Boeing Wants Washington To Clear F-15EX Pitch To India

[LeGenD]

Just look at the comparison of F15C vs F35. F15E is a strike aircraft and hence not to be compared with F35 which is mainly for air superiority. The turn performance or maneuverability of F15C was always better than F35. F35 has better response at slow speed because of its huge engine but the maneuverability is low.

Maneuverability is not LOW (misleading statement ), just not on the level of F-15C in certain aspects - majority of combat aircraft in service around the world at present do not hold a candle to F-15C in the maneuverability aspects by the way. Nevertheless, F-35 can pull off some combat-applicable maneuvers that older generation aircraft simply cannot. American Pilots who have piloted both aircraft, openly admit that they have managed to defeat even the likes of F-15C in simulated dogfights with F-35. Japanese pilots are also reporting mixed outcomes in this department. Get your facts right.

Secondly, f35 does not have massive in built space for attacks either. The number of missiles which can be fit are minimal at 4 BVR missiles and 2 WVR missiles. Since WVR is not really advantageous for F35 as its main role is stealth BVR, having merely 4 BVR is insufficient. Su57 for example, has wing pattern where BVR is kept in internal bay and yet has enough maneuverability and huge internal fuel tank. F35 hardly has any real advantage over Su57. Coming to planes like Su30/Su35, both these planes also have huge internal fuel tank. Also, the carrying of BVR externally does not affect maneuverability much as the weight of BVR missiles is negligible compared to massive weight of aircraft and the BVR missiles are shaped to reduce drag. Since fuel tank is not needed, Su30/Su35 does not have any additional burden in maneuvering. Only element lost is the VLO but these planes were never meant to be 5th generation VLO planes. The maneuverability of Su30 with 4 BVR missiles is higher than that of F35 with missiles in internal bay. This maneuverability problem is what I am emphasising.

There is no such thing as one aircraft being better than another in every possible angle. This is foolish line-of-thought.

NOTE: F-35 is an MMCA, intended to replace F-16 types.

Now; F-35 have following payload configurations; VLO and BEAST.

VLO = minimize chances of detection in the process of fulfilling a mission. There are countless combat-applicable situations in which being VLO is an asset.

Nevertheless, F-35 will not be operating over a contested space alone but in numbers (minimum = 2); a mix of interdiction-specific and SEAD-specific aircraft which will be able to create a unified picture of threats for all pilots). Tactics are important consideration(s) to offset limitations of any weapon system.

BEAST = maximum application of brute force, to overwhelm opposing forces in a contested environment.

F-35 have superior payload capacity than numerous F-16 variants and even Su-35S (Russian heavy air superiority) with 11 hardpoints in total - this is very impressive for MMCA category.

--- --- ---

F-35 does not have maneuverability issues with internal payload - this is FALSE assumption.

Su57 is a stealth plane with maneuverability and USA does not like to admit that its F35 is inferior and hence belittles Su57. F35 is inferior to Su57 due to poor maneuverability. Russia is not inferior when it comes to avionics and electronics as we can see from its advanced defence systems like S400, Su35 etc.

Su-57 is hardly stealthy as per American standards; LO class at best.

Following information is from a Japanese source (authentic).

F-15 | 10～25? | 600km
F/A-18C | 3? | 430km
F-16 | 1.2? | 350km
F/A-18E | 0.1～1? | 200km
ラファール | 0.1～1? | 200km
PAK-FA | 0.1～1? | 200km
ユーロファイター | 0.05～1? | 160km
F-35 | 0.0015～0.005? | 60km
F-22 | 0.0002～0.0005? | 40km

KM range (right) = earliest detection possibility with a NATO-standard AWACS.

Su-57 will be visible on the screens much earlier than F-35. This is the point of VLO.

You SEE FIRST and SHOOT FIRST.

The ultimate benefit of having a vastly superior airframe; maneuverability made redundant for opposing forces.

Buh buh Su-57 is superior....

Russia is not inferior when it comes to avionics and electronics? Are you kidding me?

Su-35S does not even have an AESA radar system. Su-57 is the first Russian combat aircraft to be equipped with an AESA radar system, and it is 1st generation.

Americans were able to develop and miniaturize AESA radar systems for use in combat aircraft in the 1980s. They are rolling out 4th generation AESA radar systems at present.

S-400 is much different from a combat aircraft. In the case of combat aircraft, challenge is/was to miniaturize AESA radar system technologies as well as to control heat and emissions which will affect combat aircraft on the whole. This is easier said than done.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Russia...e-no-Russian-AESA-radars-on-the-export-market

F is better than current Su30 because of electronics upgrade. But with Super Sukhoi upgrade, that superiority will end.

LMAO

Bring it on par with the avionics of F-16C Block 52+ even. Then WE shall talk further.

Forget F-15EX.

Anyone can get sensor fusion. It is just about having semiconductor technology and software to do that. India has semiconductor technology made in SCL and DRDO. So, talk of real hardware which is irreplaceable, not about electronics which can be replaced

Yes, everything is so easy in theory.

Any Indian firm have managed to roll out a smartphone on the level of Samsung S6 even? Samsung is about to roll out S20 by the way.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Gnat is half the size of F86 and could hardly fight against F86. It had poor range and was slower than F86. Hunter was equal to F86 but that was all India had which matched PAF. Except for hunters, all other planes were inferior (except MiG21 which were destroyed by surprise).

Gnat not only could out climb Sabre TWICE as fast at 20,000 feet/min compared to Sabre 9,000 feet/min, it also had superior guns 3x 30mm compared to WWI tech 6x 12.7mm on Sabre. Smaller Gnat meant more maneuverable with better thrust to weight ratio as well.
Please dont make me embarrass you again by proving you wrong with stats and facts that Hunter was a generation ahead of Sabre in every aspect.
Mystere was more comparable to Sabre as both fighters have similar specs.

In 1960s-1970s, all AAMs were having poor accuracy and were mostly using their guns to fight. There was no plane which has any higher accuracy with any other country.

Exactly, and few f86 sqd equipped with sidewinder does not make it a huge advantage. Even in Vietname war upgraded Sidewinder accuracy was less then 30%.

India imposed no-fly zone of East Pakistan. This is a fact. This means that if India could not destroy fighters, it was because Pakistan hid it in hardened shelters, not because India did not have access to East pakistan air space.

PAF shot down more IAF in east despite being heavily outnumbered by much superior Mig-21 and Su-7. On the ground PA managed to shot down quite a few as well. After IAF many failed attempt they finally gave up because the war was near end and PAF dismantled Sabres and later IAF would use it for their own propaganda that they shot it down.

India never got its *** kicked by PAF in 1971. India always had the upper hand from day 1.

In some areas because of IAF technical and numerical advantage, IAF indeed could come in and go but India is known for propaganda factory to over hype like claiming this Su-7 was hit by a sidewinder. LOL their is NO shrapnel but just conveniently took a chunk of a rudder to fool the indiots.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Su-57 is hardly stealthy as per American standards; LO class at best.

Following information is from a Japanese source (authentic).

F-15 | 10～25? | 600km
F/A-18C | 3? | 430km
F-16 | 1.2? | 350km
F/A-18E | 0.1～1? | 200km
ラファール | 0.1～1? | 200km
PAK-FA | 0.1～1? | 200km
ユーロファイター | 0.05～1? | 160km
F-35 | 0.0015～0.005? | 60km
F-22 | 0.0002～0.0005? | 40km

KM range (right) = earliest detection possibility with a NATO-standard AWACS.

Su-57 will be visible on the screens much earlier than F-35. This is the point of VLO.

You SEE FIRST and SHOOT FIRST.

The ultimate benefit of having a vastly superior airframe; maneuverability made redundant for opposing forces.

Buh buh Su-57 is superior....

Russia is not inferior when it comes to avionics and electronics? Are you kidding me?

Su-35S does not even have an AESA radar system. Su-57 is the first Russian combat aircraft to be equipped with an AESA radar system, and it is 1st generation.

Americans were able to develop and miniaturize AESA radar systems for use in combat aircraft in the 1980s. They are rolling out 4th generation AESA radar systems at present.

S-400 is much different from a combat aircraft. In the case of combat aircraft, challenge is/was to miniaturize AESA radar system technologies as well as to control heat and emissions which will affect combat aircraft on the whole. This is easier said than done.

Japan is USA vassal state and is not independent. Don't look at sources of USA allies. Look at neutral sources. Su57 is not as stealthy as F22 but is not as unstealthy as mentioned here.

Russia has bridged the gap in avionics. So, it isn't inferior as it was in 1990s. Russia has become quite good in 2010s due to massive efforts in 2000s and has bridged the gap significantly.

No, USA could not develop AESA in 1980s. AESA requires semiconductor miniaturisation to give enormous computation power. This was obtained only in 1990s and first really capable AESA came after 90s. The AESA was being researched since 60s but the computation power in terms of miniaturisation of semiconductor chipsets happened in 90s only. But there is a limit of miniaturisation as the high temperatures of 200-250 celsius reached when a plane flies at 1.5-2 Mach speed is too much for smaller nodes to handle. So, the limit of semiconductor reliability ensures that semiconductor below 65nm is never used in strategic applications. Generally 90-180nm is the norm due to problems with external heat tolerance. Russia has already achieved 90nm (India has achieved 180nm) and hence the needed technology for AESA has been developed.

LMAO

Bring it on par with the avionics of F-16C Block 52+ even. Then WE shall talk further.

Forget F-15EX.

Yes, everything is so easy in theory.

Any Indian firm have managed to roll out a smartphone on the level of Samsung S6 even? Samsung is about to roll out S20 by the way.

India has achieved 180nm semiconductor technology which was the technology till 2001. So, Indian technology is good enough for developing very advanced avionics. As I mentioned above, the semiconductor for strategic application requires reliability and tolerance of external heat and radiation. So, we can't use the miniaturisation used in mobile phones. India has the ability to make button phones and computers of 2000s and that is enough for strategic usage. We don't want fighter pilots to play video games and have advanced graphics rendering.

Gnat not only could out climb Sabre TWICE as fast at 20,000 feet/min compared to Sabre 9,000 feet/min, it also had superior guns 3x 30mm compared to WWI tech 6x 12.7mm on Sabre. Smaller Gnat meant more maneuverable with better thrust to weight ratio as well.
Please dont make me embarrass you again by proving you wrong with stats and facts that Hunter was a generation ahead of Sabre in every aspect.
Mystere was more comparable to Sabre as both fighters have similar specs.

No, Gnat was significantly inferior due to lower range. The small size may have been advantageous for maneuvering but the range was too low to be able to chase and fight. Just 800km range was no where enough. Also, F86 has huge amount of ammunition and sidewinder which gave advantage in firepower. 30mm cannon may be powerful but its ammunition weight is high and hence quantity of ammunition is very low. Moreover, in war, accuracy is low and hence quantity is more important than caliber.

Go ahead and prove that hunter was a generation ahead of F86.

Exactly, and few f86 sqd equipped with sidewinder does not make it a huge advantage. Even in Vietname war upgraded Sidewinder accuracy was less then 30%.

As I said, the accuracy of all other planes were worse.The guns had accuracy of 0.1%. So, the sidewinder was far more accurate compared to others and hence there was an advantage.

PAF shot down more IAF in east despite being heavily outnumbered by much superior Mig-21 and Su-7. On the ground PA managed to shot down quite a few as well. After IAF many failed attempt they finally gave up because the war was near end and PAF dismantled Sabres and later IAF would use it for their own propaganda that they shot it down.

PA shot down Indian fighters in the east using AAA fire, not using PAF jets. PAF was sitting duck in the east. It was PA which was shooting at IAF fighters when IAF fighters were trying to bomb PA and PN bases and installations. PAF was defeated very thoroughly in the east in 1971. Don't give false credit to PAF. There is a big difference in shooting down by AAA fire and shooting down by air interception.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

No, Gnat was significantly inferior due to lower range. The small size may have been advantageous for maneuvering but the range was too low to be able to chase and fight. Just 800km range was no where enough. Also, F86 has huge amount of ammunition and sidewinder which gave advantage in firepower. 30mm cannon may be powerful but its ammunition weight is high and hence quantity of ammunition is very low. Moreover, in war, accuracy is low and hence quantity is more important than caliber.

Its better if you do bit of a research and use some common sense as well instead of making a dork out of yourself.
Most of PAF and Indian air bases are within 200km distance from the border so longer range did not give much of advantage over Gnat. Just like machine gun is not a preferable choice on ground in close combat because assualt rile serves better. Better maneuverability, higher rate of climb and acceleration is more important factor which Gnat had advantage of then "range" or "more bullet". Lower caliber gun carries more bullets compared to higher caliber and even in modern fighters like F-16 or Su-30 carries less bullets(150-500 round) then F-86 (1,500). Also the ADEN cannon in Gnat was used in all British fighter jets until 1980s which is a testimony of how successful the gun was. So this assertion of yours that longer range and more bullets is better is complete wrong.

Go ahead and prove that hunter was a generation ahead of F86.

I will leave that to you and google.

As I said, the accuracy of all other planes were worse.The guns had accuracy of 0.1%. So, the sidewinder was far more accurate compared to others and hence there was an advantage.

How do you even come up with such BullSh1t? By your logic then the aircraft would have to fire thousands of rounds to score a kill and that would not be even possible for fighters carrying less then 500 round.
The Aim-9B could not even engage head on and the seeker could only engage in a very narrow angle which was useless in fast maneuvering targets unless the foe was caught off gaurd. Heck the Americans in Vietnam hated even the upgraded sidewinders and preferred radar guided missile like Aim-7 which had much better accuracy and had to make change on F-4 to carry gun which become more reliable then sidewinders.

PA shot down Indian fighters in the east using AAA fire, not using PAF jets.

Didnt you say IAF had no fly zone in east pakistan? Also PAF Sabre on east shot down few IAF jets in early days of the war..

PAF was sitting duck in the east. It was PA which was shooting at IAF fighters when IAF fighters were trying to bomb PA and PN bases and installations.

That SU-7 was shot down near the sabre air base.

PAF was defeated very thoroughly in the east in 1971. Don't give false credit to PAF. There is a big difference in shooting down by AAA fire and shooting down by air interception.

IAF did not even shot down any Sabre in air lol

 

[Dalit]

In my opinion, anything less than F-35 is a mockery. India has America in its inside pocket and that is an understatement.
The Americans first tried to sell a washed up version of F-16 to Indians LOL Now they are trying their luck with F-15. It is obvious American companies are in a hurry to earn some dollars. Despite having good tech I can almost bet an arm that India won't be going for such offers. After selecting Rafale it would be a logistical nightmare for IAF to operate that many aircraft from so many different vendors. There are very few air forces in the world that operate this many different aircraft.

 

[Turingsage]

We dont want the F35. We have not asked for or even inquired about the F15 , IT IS BOEING ASKING THE US GOVT PERMISSION TO TRY TO FLOG F15's TO INDIA.
INDIA HAS SHOWN NO INTEREST IN F15 or the F35

This whole thread is just based on a total misrepresentation of what took place

 

[vishwambhar]

We dont want the F35. We have not asked for or even inquired about the F15 , IT IS BOEING ASKING THE US GOVT PERMISSION TO TRY TO FLOG F15's TO INDIA.
INDIA HAS SHOWN NO INTEREST IN F15 or the F35

This whole thread is just based on a total misrepresentation of what took place

Exactly... India under no circumstances will ever purchase offensive platform like fighter jets from USA... they will get MH60 Seahawks order this month, apart from that in future maybe more apaches, P8s, Chinooks, M777 and some short to medium range air defense systems orders will be for Americans.... that's it....

when it comes to fighter jets more Rafales for air force and 57 for navy.... to keep up numbers used additional flankers, fulcrums, m2k, Tejas etc and wait for AMCA will be our plan...this along with S400 and homemade AAD PAD system and off course our nukes and CM/BM/ ICBM/ K series SLBM are enough to deter any enemy from doing anything stupid.... we are a peace loving country and we will never fall for American offensive weapons... we just need to protect ourselves from powerful nations like China and concentrate on our economic development....

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Its better if you do bit of a research and use some common sense as well instead of making a dork out of yourself.
Most of PAF and Indian air bases are within 200km distance from the border so longer range did not give much of advantage over Gnat. Just like machine gun is not a preferable choice on ground in close combat because assualt rile serves better. Better maneuverability, higher rate of climb and acceleration is more important factor which Gnat had advantage of then "range" or "more bullet". Lower caliber gun carries more bullets compared to higher caliber and even in modern fighters like F-16 or Su-30 carries less bullets(150-500 round) then F-86 (1,500). Also the ADEN cannon in Gnat was used in all British fighter jets until 1980s which is a testimony of how successful the gun was. So this assertion of yours that longer range and more bullets is better is complete wrong.

Don't make ridiculous claims. Jets don't fly straight to border, shoot and then come back. There is significant maneuvering and standoff operations in between. These are where Gnat lags badly. Gnat had low range and hence PAF could simply loiter around in threatening way and make the Gnats run out of fuel.

Lower bullet size is better when your main weapon is bullets. In such cases, the war happens in very close range - 1-2km and hence in high maneuvering scenarios, higher bullets matter more than bigger caliber. When your enemies have other weapons like missiles with you, then longer range guns with higher caliber matters more. In 65, India had no long range AAMs and hence PAF did not need 30mm guns for advantage. Higher bullets was more important.

I will leave that to you and google.

The hunters were first flown in 1951 while F86 in 1947. How did Hunter become one generation ahead?

How do you even come up with such BullSh1t? By your logic then the aircraft would have to fire thousands of rounds to score a kill and that would not be even possible for fighters carrying less then 500 round.
The Aim-9B could not even engage head on and the seeker could only engage in a very narrow angle which was useless in fast maneuvering targets unless the foe was caught off gaurd. Heck the Americans in Vietnam hated even the upgraded sidewinders and preferred radar guided missile like Aim-7 which had much better accuracy and had to make change on F-4 to carry gun which become more reliable then sidewinders.

Modern fighters have far more advanced missiles and hence the guns are not very important. Otherwise, more bullets is better. In older times, engagement distances were quite low and that is where the one with higher sustained fire gets an advantage. Sidewinder also played a big role as the range of bullets were only 2km with accuracy whereas sidewinders could target at 5km or more. When engaging at 3-4 km, the guns would lose their accuracy significantly while sidewinders would still have reasonable accuracy. Even the angle is not an issue as at 5km distance, even if a plane maneuvers, the angular change will be minimal

Didnt you say IAF had no fly zone in east pakistan? Also PAF Sabre on east shot down few IAF jets in early days of the war..

IAF did not have no fly zone from the beginning. IAF lost several planes in east in early days of war. Moreover, no fly zone does not mean that enemy can't have air defence. It simply means that enemy planes can't fly without getting shot out of the sky.

 

[Tanveer666]

older times, engagement distances were quite low and that is where the one with higher sustained fire gets an advantage.

One of the main complaints of F86 against mig 15 was its lack of cannons.
The 30mm (and 23 and 37 mm) shells pack quite a punch, one or two hits are usually enough to knock down a fighter sized plane.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

One of the main complaints of F86 against mig 15 was its lack of cannons.
The 30mm (and 23 and 37 mm) shells pack quite a punch, one or two hits are usually enough to knock down a fighter sized plane.

F86 had sidewinder which mattered much more in 65 war. MiG15 has range higher than F86 and hence was a formidable fighter. Kn 1965, only good fighter with India was the hunter and even that didn't have AAM and made it vulnerable to PAF sidewinder attack

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Don't make ridiculous claims. Jets don't fly straight to border, shoot and then come back. There is significant maneuvering and standoff operations in between. These are where Gnat lags badly. Gnat had low range and hence PAF could simply loiter around in threatening way and make the Gnats run out of fuel.

You are just being a stubborn.
Yes in the past jets would fly straight to border because their was no long range threat from BVR missiles or SAMs and did not have to perform evasive manover.
Even P-51 had longer range and more ammo then Gnat does that make it a better plane? No. Loitering for longer period is not going to do much when your opponent can climb and accelerate much faster to escape from chasing fighter and quickly change the position where Gnat is on Sabre's tail. But due to IAF's POOR training they were not able to use Gnat better performance to their advantage and PAF better pilots were able to turn the table because of their better tactics.

Lower bullet size is better when your main weapon is bullets. In such cases, the war happens in very close range - 1-2km and hence in high maneuvering scenarios, higher bullets matter more than bigger caliber. When your enemies have other weapons like missiles with you, then longer range guns with higher caliber matters more. In 65, India had no long range AAMs and hence PAF did not need 30mm guns for advantage. Higher bullets was more important.

F-86 was the only fighter of 50s and 60s to carry more bullets where as its opponents in europe and USSR carried higher caliber guns with less bullets.
Both Mig-15 and even mig-17 carried only 200 bullets and if USSR saw this as a draw back then they would have added lower caliber gun with more ammo.
Sidewinder scored only few kills and did not contribute much in PAF air dominance in 65 war.

The hunters were first flown in 1951 while F86 in 1947. How did Hunter become one generation ahead?

Faster climb rate, acceleration better avionics and guns. Also many western nations replaced F-86 with Hawker Hunters.

Modern fighters have far more advanced missiles and hence the guns are not very important. Otherwise, more bullets is better.

More bullets is a thing of the past, its higher caliber gun that is better.

Modern fighters have far more advanced missiles and hence the guns are not very important.

Yah sure, F-22 F-35 makers are stupid to even add a gun in such a expensive plane where every inch of space is worth millions of dollars! lol indiot

Otherwise, more bullets is better.

Sure, time to bring back F-86 to shot down F-22

In older times, engagement distances were quite low and that is where the one with higher sustained fire gets an advantage.

No, not in fighter jets made after 1950s which carried less then 500 bullets and some even carried 200.

Sidewinder also played a big role as the range of bullets were only 2km with accuracy whereas sidewinders could target at 5km or more.

A fast maneuvering fighter could out maneuver Aim-9b very easily since it was made for shooting slow moving targets.

When engaging at 3-4 km, the guns would lose their accuracy significantly while sidewinders would still have reasonable accuracy. Even the angle is not an issue as at 5km distance, even if a plane maneuvers, the angular change will be minimal

Aim-9b could only engage targets less then 4 km distance because its motor burnt for only 2 seconds and and after that it was just a flying brick.

F86 had sidewinder which mattered much more in 65 war. MiG15 has range higher than F86 and hence was a formidable fighter. Kn 1965, only good fighter with India was the hunter and even that didn't have AAM and made it vulnerable to PAF sidewinder attack

Mig-15 had only 200 rounds.

dassault mystere was more comparable with 80% of PAF F-86 which were not equipped with sidewinder and Gnats and Hunters were better then F-86 in every aspect despite 20% of F-86 having sidewinder capability which had less then 10% accuracy and could not even engage targets head on.
However even in 1971 war despite India possessing better fighters like Mig-21 and Su-7 they could not destroy PAF which was left with junk outdated fighter except for F-6.

 

[Tanveer666]

F86 had sidewinder which mattered much more in 65 war. MiG15 has range higher than F86 and hence was a formidable fighter. Kn 1965, only good fighter with India was the hunter and even that didn't have AAM and made it vulnerable to PAF sidewinder attack

How many indian aircraft were shot down by sidewinders in 1965?

 

[LeGenD]

Japan is USA vassal state and is not independent. Don't look at sources of USA allies. Look at neutral sources. Su57 is not as stealthy as F22 but is not as unstealthy as mentioned here.

You think Japanese are idiots or liars?

FYI: https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/01/..._differs_from_f-22_in_air_combat_philos_32309

In view of the rcs of Su-35S, Sukhoi being able to reduce rcs of Su-57 to 0.1 - 1.0 m^2 range is a substantial leap and achievement for the manufacturer. Russians should be happy.

Mr. Rakesh is/was certainly naive when it came to issuing verdict over dogfighting capabilities of F-35 back in 2014. Many were foolishly mistaking company-imposed 'maneuver restrictions' for lack of maneuverability in F-35 back then.

Refer back to this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/brea...ex-pitch-to-india.653077/page-6#post-12083194

Enjoy the show now.

Superb maneuverability is 4th generation argument by the way.

F-35's ACE in WVR combat situations is its cutting-edge EO/IR sensor suite (EOTS + DAS) which is electronically fused with the powerful AN/APG-81 radar system; this revolutionary architecture enables the pilot to have a 360 degree view of all types of threats throughout the duration of the mission as well as automatically producing a weapons-grade lock on each visible threat type. The pilot just has to select a threat type and press the button and watch an AIM-9X or an AIM-120D do the dancing with an opposing aircraft on a moment's notice. Must be fun to watch...

Russia has bridged the gap in avionics. So, it isn't inferior as it was in 1990s. Russia has become quite good in 2010s due to massive efforts in 2000s and has bridged the gap significantly.

Excuse me.

1. Americans are not sitting idle.
2. Russia have shortage of funds.
3. USA is able to invest far more in R&D programs and have world class education centers for all fields of study. Russia does not compare.

Russian defense applications are not necessarily in response to American defense applications. Su-57 is not an answer to F-22A - both are vastly different aircraft shaped by distinct thought processes behind them. Refer back to revelations in the Russian patent above.

This assumption that Russia is able to field an American-equavilent in each case in spite of significantly lacking in funds and/or investments in relevant R&D programs, is utter folly.

No, USA could not develop AESA in 1980s. AESA requires semiconductor miniaturisation to give enormous computation power. This was obtained only in 1990s and first really capable AESA came after 90s. The AESA was being researched since 60s but the computation power in terms of miniaturisation of semiconductor chipsets happened in 90s only. But there is a limit of miniaturisation as the high temperatures of 200-250 celsius reached when a plane flies at 1.5-2 Mach speed is too much for smaller nodes to handle. So, the limit of semiconductor reliability ensures that semiconductor below 65nm is never used in strategic applications. Generally 90-180nm is the norm due to problems with external heat tolerance. Russia has already achieved 90nm (India has achieved 180nm) and hence the needed technology for AESA has been developed.

Point was/is that USA left Russia in the dust, in the aspect of developing AESA radar technologies and applications.

Russia is really late in equpping one of its combat aircraft with a credible AESA radar system whereas USA continues to develop more powerful and advanced AESA applications over time - USA is the first country to develop and use (GaN)-based AESA systems. Russia is unable to keep up with American advances because American semiconductor industry is miles ahead of Russian, and this dynamic won't shift anytime soon.

That is like Russia finally figured out how to develop a capable sedan while USA is rolling out supercars in large numbers.

If history lessons are of significance in this debate then Japan was the first country to achieve breakthrough in AESA radar applications, back in the 1980s.

India has achieved 180nm semiconductor technology which was the technology till 2001. So, Indian technology is good enough for developing very advanced avionics. As I mentioned above, the semiconductor for strategic application requires reliability and tolerance of external heat and radiation. So, we can't use the miniaturisation used in mobile phones. India has the ability to make button phones and computers of 2000s and that is enough for strategic usage. We don't want fighter pilots to play video games and have advanced graphics rendering.

Are you alluding to Uttam AESA? Work on Uttam AESA started in 2008, right?

Well, 11 years have passed and counting.

India does have the luxury to receive much technical input from Russia and Israel. So best of luck.

 

[Zapper]

India's multi-billion dollar programme to acquire new fighter jets could see another contender in F 15EX of Boeing, with the company seeking formal US permission to offer it to India. New Delhi is planning to produce 114 combat aircraft at more than $15 billion in partnership with a domestic company.

The F 15EX, a heavy fighter jet capable of carrying up to 22 air-to-air missiles or a mix of ground-attack weapons, will be the third American aircraft in the fray. “The Indian Navy and Indian Air Force have distinct operational needs for fighters. While awaiting further definition on the Indian Air Force’s requirements, we have requested a licence for F 15EX so that we’re ready to share the full spectrum of potential solutions across our fighter portfolio when appropriate,” a Boeing spokesperson said in response to a query after a US official disclosed that export permissions had been sought.

The US company said the licence application is a routine procedural step that will give it flexibility to provide information on the jets when required. “We continue to offer F/A 18 Super Hornet to both Indian Navy and Indian Air Force,” Boeing said. The US-made jet will be a challenger to F/A 18 Super Hornet and F 21 (a variant of F 16), which are already on offer. US’ F 22 Raptor and Lockheed Martin’s F 35 are not on the table as Washington is reluctant over India’s purchase of Russian S 400 air defence systems. The expected entry of the F 15EX, with IAF yet to invite an official expression of interest, will add an interesting mix to the acquisition process. Though in a heavier class than its competitors, it is the fastest aircraft in production and is known for its ability to carry a phenomenal weapon load.


It may be recalled that in the earlier Indian contest for medium multirole combat aircraft, F/A 18 and F 16 failed to make the technical cut during extensive testing. This resulted in a shortlisting of the European Rafale and Eurojet fighters by IAF.

The project is being taken up under the strategic partnership model where an Indian company will manufacture the new jets in India. US firm Lockheed Martin has tied up with Tata Aerospace and Defence for its offering, while Boeing has a tri-party agreement with Mahindra and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for F/A 18. It is early days yet but, technically, Boeing could go in with a separate Indian partner if the F 15EX offer comes on the table.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...MyNews&utm_medium=HPMN&utm_campaign=AL1&utm_c

 

[Last starfighter]

The pilot makeath the plane.
Not the other way around