He's not referring to the overall mission, but only flight performance. The Swiss tender too gave Typhoon the performance edge via their leaked document.
People's Liberation Army Air Force : News & Discussions
- Thread starter Aashish
- Start date
He's not referring to the overall mission, but only flight performance. The Swiss tender too gave Typhoon the performance edge via their leaked document.
Supposedly calling people's BS to their face is perceived as an insult, especially when it's supposed to be the norm on a forum such as this.
The West is already falling to such crazy levels of insecurity, and here the mods are enabling it, deleting posts left and right.
Does the esteemed member reporting posts want a safe space too?
The West is already falling to such crazy levels of insecurity, and here the mods are enabling it, deleting posts left and right.
Does the esteemed member reporting posts want a safe space too?
Once again you're full of it. Nowhere in your links does the USAF says "USAF says their goal in future wars with China is not air supremacy but parity."They are already preparing the American public for the reality of future wars.
“The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against [an] array of potential adversary capabilities,” according to the newly released unclassified version of the Air Force’s Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan.
Air Force Report Warns of Air Superiority Loss | Defense Media Network
The Air Force's Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan warns of losing air superiority in the future and suggests new acquisition and development processes.www.defensemedianetwork.com
So:
In denial about denial: why Ukraine air success should worry the West - Middle East Transparent
Ukraine’s success in contesting the skies turns the West’s airpower paradigm on its head — it offers an alternative vision for pursuing airspace denial over air superiority. Despite having one of the largest and most technologically sophisticated air forces in the world, Russia has failed to...middleeasttransparent.com
General Hinote: "Hey, air denial is a good thing."
Wargames Show Air Force Isn't Accelerating Fast Enough, Hinote Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine
The Air Force's futurist says recent wargames show the service is not accelerating fast enough to keep pace with adversaries, such as China.www.airandspaceforces.com
Mutual Denial of Air Superiority Could Benefit US in Future Conflict, Top USAF Planner Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration, and requirements, spoke about air superiority in the Ukraine war.
And this was in the past. But, while B-21 is a given, the question now is whether NGAD is sufficient 'cause it's on hold.
Anyway, I can't find the exact quote, but the USAF essentially said both are necessary to maintain their new "fight in contested airspace" strategy. You can argue they said it for the sake of funding, but we are at that point already.
If anything the USAF is doing what they been doing since the cold war and that is shouting the sky is falling if they don't continue to get the money they need for future conflicts. The source you posted even has a list of what they want but a dishonest hendoo like you thought you could get away with lying knowing many in here would not read the article but take your lying a$$ word for it.
So again the USAF's goal is not "parity in future wars" as YOU claim if anything their goal is to continue their dominance by continuing their fundings.
But nice try....
I can't find the exact quote due to the general words used in such a statement which throws off the search engine. But it's there.
And no, their goal is not to achieve parity, it's to achieve superiority (not supremacy though), BUT the situation will be such that parity will become the main agenda, and that naturally requires NGAD and B-21, ie, the 2030 force projection with F-22 and F-35 is not viable. And this is over a long period of time, not immediately. We are assuming the NGAD and B-21 have been inducted in strength, and that's pretty much 2040. The Chinese will have equivalents too.
And note, I'm not saying the US will be inferior, only that unlike previous wars the USAF is gonna have to actually put up a fight and US ground and naval forces and bases will take a pounding. The Chinese are near-peer today, but will achieve air parity by 2035-40 and will definitely achieve numbers superiority by then as well.
And it's not just fighters, they are currently behind in force multipliers. New ones are coming in, like KJ-3000, but we will see all sorts of advanced stealthy aircraft pretty soon.
Anyway, the Chinese are way behind in some areas like special mission aircraft (AWACS, tankers and EW) and helicopters, are at par when it comes to weapons like BVR, have superiorty in exotic weapons like hypersonics, and are rapidly approaching parity in fighter jets. But the USAF is preparing for the day the Chinese will outspend and outmod them in all these areas, hence Lt. Gen. Hinote is talking about air denial.
Here's an article by the USMC suggesting they need to develop air denial techniques if/when the USAF fails.
Air superiority in a conflict among roughly equal combatants may not be feasible, even temporarily. But the Ukrainians have demonstrated that air denial can facilitate battlefield success. And an air-denial strategy also may represent a more efficient use of available resources in some scenarios. The Marine Corps needs this capability to provide the most options for the joint force commander in a contested environment. The service should also accelerate efforts to field a broader range of mobile ground-based air-defense systems.
So the road is being paved already.
Both the US and China are preparing to fight for air superiority and air denial. Air supremacy in the context of these two powers is dead.
As for Russia, they were working along the lines of deterrence and air denial, but I think even they want to move up the chain considering they have awoken to the NATO threat against them. So, by 2040, while the US and China will look very similar in size and capabilities, the Russians are a wild card with their 100+ jets per year plan. And that could upset US calculations even more.
Things aren't as simple as you want it to be. The user has already explained it in the best manner possible without intending to create panic.
@randomradio, @vstol Jockey, @_Anonymous_, @Parthu, @Ashwin, @marich01, @Speedster1, @Bhartiya Naagrik Sainik, @Gautam, @YoungWolf, @Picdelamirand-oil, @Bon Plan, @Innominate @et al
Found this very accurate image of size, weapons load and future engines about future 6th gen Chinese Air-Dominance in this image:
Source:
PS: J-36 with 3k kms combat radius and 12 missile(8 VLRAAMs +4 BVRAAMs) internal loadout and broad-band stealth is a super deadly combination for us. We need to figure out how to slay this dragon.
Found this very accurate image of size, weapons load and future engines about future 6th gen Chinese Air-Dominance in this image:
Source:
PS: J-36 with 3k kms combat radius and 12 missile(8 VLRAAMs +4 BVRAAMs) internal loadout and broad-band stealth is a super deadly combination for us. We need to figure out how to slay this dragon.
Matching PLA/AF/N on the numbers front would be impossible. We need to match them like-for-like on the tech front, and for that to happen, the MoD needs to loosen the purses. We need to ensure that our definitive AMCA evolves in a manner (carry 6 BVRAAMs, match/outrange MKI) to sufficiently counter whatever they're expected to throw at us. Sounds plausible when commenting from the comfort of my sofa, but our R&D needs more money as well as infrastructure. Can't be running to Russia or France every time we test something.
Our Tejas MK2 can't lag behind in terms of sensor fusion at the very least so as to not be hopelessly outmatched against the PLAAF 4/4+ gen fighters. Our IADS/C4ISR capabilities need to be flawless to compensate for the lack of frontline fighters.
In terms of numbers, we need to have a third of what they have when we talk about fighter jets and ships.
Sure, but that's the bare minimum numbers. Why settle for the bare minimum, given our ambition/capability? We've got a robust enough economy to spend much more, since our spending hasn't kept up with our economic growth. The FinMin needs to play ball and increase the budget. The budget bottleneck has been a bane of our procurement/R&D since time immemorial. We need more than minimum credible deterrence numbers to complicate whatever equations the Chinese have vis-a-vis India.
Last edited:
IMO, we are neck deep in ditch. We've to think asymmetrically in short/medium/long term, just like our bank FD/RD/MF accounts & use our Socialist mixed economy properly.
All the features of a combat jet work collectively, neither only H/w nor only S/w, neither only geometry, nor only parts. Everything needs to progress with time.
For example, after 35 years since YF-22 got revealed, we got our RAM nwo but MWF & TEDBF still didn't get geometric shaping like i already highlighted. And now we'll have to produce few squads of them stuck for next 40-50yrs. Other certain nations will be using their MLUed 4.5gen behind their latest future products which we won't have. If Rafale F5/F6/F7 & EF-2000 Trance 5/6/7 would be sufficient then why they're going for FCAS & GCAP.
Anyways, AMCA can fit 6 modified short-fin Astr-2 or 8 fin-folding ones or 6 shorter intake Astr-3 SFDR AAMs like i showed. But AMCA'll be lone so called "5gen" jet in IAF for long time. It should also be turned into UCAV Wingman. Supersonci, supercruising, dogfighter UCAV is also important.
Enough of puny engines. This is time of deperation & we should crack a deal with either USA for F100/110 or Russia for AL-41. ToT talks can continue whenever they may or may not agree. But our R&D on better jets should go on while JV or GTRE can work in parallel.
It's not minimum, it's optimum. To manage an offensive force structure, you need 2-2.5 times the number of high-end jets relative to your enemy.
We have more than an overmatch against Pakistan, but because PLAAF is a single-role fighter type air force, we can comfortably prevent an overmatch against us due to their lower number of ASFs. And this is just numbers, we are not even considering the advantages we have with geography. The PLAAF need 2x the numbers just to maintain parity with India. Once we bring in operational advantages due to training and planning, it becomes even more skewed in our favor. Different story that we actually need to build those jets.
Similarly for the navy, we only need to match 1 of their 3 fleets. They don't have the ability to sustain combat operations in the IOR, and may not get one for many decades. So at a third of their strength, we significantly overmatch PLAN in the IOR.
The bigger problem is, if we end up with an air force and navy much, much bigger than what is actually required, all our neighbors are gonna get terrified and will start working against us eventually, even if we have no offensive designs on them. All it will do is destabilize our own sphere of influence. That's why we end up having to keep convincing IOR nations via IONS that our navy is meant to protect it, hence the smaller navy.
In any case, our navy isn't small. Our goal is to have more than twice as many ships as either USN or PLAN can bring to the IOR. So even if both come in force together, we will have parity.
We do have the budget, but our security calculus is focused on dealing with bigger threats today than Pak or China. Internal security. For India to survive and exist meaningfully in the future, we need BJP in power for quite a long time. So they are focusing on internal security to maintain power. The last thing we want is a repeat of Hasina in India. The longterm goal is for economic growth to bring in the funds necessary for large scale military modernization. The idea is we can build 10 per year of something today with our current budget or build 20 or 30 per year of that thing 5 years later with a much higher budget.
I speculated NGAD to be 45-50 tons MTOW but this J-36 is 55 tons MTOW
IDK how they'll vertically double stack 8 PL-17 AAMs.
It is 610Kg AAM 
I believe MWF & TEDBF not having a VLO geometry is less of a skill/tech issue, but more a cost/time based decision. MWF is basically Tejas optimised without the constraints of using MiG-21's shelters on frontline bases, with a bang up-to-date sensor suite.
TEDBF is definitely a programme where IN decided against a VLO/5th gen fighter in favour of having a shorter development cycle so as to have the jet ready as a MiG-29K replacement by mid-'30s. There were rumours that TEDBF will have a 5th/5+ gen variant in future with the AMCA's JV engine (following the KF-21 development route), but I don't know the veracity of such rumours so don't quote me on that.
Agree with what you say but we needed those numbers (for IAF) to maintain parity against the PLAAF as of yesterday. Half of our fleet won't be much effective over the Himalayas, despite the terrain favouring us. Only half of our MKI n Rafale fleet will be deployed over there with the entire MiG-29UPG fleet. Tejas Mk1A/Jaguar/Mirage-2000I are more focussed towards our western theatre. Budgetary and policy shenanigans is directly to blame for us having a grand total of 6 AWACS n tankers each, though I'm hoping that their current procurement plan actually fructifies. Currently, we're hopelessly outmatched; training, doctrine and terrain advantages notwithstanding.
For the Navy, submarines are an area of grave concern, along with lack of minesweepers and auxiliary ships like LHA/LHD. The fact that we haven't managed to procure 4 of Mistral/Juan Carlos class ships in over 2 decades is shambolic. We can't afford to have gaping holes in our auxillary fleet.
We are outmatched against PLAAF to a certain extent, but it's not as bad as people imagine it is. The IAF has the primary mandate to defend the airspace, support ground operations, and a secondary mandate to pursue strategic ambitions. They only cannot do the last one right now, it's quite limited today.
Our main focus since 2022 was towards invisible aspects of the IAF, ie, force multipliers, C&C and ISR networks including satellites, base upgrades, cyberwarfare and NBC protection programs. Each of these categories is very expensive. For example, we plan on launching 50+ satellites by 2032, and each of these will cost hundreds of millions to even a billion or more dollars. Force multipliers too require multiple fleets worth billions. The N component of NBC alone is our massive BMD program. And alongside BMD, it's possible the IAF is simultaneously pursuing counterforce strategies, at least against Pakistan.
Within 7 years, the 180 new LCAs, upgrading Mig-29s with AESA radar, and new weapons for MKI will effectively triple our air defense firepower. And all that new tech on the LCAs will increase the effectiveness of ground support ops by a pretty huge margin. So the IAF can exceed the requirements of their primary mandate in a short time.
So their capabilities have to be looked at quite a bit more holistically than just focusing on one or two aspects for what is essentially a secondary mission, which is the aim of MRFA and AMCA.
A rocket force is also expected to complement the IAF's temporary deep strike inadequacies. Btw, any long war with China will see massive transfer of funds and weapons from the US. So refuelers, transports, standoff BMs and CMs like PrSM and JASSM etc. We are not in a bad place.
As for the navy, the minesweeper hole is being plugged in three ways, a tender, a large UUV for which contract has already been signed, and helicopters like the Romeos. The LHD program was deliberately delayed for the sake of other more pressing programs, and now the plan is to indigenize the requirement, but shipyards can work with FOEMs. 2 shipyards have indigenous designs, 2 have teamed up with FOEMs.
Anyway, we were just talking about the navy and terrified neighbors, here Trump is talking about taking over Greenland and Panama potentially militarily.
TEDBF is as you say, a time-based decision. It's unlikely to get new engines. LCA is likely to stick with GE as well.
I won't be surprised if the F414 does not even get an overhaul throughout the life of these jets without significant life extension. Both Mk2 and TEDBF could have the same service life as the F414's hot parts. F404-IN20's cold parts can significantly last more than the Mk1A airframe at least.
Here's an IAF pilot complaining about it.
End Of 'Made In India' Dream! No Indian Fighter Jet Will Fly With Indigenous Engine Until 2100 As DRDO, HAL 'Concede' To GE: OPED
OPED BY: Gp Cpt TP Srivastava (Retd) Indian fighter development program does an interesting reading. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) of the 1950s developed a fully operational twin-engine fighter HF-24 (Marut), which took its first flight on June 24, 1961, almost 62 years ago. Dr. Kurt Tank...
www.eurasiantimes.com
LCA doesn't require airframe stealth for its mission. It's primarily been designed to operate within friendly airspace or fly nap of the earth inside enemy airspace.
NOTE: This is neutral reply observing GoI/MoD/DoD.
> The cost/time reason doesn't seem convincing
- How much money can be saved by NOT making the fuselage walls slant but keeping it round or vertical & NOT having 2 slant rudders (with its components). Is this the right way of technology progressing?
- 35 years cannot be excuse for time decision. Post our IT-boom, in era of advanced 3D CAD S/w, how much time will it take to reposition components as per slant fuselage walls & 2 slant rudders when unqualified 3D artists are making appreciable renders?
> Some mixed timeline:- MWF was authorised in 2009, design study completed in 2014, revealed at Aero-India in 2019, CDR completed in 2021. I wonder who exactly did the CDR.
- MiG-29K entered serivce in 2010.
- J-20 prototype flew in 2011.
- AMCA program launched in 2010, design finalized in 2016.
- TEDBF was officially announced in 2020, (just 10 yrs after MiG-29K). it has got preliminary clearences by ministries by 2024.
- So ADA/NAL had 25yrs (1990-2014) for MWF & 35yrs (1990-2024) for TDBF. After J-20 flew in 2011 then also they had 3 & 13yrs & still they didn't consider a stealth geomentry except for AMCA? Then when?
The perception of citizens would be - ADA/DoD has multiple teams for these 3 jets obviously, But AMCA team is future oriented but not the MWF & TEDBF teams.
> These jets will always take-off with some minimum load of 1 or 2 fuel tanks, 2 BVR-AAMs & 2 CCMs, so why not make them part of airframe (5gen philosophy)? - USA has 1 engine F-35 & may have 1 engine NGAD exportable version too, Russia has proposed Su-75, Sweden might surprise 1 day with stealthy Gripen perhaps, China might surprise with stealthy J-10 & JF-17 perhaps. Should we wait for such surprises?
- VLO stealth (RF + IR) has become norm which some countries are racing to achieve, not something exotic like in 1980s/90s, that's why we talk about a new/next gen. With so called 5gen jets also there is a concern to defeat improved missiles.
- Inflating LCA to MWF & giving it better internal components & avionics doesn't change the aspects of RCS & IRS. So a work-around is not solution but a temporary or intermediate shortcut or "jugaad". Be it any kind of technology, self R&D is the only way forward in long term.
> MWF & TEDBF are going to stay till 2080. So, will our DoD EVER make stealthy MWF & TEDBF?- If YES then WHEN they'll announce?
- If NO then WHY NOT? What's next then?
> The Defence Secretary Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Air Chief Marshal Mr. A.P. Singh, the retired officers in interviews & podcasts have already accepted superficially & indirectly what i said specifically w.r.t. time & tech. Now even they understand that now NO excuse, reason, justification, PR soft talks, etc will work.
> So this will be percieved by some as a skill/tech issue also & by some as a intellectual sabotage issue also. It would be theatrical to see a good journalist asking this questions to MoD & DoD spokesperson on LIVE TV.
The timelines you mentioned are wrong. LCA Mk2 is a modernization of Mk1. Even though it started in 2009, it went through redesigns to get to today's version.
And TEDBF was chosen to be 4.5th gen in order to expedite the development before jumping to a more complex CATOBAR-capable next gen design in order to save time as well as create iterative capabilities for development of a carrier jet instead of jumping rightaway to something difficult. The IN also wanted a quick replacement for its STOBAR requirement 'cause the Mig-29's life is running out.
CDR is carried out by the IAF. Even though designs were finalized earlier, the CDR is the definitive end of the design stage, when the IAF gives the go-ahead for the engineering phase.
The IAF has chosen 4.5th gen airframe for all its requirements because 5th gen designs of this level of capability are unnecessary. They are difficult to maintain in our operational areas and are expensive too. A lot of the infrastructure required to make use of shaped stealth are not survivable during wartime either. For 5th gen and higher, the IAF is waiting for airframe technology to mature to the point where it can be used as carelessly as a 4th gen jet. So it has to survive FOD, airframe deformities, bird strikes, combat fatigue, climate fatigue, carelessnes of airmen, battle damage etc. Otoh, you throw a rock at the F-35 and you can demote it to 4th gen.
For stealthy airframes, battle damage is of the greatest consequence. It's not easy to fix an airframe that's taken AAA fire or shrapnel damage. And that's just one of the reasons why the Russians, Americans, and Chinese are still building 4th gen airframes irrespective of their success in 5th gen. And they will all end 4th gen production roughly around the time India does and operate these jets for many decades, with retirement dates well beyond 2090 in some cases.
I understand your frustrations, and to some extent, share them too. But you're overlooking one critical element: costs; not just for development of a VLO airframe (which is quite considerable even with modern tech advancements) but also for operations. To say that a VLO aircraft takes much longer to develop than a RO/LO aircraft isn't controversial either. Tejas MK2 is intended to be the workhorse platform of IAF, so it can't be a 5th gen fighter whose operating costs are roughly 50% higher than a 4/4+ gen fighter of similar size/range/payload. IAF's OpEx can't cope with that. Heck, even USAF will be continuing with F-16B70/F-15E/EX as their workhorses for decades to come, and they've got more money than God to operate whatever n wherever. 4+ gen fighters will remain relevant till 2070-80, though they'll be 2nd/3rd line of attack/defence for any self-respecting AF. Same can be said for both PLAAF and RuAF, even the French.
Regarding TEDBF, I'm hopeful for a Block-2 variant powered by the same JV engine as AMCA. One can safely guess that it'll be announced the current version finishes it's development and enters production. IN will surely but prudently expedite that knowing that PLAN will have a 5th gen deck based fighter of their own very soon.
Last edited:
There's no use case for a modernized TEDBF. IN wants CATOBAR carriers as their third or fourth one. ADA says they need to design a new jet for it.
IN intends to build at least 150 TEDBF though. That will give us 45-50 jets for each carrier. So I'm guessing the third carrier will be STOBAR, although MoD has approved a fleet only for 2 carriers for now. Buying more jets would mean we need to build more STOBAR carriers, I'm hoping we move up the chain. The plan is to operate 6 carriers eventually.