Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

[Steven Rogers]

Older report, but a great read to understand the importance of GaN technology for EW and jamming!


http://www.mwrf.com/mixed-signal-se...aesas-enable-us-navy-s-next-generation-jammer

=>

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ighter-jet-contest.78028/page-93#post-1382014

=>

http://www.janes.com/article/74074/arexis-airborne-attack-dsei17d4


No matter if we talk about self protection jammers for LCA, or advanced internal jammers in Gripen E, up to escort jamming pods for Gripen E, Rafale or MKIs , this would be a great addition of technological capability to IAF!

Mkis will get escort jammer from DARE.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Adioz]

Lol, because as explained, the one has nothing to do with the other.

If a civil airliner lose contact to ground control, do you send a fighter or a SAM?
If you have to support ground forces with CAS, do you send a fighter or Brahmos?
If you want to counter a PLAAF CBG, do you send MKIs with Brahmos to them, or do you wait till they are close enough for shore based missles?

The fact that IAF integrates Brahmos itself, should make you understand, that there are operational advantages, because a missile launched at high altitude has longer range, than launched from the ground and the missile can be carried further to the target, which greatly increase the strike range.

So we can put your whole theory about IA missiles instead of fighters to rest.



You obviously are not following the news or satellite imagery about their operations:

https://theprint.in/2018/02/14/tibet-sees-jump-in-chinese-air-force-activity-after-doklam-standoff/

For more PLAAF vs IAF please use a dedicated thread.



Another statement that makes no sense!
A fighter by design has certain limitations, be it radar size, that is limited by the nose diameter, internal space for avionics or fully integrated EW, external space for IRST, EW sensors, hardpoints, hardpoint limitations due to size and weight limits...

A light class fighter therefore is limited "by design" to lower capabilities, than medium or heavy class fighters and no matter how much wishful thinking you add, you can't beat the design limitations just like that.
That's even why the MK2 needs an extended airframe, to counter at least parts of these limitations. Not to mention that the priority of the MK2 upgrade, is to give Tejas the flight performance, to be a useful interceptor in the first place.

To counter J10s, with a high manoeuvrable design, good flight performance, a medium class radar, IRST, that also is supported by AWACS and tankers, you need an MMRCA, with at least comparable performance, sensors and weapons, if not better!
That's why more Rafales or EFs would had been great, or why the Gripen E is the better choice than F16 B70.



Which still wouldn't change a thing, because the additional 36 would be placed at the same 2 air bases, so you have 36 against north western enemies and 36 against north eastern, but none to the south west, or along the cost lines.
Which means we remain dependent on the MKI and that means high operational costs.

Good job selectively answering to a few lines of my post and disregarding all else. Unlike you though, I am not going to avoid answering even a single one of your arguments. Lets begin:-

Lol, because as explained, the one has nothing to do with the other.

"Lol"? So Joint planning is a farce? So what you are saying is that IA and IAF should not have a joint war-fighting strategy? Even though every other country in the world is moving towards this or is already there? If this is how you think, then you are beyond saving.

As far as I am concerned, this entire farce about SE MMRCA is based on a requirement born out of a doctrine that is deficient to begin with. And unless joint war planning arrives in the Indian scenario, all requirements are subject to change.

If a civil airliner lose contact to ground control, do you send a fighter or a SAM?
If you have to support ground forces with CAS, do you send a fighter or Brahmos?
If you want to counter a PLAAF CBG, do you send MKIs with Brahmos to them, or do you wait till they are close enough for shore based missles?

1. You send a fighter. Now you tell me:how many civilian airliners plan to lose contact with the ground simultaneously and how many fighters do we need for them? Do we not already have enough?
2. For CAS (IAF term is BAS), you send a fighter. Can Tejas not do this? Or is our artillery not up to the job of fire support? How much BAS do we really use? AFAIK, we mostly use BAI (Battlefield Air Interdiction). Don't think we over-rely on Air support like the Americans. There is a reason why we have >200 artillery regiments.
3. Are we talking IAF SE MMRCA here or are we talking about carrier borne aviation? We might send our warships a bit further and fire a volley of 600 km range Brahmos at the CBG long before the CBG is within the range of IAF Su-30 MKI (armed with a 290 km range Bramos-A) flying from Car Nicobar, if that is what you mean.

The fact that IAF integrates Brahmos itself, should make you understand, that there are operational advantages, because a missile launched at high altitude has longer range, than launched from the ground and the missile can be carried further to the target, which greatly increase the strike range.

So we can put your whole theory about IA missiles instead of fighters to rest.

Are you serious? 真剣ですか 君は ?
What are you going to use to destroy an enemy staging area that has known concentration of troops freshly disembarked, ready to move towards the front. Let us say selected staging area is 400 km from the border. Earlier, the Air Force would have to dedicate a set of fighters for the mission, to first SEAD and then AI. Now, the Army Command can simply direct its Artillery Division to target the area with a volley of Brahmos missiles or Nirbhay missiles, or a mix of both. This increases the availability of IAF fighters for other roles and duties which would not have been possible without IA missiles. Now read what I wrote again. Thereafter you can "put my whole theory about IA missiles instead of fighters in your head."

You obviously are not following the news or satellite imagery about their operations:

https://theprint.in/2018/02/14/tibet-sees-jump-in-chinese-air-force-activity-after-doklam-standoff/

• How many of these airfields are hardened? Think hard about this for a minute.
• What is the altitude of these airfields vis-a-vis Indian airfields? What effect does this have on fighter performance?
• Nyingchi airfield is within range of our aritllery. Its more of an ALG than a fighter base, so not sure how it features in our discussion.
• Shigatse airbase: A HALE UAV base. A Brahmos regiment of the IA stationed as deep as Bihar can target this airfield.
• Qamdo Bamda airfield: Qamdo is a known staging area. Troops moving up from lower altitude regions of China will assemble here via railway and airlift. This again is targetable by IA missile regiments situated at Dibrugarh (for 450 km range Brahmos) and as deep as Tezpur (for 600 km Brahmos).
• Lhasa airbase: The only airbase that has fighters (20 J-11 and 8 J-10). Altitude severely limits capability. No airfield hardening measures. Ammo storage facility still under construction. This also is within range for IA missiles.

^These were the airfields that your article talked about. Now let me tell you about a few of the airfields that are actually going to pose a challenge to us:-
Golmud, Diqing, Lijiang, Xining, Dali, Baoshan, Xining, Chengdu, Garze Kangding, Qionglai, Hongyuan, Dazu, etc. Most are civilian airports, but all airfields in China are being upgraded for dual use: military and civilian.

For more PLAAF vs IAF please use a dedicated thread.

Very classy way of avoiding my question posed in my previous post. But I am not letting go. I'll ask again:-
Take a look at the air fleets of both countries. Try and grasp the fact that almost all the Chinese fighters are indigenous. Also, China has a much larger military budget. Now take a look at the Indian air fleet. Imports galore. You want us to maintain an air fleet comparable to China's despite the fact that we have a much lower budget and our planes are all imported?

Another statement that makes no sense!
A fighter by design has certain limitations, be it radar size, that is limited by the nose diameter, internal space for avionics or fully integrated EW, external space for IRST, EW sensors, hardpoints, hardpoint limitations due to size and weight limits...
A light class fighter therefore is limited "by design" to lower capabilities, than medium or heavy class fighters and no matter how much wishful thinking you add, you can't beat the design limitations just like that.
That's even why the MK2 needs an extended airframe, to counter at least parts of these limitations. Not to mention that the priority of the MK2 upgrade, is to give Tejas the flight performance, to be a useful interceptor in the first place.
To counter J10s, with a high manoeuvrable design, good flight performance, a medium class radar, IRST, that also is supported by AWACS and tankers, you need an MMRCA, with at least comparable performance, sensors and weapons, if not better!
That's why more Rafales or EFs would had been great, or why the Gripen E is the better choice than F16 B70.

Agreed that a light fighter is limited by design. But so is a medium fighter like J-10 (larger RCS). And I think you are forgetting that IAF uses Su-30MKI - MiG-21 Bison in a hi-lo combo. The combined efficacy is extremely high. Once MiG-21 is replaced by Tejas, the efficiency is set to increase as well.
Again, I am not saying that Tejas is as capable as a SE MMRCA if you go by brouchre specs. But the limitations that you highlight can be offset by tactics.
We have won despite inferior equipment before (Assal Uttar). We won with better training and better tactics. why not rely on that?
And I agree that more Rafale would have been great. But I still believe that we will indeed order 36 more Rafale, which will be cheaper than ordering less capable SE MMRCA.

Which still wouldn't change a thing, because the additional 36 would be placed at the same 2 air bases, so you have 36 against north western enemies and 36 against north eastern, but none to the south west, or along the cost lines.
Which means we remain dependent on the MKI and that means high operational costs.

Don't give any crap logic to justify SE MMRCA. Rafale along the coasts? We need fighters to defend and attack the PLA.
Who is attacking from South West? Maldives?
Who is attacking from "cost lines"? (Lol I know it was a typo)
Seriously, all IAF needs is to place a few Su-30 MKI on Car Nicobar and that is it. Rafale are not needed in a maritime strike role. Although Rafale M might be :biggrin2:.

 

[Pulkit]

When you need 1 fighter to carry strike weapons and on 2nd fighter in escort config, because the 1st one have low self defence capability, there is nothing cheap and maintenance friendly about it.

2 x fighters => 2 x pilots => 2 times logistics

You do understand that the aircrafts can either excel in one field or be Jack of all trades.
Being jack of all trades it is no longer fit to carry out strategic and deep actions.

Lets assume a MRCA is asked to do bombing so it needs to carry bombs and not the missiles as that the requirement for that action so even that will need an escort.
I never believed in MRCA it just means it can do one action at a time but can try an do it all. Most of the MRCA fail to provide ground support. Air superiority is way beyond there capability. That's why specific aircrafts for specific roles.

In Air refueling aircrafts need escort. Bombers need escort. Radars Need escort.
For that you need numbers during war time and peace time.

You cannot put a MRCA on escort duty that's why it was always Light and Heavy aircraft combo at work. Light used to be and are still the working horse of any air force where as Heavy is for air superiority and medium are for specific actions.

 

[Sancho]

"Lol"? So Joint planning is a farce?

No, the theory that IA assets can reduce IAF fighters is, so no point in wasting more time with a try to justify lower fighter numbers. You simply had no arguments against the fact, that the SE fighters cover the lack of MMRCA requirement and since you agree, that the lack of capability of LCA for this requirement makes it a no go, you came up with this theory.

Very classy way of avoiding my question posed in my previous post.

It's actually a hope to stay on topic, which is the SE MMRCA tender and the requirement. So distractions with unrelated theories and clearly not informed opinions on PLAAF's operations in the border areas, have no point here. That's why I suggested to divert that topic to a suitable thread.

You want us to maintain an air fleet comparable to China's despite the fact that we have a much lower budget and our planes are all imported?

Wrong, I never said we need to compete with China on numbers, since there is no way we can keep up with their budget and industrial capability. But we need to have fighters, that can take on Chinese fighters with similar performance and technical capability, while not being over dependent on MKI at high operational costs. The only way to add capability at lower costs, are MMRCAs and since our industry is nowhere near to provide a similar fighter, with similar capabilities, we have no other option. The required numbers don't come from 1 on 1 comparisons with PLAAF, but with the area IAF has to cover in operational terms and the more air bases are raised, the more fighters you need.

And I think you are forgetting that IAF uses Su-30MKI - MiG-21 Bison in a hi-lo combo.

What is better from a technical and tactical point of view? Su 30 guiding LCA, or Phalcon AWACS guiding LCA? The latter of course, because a real AWACS offers far greater detection ranges and coverage than any fighter radar. The "mini AWACS" tactic is just a limited substitute, that works if you cover a small area and against an enemy with fighters only. So when PLAAF is now operating AWACS even from their forward bases, who do you think has better situational awareness?
Not to mention that even a J11 version with an AESA would be able to offer the same active passive combo and a J10 with passive IRST and EW sensors, certainly adds more to that tactic too.

We don't have 1999 or 2004 anymore, our enemies got much stronger today, especially because of force multipliers like AWACS and tankers. Areas where we lost out completely and are in deep disadvantage today. BVR tactics are not a limited to IAF anymore, so to gain an edge again, we have to counter with advanced EW and weapons.

Rafale along the coasts?

Maritime attack capability was a requirement in the tenders, since MRCA, because the fighters were meant to be based all around the country, not to just the north. Guess why IAF is raising MKI squads in the south, adding Brahmos or KH35 with the next upgrade, just as Mig 29 got KH 35s too. So just because you don't agree to it, doesn't mean IAF thinks like that.

 

[Sancho]

Lets assume a MRCA is asked to do bombing so it needs to carry bombs and not the missiles as that the requirement for that action so even that will need an escort.

No they don't, since medium or heavy class fighters have enough hardpoints to carry at least a standard load of 2 x WVR + 2 x BVR range missiles in any role! That's however not possible for light class fighters, that are limited by design to a lower number of hardpoints.

A light class Gripen C for example with 7+1 hardpoints in strike role would usually carry:

1 x LDP
2 x wing fuel tanks
2 x 1000lb bombs
2 x WVR missiles

Leaving only the centerline station, but no BVR missiles for proper self defense in an high threat environment => requires dedicated escorts.

The new Gripen E on the other side, would carry the same load at the wings, but can add up to 3 x BVR missiles at the new centerline stations.

In Air refueling aircrafts need escort. Bombers need escort. Radars Need escort.
For that you need numbers during war time and peace time.

And that's where LCAs came in (if it offers enough endurance), taking over basic roles, like escorts or CAS, recon, or basic CAS in areas where air superiority is achieved. But for more anything that requires more capability, you need far better fighters and so far we only have MKIs, to do the bulk of the missions, which is why we have high fixed costs and capabilities limited to Russian weapons mainly => MMRCAs

 

[Screambowl]

not saying that Tejas is as capable as a SE MMRCA if you go by brouchre specs. But the limitations that you highlight can be offset by tactics

If LCA is stationed at andemans then it can't play a role of SE MMRCA to counter Chinese CBG
I was not convinced at all with need of SE MMRCA
But it's just the payload and ferry range which is missing in Mk1 can't say about Mk2 because then it will have a new F414 powerplant. There I am literally confused. Athough I was specualting if Mk1 sorties with Su30mki or Mig29Ks the combination may change the combat. But that's again only speculative.

 

[Pandeyji]

If LCA is stationed at andemans then it can't play a role of SE MMRCA to counter Chinese CBG
I was not convinced at all with need of SE MMRCA
But it's just the payload and ferry range which is missing in Mk1 can't say about Mk2 because then it will have a new F414 powerplant. There I am literally confused. Athough I was specualting if Mk1 sorties with Su30mki or Mig29Ks the combination may change the combat. But that's again only speculative.

I think you misunderstood him. He was talking of using LCA with MKI if I am getting his point

 

[binayak95]

@Sancho and @Adioz are both missing out on a critical point. The IAF's panic about the PLAAF stems from their rapid development of the J-20. It is a far more capable aircraft than what our initial assessments were.

And get this: no fighter of the IAF has AESA radars at the moment. Nor do they have any of the advanced array of sensors that the Rafale brings into the picture.

Yes the DARIN III program will add AESA to the Jaguar, but the Jaguar won't be doing air dominance missions.

The Sukhoi upgrade program is in limbo thanks to the Russians and their intractability - same goes for the FGFA.

In the meantime, indigenous programs for the Tejas and the AMCA continue apace. In the meantime, we need more Rafales - or alternatively, F-16 Blk 70s built in India. Lets not even look at the Gripen - unproven plane with zero geopolitical benefits. At the very least, the F-16 deal will ensure cooperation and support for further developments.

 

[Pandeyji]

Despite how much I hate this SEF drama even I am not completely against the idea (though eff the Gripen). But the problem is the Yankee refusal on TOT & shifting the production line to India. After all getting F16 into IAF was an Indian idea initially. But it should happen with TOT & shifting of production line. Without that eff the Solah too

 

[Sancho]

The IAF's panic about the PLAAF stems from their rapid development of the J-20. It is a far more capable aircraft than what our initial assessments were.

That's not correct, since as stated the origins of all the MRCA tenders, is the initial request to add a licence production line for Mirage 2K-5s after Kargil and in the wake of evident LCA development delays.
The improvements of China and realisation that Pakistan is not enemy no 1 anymore came later and has more to do with China building up infrastructure and forces in the Tibet region. Also no MMRCA is able to counter Chinese stealth fighters, so there is no relation between these tenders and their or our own stealth projects.

 

[Screambowl]

I think you misunderstood him. He was talking of using LCA with MKI if I am getting his point

It only a matter of speculation for us about the combo sortie and it's effectiveness against CBG or other raids.

 

[Sancho]

But it's just the payload and ferry range which is missing in Mk1

Payload is a paperspec and doesn't tell you anything about the actual load capability, because that is dependent size and weight limitations of the specific hardpoints and the actual requirement of an airforce for a specific role.

For example, Rafale has 14 stations and a payload of 9.5t on paper. But 4 of these stations are not operational (1 x pod stations under the left intake, the 2nd centerline station and the 2 external wingstations). Also in theory Rafale can carry up to 3 x 2000lb bombs or cruis missiles + fuel tanks, because it has enough heavy stations, but in reality French forces only use a single one on the centerline station, or a maximum of 2 as standard loads:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ghter-jet-contest.78028/page-109#post-1404759


There is always a big difference in capability on paper or theoretical maximum loads and what really can be done or is used in operational service. That's one reason I started making mission load comparisons for fighters years ago, to get a better understanding about the load differences in real missions.

For LCA the biggest problems at the moment are the lack of flight performance, A2A weapons and the external SPJ.
While as I suggested in another thread, the easiest way to improve it, would be the addition of the Reece Lite pod and if possible the integration of Harpoon, to replace Jaguar IM in future. With the long term aim on light CAS weapons like Helina. These basic light roles are the key for Tejas, not roles where it simply can't compete in performance, techs or load capabilities.

 

[Adioz]

@Sancho Lets get down to Brasstacks here. The only fighters of IAF that are retiring and need replacement are MiG-21 (easily replaced by Tejas) and MiG-27.
So let us talk about the MiG-27 squadrons that are supposed to get the SE MMRCA (if the deal ever happens), shall we?

• Flying Bullets (18 Squadron): This squadron used to provide maritime strike capability in Bay of Bengal and Andaman. The squadron has been replaced with a Su-30MKI squadron as a stop-gap after the Flying Bullets were number-plated because their MiG-27 retired. Well guess what? Flying Bullets is to be revived, and this time, the aircraft they are getting is the Tejas.
• Tiger Sharks (222 Sqdn.): This was the MiG-27 squadron that was decommissioned at Hasimara AFS. You wrote in one of your earlier posts about how 4 Su-30 MKI had to be stationed there after the Tiger Sharks were number-plated. The new Rafale squadron is being stationed at Hasimara AFS. Definitely a quantum jump in capability for the Eastern Air Command and more than a match for the J-10 of PLAAF (that the "Tejas can't match up with no matter what").
• Winged Daggers (10 Sqdn.): This was the MiG-27 sqdn stationed at Jodhpur AFS to whoop Paki ass. Now I can't see why Tejas cannot be used to replace this role. I mean, Tejas is more than enough to whoop Paki ass (which only has J-17 Blunder), and is in fact a multirole aircraft unlike the MiG-27, which was a strike aircraft only. So this again represents a quantum jump in capabilities. No need for SE MMRCA. I mean SE MMRCA will be better, but the IAF will not die without them. Tejas fits this role at least.
• Scorpions (29 Sqdn.): Another MiG-27 sqdn. stationed at Jodhpur AFS. Same story as Sqdn 10. Can be re-equipped by Tejas without loss of capability. No SE MMRCA inessential for this unit.
• Swifts (22 Sqdn.): Another MiG-27 squadron stationed at Hasimara AFS. This is where you insist on getting another squadron of SE MMRCA, and I insist that the option of additional squadron of Rafale will be exercised, allowing two Rafale aircraft to be stationed here.

Which other Medium aircraft are retiring right now?
Lets see:-

• Mirage 2000 (retiring post 2027, to be replaced by a 5th gen fighter most likely AMCA)
• MiG-29 (retiring post 2027, to be replaced by a 5th gen fighter most likely Su-57 MKI)
• Jaguar DARIN III (retiring post 2027, to be replaced by a 5th gen fighters most likely AMCA)

Now tell me where we require SE MMRCA?
________________________________________________________________________________________

If LCA is stationed at andemans then it can't play a role of SE MMRCA to counter Chinese CBG
I was not convinced at all with need of SE MMRCA
But it's just the payload and ferry range which is missing in Mk1 can't say about Mk2 because then it will have a new F414 powerplant. There I am literally confused. Athough I was specualting if Mk1 sorties with Su30mki or Mig29Ks the combination may change the combat. But that's again only speculative.

I am not very sure what a strike against a PLAN CBG requires, but as far as I can tell, we need to use stand-off weapons. Hi-Lo combo is not something you use against a CBG, although in theory, you could use it against the CAP (Combat Air Patrol) of the CBG.
As far as stand-off weapons go, we have one Su-30 MKI carrying one Brahmos-A with 400 km range. And the Bramos mini which the Su-30 MKI can carry three at once, will further enhance that capability.
The only maritime strike squadron of the IAF that has retired recently is the MiG-27 squadron "Flying bullets" which was to fly out of W.Bengal and provide strike capability all along Eastern seaboard. It has been replaced in its role by a Su-30 MKI, and the squadron itself is being re-raised with Tejas.
Considering that we are planning to induct more P-8I and 57 more Carrier borne fighters, I don't think our maritime strike capability has decreased. In fact, it is set to increase tremendously.

@Sancho and @Adioz are both missing out on a critical point. The IAF's panic about the PLAAF stems from their rapid development of the J-20. It is a far more capable aircraft than what our initial assessments were.

And get this: no fighter of the IAF has AESA radars at the moment. Nor do they have any of the advanced array of sensors that the Rafale brings into the picture.

Yes the DARIN III program will add AESA to the Jaguar, but the Jaguar won't be doing air dominance missions.

The Sukhoi upgrade program is in limbo thanks to the Russians and their intractability - same goes for the FGFA.

In the meantime, indigenous programs for the Tejas and the AMCA continue apace. In the meantime, we need more Rafales - or alternatively, F-16 Blk 70s built in India. Lets not even look at the Gripen - unproven plane with zero geopolitical benefits. At the very least, the F-16 deal will ensure cooperation and support for further developments.

J-20 is still years away from being deployed in Chengdu MR. By the time it does arrive here, we are going to have Su-57 MKI inducted (but we need to bite the bullet on it now).

 

[Sancho]

It only a matter of speculation for us about the combo sortie and it's effectiveness against CBG or other raids.

Single vessels like a Frigate can be attacked, but a CBG is too much for LCA and Harpoon.

 

[Sancho]

@Sancho Lets get down to Brasstacks here. The only fighters of IAF that are retiring and need replacement are MiG-21 (easily replaced by Tejas) and MiG-27.
So let us talk about the MiG-27 squadrons that are supposed to get the SE MMRCA (if the deal ever happens), shall we?

To save us both time, let me quote myself here:

The same old wrong question! It doesn't matter what fighter will be replaced, what matters is, what is the current state of capabilities and what is the capability of potential enemies?...

...As explained above, your benchmark is wrong, since we are not fighting 2nd gen Mig 21s anymore, but modern 4th and 4.5th gen fighters.

 

[Steven Rogers]

For LCA the biggest problems at the moment are the lack of flight performance, A2A weapons and the external SPJ.
While as I suggested in another thread, the easiest way to improve it, would be the addition of the Reece Lite pod and if possible the integration of Harpoon, to replace Jaguar IM in future. With the long term aim on light CAS weapons like Helina. These basic light roles are the key for Tejas, not roles where it simply can't compete in performance, techs or load capabilities.

SANT instead of HELINA, flight performance such as sustained flight envelope for long time, it's an LCA not mca to perform that mission. Interception, CAS are the best roles for LCA than being a multirole at same time.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Adioz]

To save us both time, let me quote myself here:

List the squadrons that the SE MMRCA are going to equip. Also state the role they will be used in.

From what you are saying it seems like you want to replace the MiG-21 with SE MMRCA. And please don't avoid this one like you avoided my previous questions.

Edit: Even if you "don't know" which squadrons, try taking an educated guess.

 

[Rahul Singh]

@Sancho and @Adioz are both missing out on a critical point. The IAF's panic about the PLAAF stems from their rapid development of the J-20. It is a far more capable aircraft than what our initial assessments were.

Only real counter to J-20 is AMCA.

Stealth only works as long as its signatures (IR & Radar) are closely guarded secret. Details of PAK-FA will be made available to Chinese on-demand. I have little doubt about it. Russians are earning much more from chiness than us. On other side no matter what Uncle can't be trusted in these matters. So not even F-35 will work.

 

[Sancho]

Only real counter to J-20 is AMCA.

AMCA wouldn't detect a J20 any sooner than any MMRCA, since the technologies to detect it are the same and as limited (IRST, AESA, RWR). That means the only counter to stealth are advanced AWACS in high numbers, as well as improvements of ground radars and EO and EW sensors. The more powerful the sensor, the earlier can a stealth fighter be detected and a GaN based AWACS would beat any fighter radar in detction capability.

 

[Steven Rogers]

AMCA wouldn't detect a J20 any sooner than any MMRCA, since the technologies to detect it are the same and as limited (IRST, AESA, RWR). That means the only counter to stealth are advanced AWACS in high numbers, as well as improvements of ground radars and EO and EW sensors. The more powerful the sensor, the earlier can a stealth fighter be detected and a GaN based AWACS would beat any fighter radar in detction capability.

That also means that J20 can't detect AMCA either.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk