Trump Offers F-35 Jet to India in Push for More Defense Deals

No, no, no.

You ridiculously claimed the F-35 has jammers by linking an image of an F-35 showing off its RWR in post 163. This one:
View attachment 41246

When it clearly says RWR, ie, radar warning "receiver."

Then you made an equally ridiculous assertion:
It's also interesting that they show the embedded antennas emitting a similar cone as what's used to illustrate the radar's EW functions:

The image clearly says "emitter locating" and "electronic support measures," which are both passive measures. Jamming is called "electronic countermeasures."

Emitter locating is a localization system which any RWR/ESM system has. Old ESMs could localize signals over a 10-15 deg swath, but new ones can localize to less than 1 deg, which is what they refer to as passive targeting because that level of accuracy is enough to direct a weapon at the target.

The antenna positions on the airframe also check out to be receivers, not jammers.

My primary (and first) source was the BAE product sheet for ASQ-239 that lists jamming as an ability of the suite. The APG-81 & ALE-70 are separate systems (not to mention ALE-70 relies on ASQ-239 to generate the jamming signal, which means the suite already has the requisite back-end hardware for active transmission).

The slide conveys certain things with graphics & certain things with text. If you only pay attention to the text, it would mean even the radar has no EA/ECM capability - cause that too isn't written - but we know for a fact that it does.

So we need to take all available sources to corroborate information otherwise you're always left with an incomplete picture even if you rely on official sources like the ones I posted.

Then you claimed pods are amazing, but also countered your own argument talking about NGAD's conformal arrays.

What did I contradict? NGAD is a newly-designed airframe and therefore has the space to accommodate this capability internally. Smaller aircraft or those that don't want to go with re-engineered airframes (therefore limited scope for moving LRUs around) go with pods. Like the Gripen or Typhoon.

Simple.

Then you claimed transmitters and receivers can be on a single array due to the development of different bus standards, which is... that statement doesn't even make sense actually.
Then you claimed interference at the receivers can be eliminated using OFC due to the development of a new bus standard.

That was wrt interference management. On older databus hardware the various RWRs around the airframe (or even the FCR) couldn't be synchronized in time to ignore signals coming from your own jammer. By creating physical separation (mostly coming down to ensuring the receiver FoV isn't covered by the jammer's active lobes) this was mitigated to an extent. Though in most cases, even that wasn't enough and the safe bet to eliminate false alarms was to NOT operate jammer & RWR/radar simultaneously.

But due to OFC-based buses, the signal processor is now able to operate receivers & transmitters without interference. The OFC is necessary cuz the processing of signals doesn't happen at the array but at the modular LRU in the avionics bay (behind the nose, on the spine, wherever there is space). Older buses had lag so the array couldn't know in time which frequency is going to be free.

So now the location of RWR & jammer no longer matters. You can separate them, put them right next to each other, or even on the same array. It all depends on the shape of your aircraft, the FoV you want to cover & how much space you have. Interference determining the spacing is no longer a factor because of improvement in signal processing - which in turn is only possible due to FOC-based internal networking.

This is why aircraft like F-35 (even F-15EX) advertise their ability to jam simultaneously without interfering with other sensors such a central point of marketing. This wasn't possible on older aircraft.

What's so difficult to understand about this?

And then, you did not even try to explain how you plan on connecting OFC between your jet and the enemy target. That's how low your foundational knowledge is.

Why would you need to connect OFC to an enemy target to remove interference between your own sensors? This question is just a result of not understanding what I'm saying.

Then you provided ridiculous reasons by giving Arexis as example without knowing anything about it.

Here:
View attachment 41247

Here, the main transmitters are on the fin. Then there are these things called QRT on the wingtips, which you claim are a single array.

The ones on the fin are low-band transmitters. The QRTs on wingtips are for mid-band.


But here's the reality:
View attachment 41248

Those are 2 different arrays,

No, both those arrays perform both functions (receive/transmit). One is biased toward targets in the airspace above & one below in order to extend the FoV. That's why it's called a Quadrant Receiver-Transmitter. Each covers a half-hemisphere (with some overlap in between) while the 2 behind cover the back. But the airframe is in the way so the other wingtip takes care of the other side for 360*

possibly even 3 arrays.

Nah, the thing on the side isn't an array - just some shroud or something, it's removable:

F-39E-Gripen-FAB-4107-25-nov-2024-Photo-Valter-Andrade-9D0A8779-1280x853.jpg

They are all physically separated.

Dude there's no separation, they're right next to each other. The wingtip is actually tiny, the assembly is shorter vertically than Rafale's canard-root emitter or ELT-568 are side-to-side:

FWrd96EUIAAlTCQ


Even if we assume they're performing separate functions, this type of co-location isn't going to remove any interference. One is basically inside the other's lobe! You only put them that close if interference isn't a problem due to your system.

Mounting them on the same array makes no practical difference vs an assembly like this if you're putting them that close anyway. Each TRM is individually programmable, you just tell half of them to transmit and the other half to receive.

None of this is related to different bus standards or OFC. This is all just basic physics. You would have known this if only you had even the most basic foundational knowledge.

Explained above. Still not sure what's so difficult to understand.

Read post 42.

Huh, I thought they were still in the process of defining the capabilities of F5. So they're past that stage. Good to know. Thanks for that.

So F5 will indeed have arrays with simultaneous transmit/receive functions. And there'll be no interference there either.

Ah, yes, "modern jets" means water is no longer wet.

No, it just means capabilities have evolved.

Ah, so the F-35 will carry an old missiles externally and still maintain stealth for SEAD. Wonderful.

The missiles are for standoff engagement. You still need to be survivable after the missile is spent even if you want to stay back & control CCAs while other F-35s in the package (without external weapons) go in to finish the job after the long-wavelength radars are destroyed by your standoff ARM.

The level of comprehension you have. :ROFLMAO:

Picdel said:
The equivalent of a Harm, if we make one, will be derived from the FMAN/FMC programme, but if we do, it will certainly be for the British.

FMAN/FMC program is a cruise missile program. The version being developed for the French is a high speed ramjet version.

It's funny you accuse me of not having comprehension but then put on a display of actual inability to comprehend.

Picdel said:

"The AASF is not a classic American-style anti radar weapon, it's a smart glider!"

Then he shows a pic of the MBDA SmartGlider, which is presumably what the AASF is going to be based on - just with a different seeker head than what is shown.

The bit about FMAN/FMC is a hypothetical - that's not what AASF (meant for French use) is supposed to be. He only mentioned that because you erroneously assumed in your post that AASF must be a HARM-type weapon. He never said they were going for a ramjet-based ARM, he said IF at all they were to go for a HARM-type weapon i.e. a missile instead of a glider, then it would be ramjet-based.

And when he says "it will certainly be for the British," he's trying to say the Rafale doesn't need a SEAD weapon.

The AASF is a SEAD weapon. It's clearly mentioned in the article I posted:


But the article doesn't mention what type of delivery system is used. Picdel clarified that to be a glider instead of a solid rocket motor. He never denied that AASF was a thing or that it was meant to be used against radars. Ask him yourself if you want.

In any case, this new weapon is expected in 2035. And it will be high speed + long range. Far away from the urgency they are showing for the F-35.

That's not an indication of anything - the French are not urgent regarding even SCAF (expected late 2040s) even though they admit the capabilities it brings (stealthy airframe, internal weapons) would be necessary going ahead.

I already told you why they aren't urgent - they don't need to be cuz they don't plan on fighting any advanced enemy in the foreseeable future. At least not without the US by their side.

That outlook could change under Trump 2.0 - if it does, we'll see the results.

I'd like them to double their naval spending and build a second carrier. But if they have decided that expanding the navy is not an option and the Rafale will have to meet their requirements in the South Pacific, that means they will spend more money on the Rafale to make it as capable as possible to meet said threat. I'm not surprised you cannot come to that conclusion.

Even we who are a resident power in the INDOPAC (and have well-positioned land assets like A&N islands to conduct halfway resupply between IOR & SCS) have determined that we need minimum 3 carriers to maintain the status quo with China & Pak and up to 5-6 (most of them CATOBAR) in future if we want to go toe to toe with China.

If you think the French can manage both Russia & China with just 1 carrier, go right ahead & live in that delusion.

Trump is irrelevant if the Democrats don't want to have decent defense relations with India. The assumption that F404 deliveries were delayed due to maliciousness has been proven true, so that closes the window for strategic deals until they decide to come on the same page as the Republicans.

We need leverage to make that happen. Talk & niceties aren't enough. There's no better leverage than getting even a couple F-35s in hand already by the time they come into office. That'll put cards in our hand.
 
Last edited:
My primary (and first) source was the BAE product sheet for ASQ-239 that lists jamming as an ability of the suite. The APG-81 & ALE-70 are separate systems (not to mention ALE-70 relies on ASQ-239 to generate the jamming signal, which means the suite already has the requisite back-end hardware for active transmission).

The slide conveys certain things with graphics & certain things with text. If you only pay attention to the text, it would mean even the radar has no EA/ECM capability - cause that too isn't written - but we know for a fact that it does.

So we need to take all available sources to corroborate information otherwise you're always left with an incomplete picture even if you rely on official sources like the ones I posted.

Oh, sure.

If only words were that simple.
The ALE-70 towed radio frequency countermeasure

What did I contradict? NGAD is a newly-designed airframe and therefore has the space to accommodate this capability internally. Smaller aircraft or those that don't want to go with re-engineered airframes (therefore limited scope for moving LRUs around) go with pods. Like the Gripen or Typhoon.

Simple.

You contradicted everything you ever claimed. Congratulations.

That was wrt interference management. On older databus hardware the various RWRs around the airframe (or even the FCR) couldn't be synchronized in time to ignore signals coming from your own jammer. By creating physical separation (mostly coming down to ensuring the receiver FoV isn't covered by the jammer's active lobes) this was mitigated to an extent. Though in most cases, even that wasn't enough and the safe bet to eliminate false alarms was to NOT operate jammer & RWR/radar simultaneously.

But due to OFC-based buses, the signal processor is now able to operate receivers & transmitters without interference. The OFC is necessary cuz the processing of signals doesn't happen at the array but at the modular LRU in the avionics bay (behind the nose, on the spine, wherever there is space). Older buses had lag so the array couldn't know in time which frequency is going to be free.

So now the location of RWR & jammer no longer matters. You can separate them, put them right next to each other, or even on the same array. It all depends on the shape of your aircraft, the FoV you want to cover & how much space you have. Interference determining the spacing is no longer a factor because of improvement in signal processing - which in turn is only possible due to FOC-based internal networking.

This is why aircraft like F-35 (even F-15EX) advertise their ability to jam simultaneously without interfering with other sensors such a central point of marketing. This wasn't possible on older aircraft.

What's so difficult to understand about this?

What a load of nonsense.

Why would you need to connect OFC to an enemy target to remove interference between your own sensors? This question is just a result of not understanding what I'm saying.

:ROFLMAO:

The ones on the fin are low-band transmitters. The QRTs on wingtips are for mid-band.


The fin ones are mid band. The QRTs are high band. You can tell by the size of the arrays.

The fins here are low band.
1.jpg

And the one in the nose are L/S bands, ie, mid band.
2.jpg

If you had basic foundational knowledge, you wouldn't make such elementary mistakes. Similarly, you would be able to separate wrong information from right when you read articles where you can see insufficient research has been conducted.

No, both those arrays perform both functions (receive/transmit). One is biased toward targets in the airspace above & one below in order to extend the FoV. That's why it's called a Quadrant Receiver-Transmitter. Each covers a half-hemisphere (with some overlap in between) while the 2 behind cover the back. But the airframe is in the way so the other wingtip takes care of the other side for 360*

Do you have sufficient comprehension? First, there is physical separation between two arrays. Second, when one is receiving the other is transmitting. Whether the arrays can perform both functions or not is irrelevant.

Also quadrant means "quarter" not half. Each covers one quadrant and 4 quadrants make a whole.

Dude there's no separation, they're right next to each other. The wingtip is actually tiny, the assembly is shorter vertically than Rafale's canard-root emitter or ELT-568 are side-to-side:

FWrd96EUIAAlTCQ

That is separation. You can literally see it.

Even if we assume they're performing separate functions, this type of co-location isn't going to remove any interference. One is basically inside the other's lobe! You only put them that close if interference isn't a problem due to your system.

Mounting them on the same array makes no practical difference vs an assembly like this if you're putting them that close anyway. Each TRM is individually programmable, you just tell half of them to transmit and the other half to receive.

:ROFLMAO:

Explained above. Still not sure what's so difficult to understand.

Oh, good job explaining how physics doesn't work in your world.

Huh, I thought they were still in the process of defining the capabilities of F5. So they're past that stage. Good to know. Thanks for that.

So F5 will indeed have arrays with simultaneous transmit/receive functions. And there'll be no interference there either.

F5 is already in development.

If the array is big enough, you can choreograph it to get multiple main beams, and each antenna can have multiple receiver channels, for a whole different reason than 1553. So there is physical separation between the tranceivers. It means parts of the arrays are separated by software instead of hardware.

So if you have 1000 TRMs, you can dedicate 100 for jamming, another 100 for receiving, and the remaining 800 for radar functions. And with conformal arrays, you simply have more arrays with different functions, like the L-band radar on the Su-35/57.

No, it just means capabilities have evolved.

And water is still wet.

The missiles are for standoff engagement. You still need to be survivable after the missile is spent even if you want to stay back & control CCAs while other F-35s in the package (without external weapons) go in to finish the job after the long-wavelength radars are destroyed by your standoff ARM.

Whether it's standoff or not, you are announcing an intent to attack, which is a 180 deg u-turn from what the F-35 is supposed to do.

The non-stealth ARM is loud and slow and tells everybody and their grandmas they are under attack. That's how 4th gen jets are. Why is a stealth 5th gen jet using 4th gen tactics? What changed? And why isn't the Rafale doing the same?

It's funny you accuse me of not having comprehension but then put on a display of actual inability to comprehend.

Picdel said:

"The AASF is not a classic American-style anti radar weapon, it's a smart glider!"

Then he shows a pic of the MBDA SmartGlider, which is presumably what the AASF is going to be based on - just with a different seeker head than what is shown.

The bit about FMAN/FMC is a hypothetical - that's not what AASF (meant for French use) is supposed to be. He only mentioned that because you erroneously assumed in your post that AASF must be a HARM-type weapon. He never said they were going for a ramjet-based ARM, he said IF at all they were to go for a HARM-type weapon i.e. a missile instead of a glider, then it would be ramjet-based.

What the heck are you talking about? SmartGlider is a glide bomb like SPICE, SAAW, or SDB.

The French ARM plan is based on the FMAN/FMC or more specifically RJ10. It's based on the older Perseus missile concept.

So stop attributing other people with your nonsense.

The AASF is a SEAD weapon. It's clearly mentioned in the article I posted:


But the article doesn't mention what type of delivery system is used. Picdel clarified that to be a glider instead of a solid rocket motor. He never denied that AASF was a thing or that it was meant to be used against radars. Ask him yourself if you want.

AASF is the hypersonic CM, not the SmartGlider.


That's not an indication of anything - the French are not urgent regarding even SCAF (expected late 2040s) even though they admit the capabilities it brings (stealthy airframe, internal weapons) would be necessary going ahead.

I already told you why they aren't urgent - they don't need to be cuz they don't plan on fighting any advanced enemy in the foreseeable future. At least not without the US by their side.

That outlook could change under Trump 2.0 - if it does, we'll see the results.

The French are not urgent about anything, the Americans are with the F-35. They screwed up, and they are struggling.

Even we who are a resident power in the INDOPAC (and have well-positioned land assets like A&N islands to conduct halfway resupply between IOR & SCS) have determined that we need minimum 3 carriers to maintain the status quo with China & Pak and up to 5-6 (most of them CATOBAR) in future if we want to go toe to toe with China.

If you think the French can manage both Russia & China with just 1 carrier, go right ahead & live in that delusion.

They have impossble-to-invade islands, whereas our goal is to become the net security provider in the IOR. Those are two different environments.

We need leverage to make that happen. Talk & niceties aren't enough. There's no better leverage than getting even a couple F-35s in hand already by the time they come into office. That'll put cards in our hand.

Sure. So we gotta first wait for the F-35 to finish development. First TR-3 in 2026, then the engine upgrade in 2029, full B4 capabilities that can be flight tested, that's at least 2032. Then we can place an order, say 2033, and get 2 squadrons by 2038 or 2039 or so, basically 2040. By then it will be well into B5-10 with ISE so it can be a good strike complement to the AMCA.

But it will take so long that I'd rather we invest in a next gen jet by then. Like push the US to sell the NGAD instead. Or even import the GCAP. Maybe the Mig-41M.

The point is the F-35 cannot replace MRFA. And there are better jets coming up that remove the need for the F-35 entirely. But more likely than not, we will not be importing anything else beyond MRFA, at least in the sub-20 km altitude domain.

By the time we have to make a decision, we will be in the mid-2030s, with both Mk2 and MRFA productions halfway done. And by then, our economy will be so big that our very existence will act as leverage.
 
Oh, sure.

If only words were that simple.
The ALE-70 towed radio frequency countermeasure

Yeah the decoy transmits the signal - but it relies on the plane's suite to generate it.

The fin ones are mid band. The QRTs are high band. You can tell by the size of the arrays.

The fins here are low band.
View attachment 41296

And the one in the nose are L/S bands, ie, mid band.
View attachment 41297

If you had basic foundational knowledge, you wouldn't make such elementary mistakes. Similarly, you would be able to separate wrong information from right when you read articles where you can see insufficient research has been conducted.

I stand corrected.

Do you have sufficient comprehension? First, there is physical separation between two arrays. Second, when one is receiving the other is transmitting. Whether the arrays can perform both functions or not is irrelevant.

That's what even combined RWJ does. The same TRM doesn't do both jobs. If you have a 16-TRM array, 8 of them would transmit while the other 8 are on receive. The amount of separation between them doesn't matter if your system is capable of telling the 8 receivers to ignore the specific frequencies that your transmitters are putting out on each pulse.

It means parts of the arrays are separated by software instead of hardware.

Great - you finally understand how RWJ works.

Whether it's standoff or not, you are announcing an intent to attack, which is a 180 deg u-turn from what the F-35 is supposed to do.

The non-stealth ARM is loud and slow and tells everybody and their grandmas they are under attack. That's how 4th gen jets are. Why is a stealth 5th gen jet using 4th gen tactics? What changed?

F-35s (or any 5th gen fighters) were never expected to hide from all radars. They are specifically meant to defeat X-band or similar FCRs. Longer-wavelength radars (like L, VHF) can always detect F-35 (or even J-20, F-22 or AMCA) at considerable range.

It's those radars that are meant to be addressed from standoff range. The definitive capability to address them (AARGM-ER) will be internal. Once those are taken care of, F-35s are free to penetrate IADS without threat of being shot down.

But Rafale will be detectable throughout the sortie, even after the long-wavelengths are taken out. That's why it won't be survivable.

And why isn't the Rafale doing the same?

Cuz Rafale isn't expected to fight any peer opponent without F-35s & F-22s by its side.

What the heck are you talking about? SmartGlider is a glide bomb like SPICE, SAAW, or SDB.

The French ARM plan is based on the FMAN/FMC or more specifically RJ10. It's based on the older Perseus missile concept.

So stop attributing other people with your nonsense.
AASF is the hypersonic CM, not the SmartGlider.


Either you have a comprehension problem or Picdel is wrong.

The French are not urgent about anything, the Americans are with the F-35. They screwed up, and they are struggling.

Yeah cuz one expects to fight a war over Taiwan, the other does not.

Sure. So we gotta first wait for the F-35 to finish development. First TR-3 in 2026, then the engine upgrade in 2029, full B4 capabilities that can be flight tested, that's at least 2032. Then we can place an order, say 2033, and get 2 squadrons by 2038 or 2039 or so, basically 2040. By then it will be well into B5-10 with ISE so it can be a good strike complement to the AMCA.

But it will take so long that I'd rather we invest in a next gen jet by then. Like push the US to sell the NGAD instead. Or even import the GCAP. Maybe the Mig-41M.

The point is the F-35 cannot replace MRFA. And there are better jets coming up that remove the need for the F-35 entirely. But more likely than not, we will not be importing anything else beyond MRFA, at least in the sub-20 km altitude domain.

By the time we have to make a decision, we will be in the mid-2030s, with both Mk2 and MRFA productions halfway done. And by then, our economy will be so big that our very existence will act as leverage.

No, the F-35 as it exists is sufficient for our stop-gap requirement. By the time F35's deficiencies manifest in our environment, we'll have the AMCA with 2 x 5th gen engines to lean on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Over the last few hours I've read some very serious British commentators on X questioning the option of making the GCAP and Typhoon compatible with the ASMP-A (Greg Bagwell, Bernard Gray, not just anyone on the subject) but also mention of ‘French SLBM tubes’ on Dreadnaughts (understanding the replacement of the Lockheed Martin CMC and replacement of the Trident by M-51).

:D :giggle::p
 
Over the last few hours I've read some very serious British commentators on X questioning the option of making the GCAP and Typhoon compatible with the ASMP-A (Greg Bagwell, Bernard Gray, not just anyone on the subject) but also mention of ‘French SLBM tubes’ on Dreadnaughts (understanding the replacement of the Lockheed Martin CMC and replacement of the Trident by M-51).

:D :giggle::p
I guess EU army might finally become a reality under franco-british leadership. It would be interesting how Germans play this out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Yeah the decoy transmits the signal - but it relies on the plane's suite to generate it.



I stand corrected.



That's what even combined RWJ does. The same TRM doesn't do both jobs. If you have a 16-TRM array, 8 of them would transmit while the other 8 are on receive. The amount of separation between them doesn't matter if your system is capable of telling the 8 receivers to ignore the specific frequencies that your transmitters are putting out on each pulse.



Great - you finally understand how RWJ works.



F-35s (or any 5th gen fighters) were never expected to hide from all radars. They are specifically meant to defeat X-band or similar FCRs. Longer-wavelength radars (like L, VHF) can always detect F-35 (or even J-20, F-22 or AMCA) at considerable range.

It's those radars that are meant to be addressed from standoff range. The definitive capability to address them (AARGM-ER) will be internal. Once those are taken care of, F-35s are free to penetrate IADS without threat of being shot down.

But Rafale will be detectable throughout the sortie, even after the long-wavelengths are taken out. That's why it won't be survivable.



Cuz Rafale isn't expected to fight any peer opponent without F-35s & F-22s by its side.




Either you have a comprehension problem or Picdel is wrong.



Yeah cuz one expects to fight a war over Taiwan, the other does not.



No, the F-35 as it exists is sufficient for our stop-gap requirement. By the time F35's deficiencies manifest in our environment, we'll have the AMCA with 2 x 5th gen engines to lean on.

You have a lot of wrong information about electronics, and you even relate wrong things with each other.

It's a pointless discussion though. The committee report is out, IAF has decided on LCA, MRFA, and AMCA. No F-35 or Su-57.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Over the last few hours I've read some very serious British commentators on X questioning the option of making the GCAP and Typhoon compatible with the ASMP-A (Greg Bagwell, Bernard Gray, not just anyone on the subject) but also mention of ‘French SLBM tubes’ on Dreadnaughts (understanding the replacement of the Lockheed Martin CMC and replacement of the Trident by M-51).

:D :giggle::p

Finally, my 10+ year dream of the EU chasing after its own sovereignty, if it happens, coming to fruition. The more independent the EU becomes the more options others have to counterbalance the US and China.

While the ASMP-A is fine, what are the chances of the M51 change happening?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
It's a pointless discussion though. The committee report is out, IAF has decided on LCA, MRFA, and AMCA. No F-35 or Su-57.

I'm just going on the Rajat Pandit summary here (actual committee report is not open to public). There's basically nothing new in it, just the same plans as envisioned ~25 years ago, which still haven't worked out. It doesn't even assess the need to revise squadron strength upwards.

Not to mention, it was in no position to take the F-35 option into account as this committee was formed 3 months ago while proposal only came about a fortnight ago and is yet to take the form of an official offer letter.

Once the offer is firmly on the table, we'll have no choice but to reassess.

Over the last few hours I've read some very serious British commentators on X questioning the option of making the GCAP and Typhoon compatible with the ASMP-A (Greg Bagwell, Bernard Gray, not just anyone on the subject) but also mention of ‘French SLBM tubes’ on Dreadnaughts (understanding the replacement of the Lockheed Martin CMC and replacement of the Trident by M-51).

:D :giggle::p

Finally, my 10+ year dream of the EU chasing after its own sovereignty, if it happens, coming to fruition. The more independent the EU becomes the more options others have to counterbalance the US and China.

While the ASMP-A is fine, what are the chances of the M51 change happening?

What is UK gonna do about the fact that their submarine reactors are heavily based on US technology? The Dreadnought's PWR3 is based on S9G's technology. If US threatens to withhold that in response to UK moving away from Trident (which needless to say, is likely to require US approval for usage), the British N-sub fleet is effectively dead-ended.

Not to mention AUKUS would die too, at least in its present form with trilateral participation.
 
I'm just going on the Rajat Pandit summary here (actual committee report is not open to public). There's basically nothing new in it, just the same plans as envisioned ~25 years ago, which still haven't worked out. It doesn't even assess the need to revise squadron strength upwards.

Not to mention, it was in no position to take the F-35 option into account as this committee was formed 3 months ago while proposal only came about a fortnight ago and is yet to take the form of an official offer letter.

Once the offer is firmly on the table, we'll have no choice but to reassess.

The govt is gonna base their procurement plan according to the committee report in the case of MRFA.

Both LCA and MRFA will be manufactured.

Also, the committee report has been submitted in full, it's over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion

Rafale’s new fighter jet deadlier than previous version, developed with focus on Russia and China, its lethal RJ10 missile can…, India could …

The RJ10 is a much-advanced supersonic missile.

Paris: European countries are sensing a big threat from Russia which is constantly increasing its aggression under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, France is developing a weapon that will help it establish supremacy in space. France’s new bet is the Rafale F5 fighter aircraft and a new supersonic missile named RJ10, which can pose serious challenges to Russia’s S-400 and the Chinese HQ-9. The French Air and Space Force (AAE) plans to dominate the electronic battlefield with the force of this weapon.

In today’s battles, there is a much greater need for fighter jets to drop bombs. This is where France’s premier fighter jet, the Rafale, comes into play. Its F4 variant is already introducing Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) upgrades, but the F5, coming by 2035, will be a new version. A next-generation war machine that is being prepared to defeat the enemy. According to a report from BulgarianMilitary.com, the Rafale F5 is not just a new upgrade. It is a new invention. A jet filled with cutting-edge computing power, seamless data links, and stealth combat drones (UCAV) make it a formidable fighting machine.

The Chief of Staff of the French Air and Space Force (AAE) said that the battlefield has become electromagnetic. He stated, “We need to detect their air defenses, suppress them, and eliminate them quickly. The Rafale F5 will do just that as it will also be capable of dropping nuclear bombs.”

The RJ10 supersonic missile is developed by MBDA under a joint programme between France and Britain. This missile moves towards the enemy at speeds ranging from Mach 3 to Mach 5. It is so fast that the enemy will find it very difficult to stop it. It is designed to destroy surface-to-air threats at short to medium range.

Plans against Russia and China​

The RJ10 is said to be developed with focus on breaking down disputed areas. France is not making this weapon just like that. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s incursion in the Pacific have forced the Pentagon and NATO to rethink air dominance. For Paris, this means maintaining credible nuclear deterrence and having the ability to lead coalition operations. This new weapon of France can also be a beneficial deal for India. India already has Rafale and wants to increase its fleet. In such a situation, France can offer Rafale F5 to India.
 

Rafale’s new fighter jet deadlier than previous version, developed with focus on Russia and China, its lethal RJ10 missile can…, India could …

The RJ10 is a much-advanced supersonic missile.

Paris: European countries are sensing a big threat from Russia which is constantly increasing its aggression under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, France is developing a weapon that will help it establish supremacy in space. France’s new bet is the Rafale F5 fighter aircraft and a new supersonic missile named RJ10, which can pose serious challenges to Russia’s S-400 and the Chinese HQ-9. The French Air and Space Force (AAE) plans to dominate the electronic battlefield with the force of this weapon.

In today’s battles, there is a much greater need for fighter jets to drop bombs. This is where France’s premier fighter jet, the Rafale, comes into play. Its F4 variant is already introducing Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) upgrades, but the F5, coming by 2035, will be a new version. A next-generation war machine that is being prepared to defeat the enemy. According to a report from BulgarianMilitary.com, the Rafale F5 is not just a new upgrade. It is a new invention. A jet filled with cutting-edge computing power, seamless data links, and stealth combat drones (UCAV) make it a formidable fighting machine.

The Chief of Staff of the French Air and Space Force (AAE) said that the battlefield has become electromagnetic. He stated, “We need to detect their air defenses, suppress them, and eliminate them quickly. The Rafale F5 will do just that as it will also be capable of dropping nuclear bombs.”

The RJ10 supersonic missile is developed by MBDA under a joint programme between France and Britain. This missile moves towards the enemy at speeds ranging from Mach 3 to Mach 5. It is so fast that the enemy will find it very difficult to stop it. It is designed to destroy surface-to-air threats at short to medium range.

Plans against Russia and China​

The RJ10 is said to be developed with focus on breaking down disputed areas. France is not making this weapon just like that. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s incursion in the Pacific have forced the Pentagon and NATO to rethink air dominance. For Paris, this means maintaining credible nuclear deterrence and having the ability to lead coalition operations. This new weapon of France can also be a beneficial deal for India. India already has Rafale and wants to increase its fleet. In such a situation, France can offer Rafale F5 to India.

Shouldn't a rotating detonation engine manage up to mach 6?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
Shouldn't a rotating detonation engine manage up to mach 6?
Mach 5 , Mach 6... not very different.
I've already explained several times that the specifications for the French programmes required performance levels that were the minimum for the manufacturer to get paid. That the development result was always better than the specifications because the manufacturer took a safety margin, and that this result was then classified, which meant that everyone thought that the performance was that of the specifications.
 
@Parthu

Remember this post of mine;) The IAF committee has "Once again" rejected F-35 completely.

^^IAF only wants MRFA read Rafales along with AMCA. F-35 or US fighters are a strict no go as far as IAF is concerened.

Personally I won't mind IAF having a small fleet of F-35. But that's about as far as they would go. A roadmap for large scale Su-57 production in India is being readied(@marich01). In light of J-35 acquisition by PAF, it's the correct counter, IMHO. A restricted F-35 that can't communicate with AFNET is a "burden", not an asset. Period.

They don't want Su-57 either but they'll have to accept it as part of Gov-to-Gov deal. Just wait n watch;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kiduva21
@Parthu

Remember this post of mine;) The IAF committee has "Once again" rejected F-35 completely.



They don't want Su-57 either but they'll have to accept it as part of Gov-to-Gov deal. Just wait n watch;)

We can't reject something that hasn't even been officially offered yet.

The reason why we want to procure either of them is not simply because they say "5th gen" on the label. It's to serve a critical survivability requirement that 4.5 gens can't provide while AMCA is too far away.

The Su-57 is most likely unable to fulfill that role in its present form. By the time the Russians manage to make it survivable we'll have our own AMCA ready anyway.
 
The govt is gonna base their procurement plan according to the committee report in the case of MRFA.

Both LCA and MRFA will be manufactured.

Also, the committee report has been submitted in full, it's over.

The contents of the report are not public. Only summaries are from some journalists.

The Govt cannot move on anything before taking all options on table into account (including F35, which wasn't there when the report was being prepared).
 

Rafale’s new fighter jet deadlier than previous version, developed with focus on Russia and China, its lethal RJ10 missile can…, India could …

The RJ10 is a much-advanced supersonic missile.

Paris: European countries are sensing a big threat from Russia which is constantly increasing its aggression under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, France is developing a weapon that will help it establish supremacy in space. France’s new bet is the Rafale F5 fighter aircraft and a new supersonic missile named RJ10, which can pose serious challenges to Russia’s S-400 and the Chinese HQ-9. The French Air and Space Force (AAE) plans to dominate the electronic battlefield with the force of this weapon.

In today’s battles, there is a much greater need for fighter jets to drop bombs. This is where France’s premier fighter jet, the Rafale, comes into play. Its F4 variant is already introducing Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) upgrades, but the F5, coming by 2035, will be a new version. A next-generation war machine that is being prepared to defeat the enemy. According to a report from BulgarianMilitary.com, the Rafale F5 is not just a new upgrade. It is a new invention. A jet filled with cutting-edge computing power, seamless data links, and stealth combat drones (UCAV) make it a formidable fighting machine.

The Chief of Staff of the French Air and Space Force (AAE) said that the battlefield has become electromagnetic. He stated, “We need to detect their air defenses, suppress them, and eliminate them quickly. The Rafale F5 will do just that as it will also be capable of dropping nuclear bombs.”

The RJ10 supersonic missile is developed by MBDA under a joint programme between France and Britain. This missile moves towards the enemy at speeds ranging from Mach 3 to Mach 5. It is so fast that the enemy will find it very difficult to stop it. It is designed to destroy surface-to-air threats at short to medium range.

Plans against Russia and China​

The RJ10 is said to be developed with focus on breaking down disputed areas. France is not making this weapon just like that. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s incursion in the Pacific have forced the Pentagon and NATO to rethink air dominance. For Paris, this means maintaining credible nuclear deterrence and having the ability to lead coalition operations. This new weapon of France can also be a beneficial deal for India. India already has Rafale and wants to increase its fleet. In such a situation, France can offer Rafale F5 to India.
I think Storm Shadow is enough to take down s400, Ukrain war says s400 is not at all a deadly system as advertised by Russians. @randomradio do we need to procure RJ10 if we are operating air launched Brahmos?

By the by, france is bring f4 versionversion.A right? Not F5 version. @Picdelamirand-oil
 
I think Storm Shadow is enough to take down s400, Ukrain war says s400 is not at all a deadly system as advertised by Russians. @randomradio do we need to procure RJ10 if we are operating air launched Brahmos?

By the by, france is bring f4 versionversion.A right? Not F5 version. @Picdelamirand-oil
The purchase of the 26 Rafales has not yet been signed and we are in 2025, which means that deliveries will be in 2028 - 31 for an F5 in the early 2030s. So if India agrees, these will be F4s, but adapted to an F5 upgrade without any major work, i.e. with the wiring, cooling system and openings for the F5 antennas already in place.
 
Mach 5 , Mach 6... not very different.
I've already explained several times that the specifications for the French programmes required performance levels that were the minimum for the manufacturer to get paid. That the development result was always better than the specifications because the manufacturer took a safety margin, and that this result was then classified, which meant that everyone thought that the performance was that of the specifications.

Yep. Same thing in India. People look at brochure figures without realizing that those are all primarily performance goals, not achieved outcomes.
 
I think Storm Shadow is enough to take down s400, Ukrain war says s400 is not at all a deadly system as advertised by Russians.

It's been the opposite. Hence the hurry to bring in ARMs for the F-22 and F-35.

@randomradio do we need to procure RJ10 if we are operating air launched Brahmos?

We will always buy some of everything in order to increase our supplier count. During war, we can dip into the inventories of other operators, and China cannot attack the production lines of foreign suppliers.