ASQ-239 has a jamming capability. They have a combined RWRJ like the one we planned for Tejas Mk2.
View attachment 40922
The radar of course can perform standoff jamming at long range on top of this which SPJs really can't.
The reason F-35I carries a pod is because the Israelis have a different use case. They plan to use their stealth jets alongside non-stealth ones. So you need the pods to protect the group as a whole.
Nevertheless, the pod is already integrated thanks to the Adir modifications. We don't need to pay anything for integration, the Israelis did.
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.
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.
Nobody (except perhaps Five Eyes) knew the possible timeframes of when this would happen. Nobody in IAF expected J-36 to be flying by 2024. Or that PAF will induct J-35 by 2027 until they announced it.
Why do you think we're scrambling for a 5th gen buy?
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.
TEDBF won't survive an engagement with PLANAF J-35. That's why I don't want to waste time or money on it.
Neither the IAF nor the IN believe that to be true.
IAC-3 will be developed in a few years too.
They have a Rafale-only fleet now. But we'll be having a mixed Rafale/29K fleet till around 2040. So we don't need as many Rafales till then.
We can decide on follow-on purchase after operating the jet for a few years and firming up the Naval CCA plan.
All you are doing is recommending buying 90 Rafale Ms at the minimum, at the cost of ADA developing a carrier jet.
Exactly why I don't want to waste time on TEDBF. It's a STOBAR-optimized design that'll eat up our R&D resources till 2040. We can only begin work on Naval 5th gen afterwards in this plan. That's no good. We're wasting a decade. All the R&D we're doing for AMCA including shaping, RAM/RAS, embedded antennas etc will be ready for application well before then.
What you're asking us to do is to import F-21 now, and then build Tejas Mk2 by 2040. That's crazy.
So buy 145 Rafale Ms?
That's why I don't want to link it to the current CDR.
Navy only needs an AMCA realized by the time we get the 5th gen engines. There's enough time to take a new design to CDR by then. It would have maximum commonality with AMCA in terms of avionics & even materials. Kinda like Tejas Mk2 & current AMCA which are 75% common. The same avionics, wrapped in a different airframe.
5th gen AMCA and naval AMCA would be made along similar lines, except with 90% commonality. Same avionics & systems, just an airframe that differs where necessary. That's actually the same as what we want to do with current TEDBF as well. I just want it with a stealthy airframe that's CAT-optimized instead of a non-stealthy STOBAR-optimized one.
Rafale-M (which has an upgrade path ahead of it) can comfortably fulfill all requirements till then. A new 4.5 gen in the same class is both unnecessary & anachronistic given how threats are evolving.
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. Core avionics will be different. The idea is to have common parts wherever possible. So the first 40 jets with the same engine will have the same accessory drive for example. But the definitive version of AMCA will naturally have a new engine.
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.
Anyway, it's easier to design a new jet than convert AMCA for naval use, especially CATOBAR.
It's not contested, it's denied. That's from where you get the term A2/AD from.
To contest the airspace, you need to be
in that airspace. Along with the enemy. Whoever wins gains air superiority. But you need to address both the ground & air threats for the airspace to become permissible, which then allows aircraft that aren't necessarily survivable on their own against these threats (like 4th gens, drones, bombers etc) to come in & do their job without fear of being shot down.
The U.S. military conducted fresh airstrikes against militants from the Islamic State group (ISIS) in central Syria on Dec. 16.
www.airandspaceforces.com
“Broadly speaking, one of the big factors that has changed in Syria is the airspace in the sense that previously, you had Syrian regime and Russian air defenses which would preclude, in many cases, our ability to or desirability to go into those areas,” Pentagon Press Secretary Air Force Maj. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder said. “It’s a much more permissible environment in that regard.”
Now that those air defences are gone, the airspace has become permissible. When those defences were still up, USAF wasn't going there - cuz it was denied airspace. If USAF were to enter while the airspace wasn't yet secure, then it would've been contested.
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.
Actions speak louder than words.
It's not their choice. The govt has to take action.
MKI MLU + LCA.
The purpose of a carrier isn't to just exist. We aren't the Thai Navy with their Chaktri Naruebet.
It's all about the aircraft. If the planes you're launching aren't survivable, then they can't do their mission. There's no point in launching them. The type of aircraft needs to define how your carriers turn out to be.
If you're letting your carrier limitations define your air wing, you're doing things backwards. That might still be acceptable if we just want a carrier for show. But we're past that point as a Navy.
Only you believe TEDBF is not survivable, the IN doesn't.
