comparing to airliner which shoud NOT be done which you're doing by comparing MiG-31 with Su-35, 2 different categories.

All aircraft have corner speeds.

Supercruise mean without afterburner, so less IRS. That's very good. Russia needs it for its HUGE continental, largely inhabited territory.
But afterburning SCRamjet is totally another thing.

Top speed achieved using afterburner is for specific purposes like chasing a bomber or running away from a fight. It's not used in air combat with the exception sporadic use in dogfights to increase TWR, and at this point avoiding detection is no longer paramount. It's also used for takeoffs.

Anyway, your first statement is another example of a straw man fallacy. But I will address it anyway. The Mig-31 has nothing to do with Russia's huge continental territory. The Mig-31 was designed to chase down long range bombers and recce planes, so it needed long range too. Having long range covering their large area is simply a byproduct of its design. The fact is the Americans have to cover multiple times more territory than the Russians, and they do that using tankers instead.

Any country, even Qatar, would need Mig-31 if its main air threat was long range heavy bombers. It has nothing to do with the size of the territory. The large territory reason was given as an excuse to prevent its export, and even the US pushed for this. Different story that it was too expensive for any of the SU's client states, and the Russians remain the sole operators.

You talk like Russian in disguise or taking their side rather than being neutral Indian. F-22 & even Su-57 can do hard braking & a V-turn by TVC.
MiG-31 or any interceptor is not even designed to do it at subsonic corner speeds or they will stall.

So what? Mig-31 entered service in 1981, almsot 25 years before the F-22. Another example of a straw man fallacy.

You are expecting a HySo jet to be agile Fighter, you were comparing Interceptor to Fighter, while i simply tried to understand fuel requirement affecting size & speed requirement affecting agility. I tried cautioning you not to compare 2 different categories

Another straw man fallacy. Anyway neither you nor I know the specifics. For high speed performance, you need agility for missile avoidance, not dogfighting. This is the case even for the F-22.

So tell jet makers to exclude DAS/IRST
I already explained multiple aspects of a project/product, that's the only way to work in industry. Insulting me repeatedly by caling me nonsense, if i say that with this ignorance, arrogance & insulting attitude you'll never get a job or rise up the heirarchy then you'll also feel bad.

Another straw man fallacy. And you don't even know what insults are.

No, we're still not speculating same thing, bcoz like i said many times that USA's military R&D & achievements, geography, geopolitics, global agenda is different that ours. NGAD is generic term, NEXT, whatever it may come. I said in past that :
- India or any country should try to catch up will latest global tech but looking at all the aspects.
- eventually USAF will become UCAV-AF but it'll take time in decades. They can't just fire all pilots or stop recruiting them when they still have their F-15EX, F-16 Bl-70+ being made & F-18 getting replaced by F-35s.
- 5 fingers are different everywhere, so even USA citizens & LM/NG/Boeing/USAF/USN employees (Freshers to CEOs) have difference of opinions. What 1 chief/politician/CEO says is not what 1,000s/10,000s/100,1000s might agree. They all will be divided.
You're very concened about Chinese J-36 designer rather than our situation But at least i tried to have a common scale to compare all jets rather than crying & fight on personal gen #.

The answer to this will come once Trump becomes president.

Plus it's not decades. NGAD is on hold because of the belief that a drone is almost already in the process of being achieved. They claim this NGAD++ will be available in 10 years, which means it's already in a lab somewhere.

I do check the DRDO & PSU updates many times but it is still not near to global R&D. So it is not convincing that we'll be in flight testing stage of HySo jet when AMCA, TEDBF, MWF & full size UCAV are struggling to takeoff on time. The HSTDV is just a model of engine part, not a complete jet.
Our DoD wil have to test a real engine sized Ramjet/SCRamjet on ground 1st then on a jet & then a prototype. You're saying that it'll be done in 2-3 years? Ok, let's see but it doesn't seem so.

India's infrastructure, economy and scientific output is more or less where China was in the mid-2000s. So our human capital is yet to be tapped. Our R&D efficiency has been increasing alongside India's economic growth.

India has already carried out flight testing of the engine, but still requires work.
2019:

DRDO test-fires futuristic missile tech, but its success is in doubt

The DRDO carried out its maiden test of the indigenously developed Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle off the Odisha coast.

theprint.in

2020:

DRDO successfully flight tests Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle

But ISRO is ahead of DRDO in this area. ISRO's first full test was in 2016, they had tested a passive scramjet in 2010. Theirs is dual-mode ramjet, which can ignite both in subsonic and supersonic regimes.

The third test was in 2024.

ISRO conducts flight experiment of Air Breathing Propulsion System

There should be one more test before the SPEX launch. SPEX will be the main use case, ie, prototype, through Pushpak. Post which we will launch our first satellite into orbit with a scramjet.

For now our ramjet is already at flight testing stage in a prototype as of November. We will have our first domestic ramjet functional in a weapon in 2-3 years.

During this phase it cannot maneuver too much & be completely vulnerable to AMB & ASAT weapons.

All aircraft are vulnerable at high speed specifically from long range missiles. But you are confusing a jetline class design with a fighter.

To have a stopgap in 2035-40 there has to be a serious official statement today.

A stopgap is the exact opposite of what you said, and it's entirely dependent on what our enemies do. If the Chinese introduce their own Mig-41, we will have to do the same. And naturally, the Russians will have to allow exports anyway. The same with the Americans.