Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

J

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
Chandragupt said:
Do you have an RCS testing facility ? How did you conclude that Tejas doesn’t have the smallest RCS (0.5 meter square) among 4th generation fighters ?
O.5 meter square is the publicly available figure
Click to expand...
How did you conclude that Tejas does? Do you have an RCS testing facility?

I do not need an RCS testing facility to debunk patently false claims that are obvious ignorant how RCS works, like the ridiculous claim about composite materials. Or to point out examples of features that are known to have high RCS that are plainly present on the Tejas.

There is NO credible evidence about Tejas RCS being 0.5m^2. If there is, it would not be particularly meaningful either as a single value can mean many different things and is thus misleading without context.
 
C

Chandragupt

Junior Member
Registered Member
Jason_ said:
How did you conclude that Tejas does? Do you have an RCS testing facility?

I do not need an RCS testing facility to debunk patently false claims that are obvious ignorant how RCS works, like the ridiculous claim about composite materials. Or to point out examples of features that are known to have high RCS that are plainly present on the Tejas.

There is NO credible evidence about Tejas RCS being 0.5m^2. If there is, it would not be particularly meaningful either as a single value can mean many different things and is thus misleading without context.
Click to expand...
So you’re basically implying that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited , Aeronautical Development Agency , Defense Research and Development Organization and entire Indian airforce has no knowledge of RCS
and I didn’t conclude that the Tejas has smallest RCS among 4th generation fighter jets it’s the RCS testing facility in India which concluded that
 
J

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
Chandragupt said:
So you’re basically implying that Hindustan Aeronautics Limited , Aeronautical Development Agency , Defense Research and Development Organization and entire Indian airforce has no knowledge of RCS
Click to expand...
No. I am saying that you do not have knowledge of RCS. And potentially poor grasp of either logic or English as nothing I said implies anything about HAL/DRDO/IAF.
 
P

Paradigm

New Member
Registered Member
Chandragupt said:
And what about air to air combat if two carrier battle groups are facing each other can these small fighter jets be used for air to air and air to ship attacks?
Click to expand...
If a Chinese Carrier Group is fighting an Indian one, you can be sure of one thing. They won't get that close. They will have range on the Indians but not vice versa. The carrier and it's escorts will be attacked with long range supersonic missiles like the YJ-12, outranging the Brahmos. It's pure fantasy to imagine today's naval battle looking anywhere close to
the Battle of Midway.
 
C

Chandragupt

Junior Member
Registered Member
Paradigm said:
If a Chinese Carrier Group is fighting an Indian one, you can be sure of one thing. They won't get that close. They will have range on the Indians but not vice versa. The carrier and it's escorts will be attacked with long range supersonic missiles like the YJ-12, outranging the Brahmos. It's pure fantasy to imagine today's naval battle looking anywhere close to
the Battle of Midway.
Click to expand...

Interesting Tejas can carry Brahmos NG an improved version of Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile
 

Attachments

  • 62408CE8-4555-4E60-85BB-4A7C04ACDB1D.jpeg
    62408CE8-4555-4E60-85BB-4A7C04ACDB1D.jpeg
    304.3 KB · Views: 11
C

Chandragupt

Junior Member
Registered Member
Paradigm said:
"Interesting Tejas can carry Brahmos NG an improved version of Brahmos Supersonic Cruise Missile"
Like I said, short range plane and short range (compared to YJ-12 and others) missile. You're going against a boxer with longer reach. Good luck. Over and out.
Click to expand...
There won’t be any war between India and China in foreseeable future
If India and China fight they would fight in Pakistan like US and Soviet Union fought the opium war in Afghanistan in 1990
Situation in Pakistan is very similar to what it was in Afghanistan in 1990 and chinese presence is increasing in Pakistan , Pakistan is getting more and more dependent on China financially and militarily just like Afghanistan was getting dependent on Soviet Union , US and NATO fueled radical islamism in Afghanistan to create troubles for Russian , China may not be doing the same in Pakistan to create troubles for India because China itself is facing the problem of radical Islam in Xinxiang but still they would be supplying weapons to Pakistan
Indian army generals have also said that in future we won’t be fighting Pakistan but China at our western border just like Soviet union fought US in Afghanistan
 
Last edited:
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Paradigm said:
If a Chinese Carrier Group is fighting an Indian one, you can be sure of one thing. They won't get that close. They will have range on the Indians but not vice versa. The carrier and it's escorts will be attacked with long range supersonic missiles like the YJ-12, outranging the Brahmos. It's pure fantasy to imagine today's naval battle looking anywhere close to
the Battle of Midway.
Click to expand...
(1)this is a huge oversimplification of naval/air combat. If anything, it depends on specific place, conditions (weather etc), and so much more.

Generally, PLAN CBG wants to be closer to the opponent than the Indian one - even when/if it has a first-strike range/detection(track) advantage. Precisely because it's stronger, and relies on a superior/more advanced and complex fighting concept.

For Indians, it's really about trying to get off a well-aimed ship-based ASM salvo and praying for the best (depending on the results - either try to run for life, or try to pursue and make the opponent scuttle the damaged stuff).

(2)airstrikes can generally be mounted further out than ASCM strikes. The airplane itself is an efficient intermediate platform for an ASCM. J-15/YJ-83K (or mig-29k/Kh-35M) combination reaches further out, and is monumentally less dependant on fine-tracking of targets many hundreds or even thousand miles away. On top of that - air ops don't really give out the location of the one who performs them.

Many ship2ship weapons (especially ballistic and hypersonic) are both highly dependent on precise targeting, timely updates, and immediately give out the precise location of the attacker the moment he launches them.

(3)information superiority - the main asset of USN/PLAN is best realized closer to the enemy than salvo superiority (where IN, with its significant Brahmos salvo, is at the very least competitive). It is just a better set to let it realize information/weapon system combination superiority, and allows for the most decisive action achievable (what's the point of all the ludicrous investment into the information/engagement bubble otherwise).

PLAN CBG can push into the envelopes(which are by themselves little more than circles on the map for IN - reach doesn't equal knowing what the heck is going up in endless empty seas), it can ensure relatively uninterrupted information/engagement space for hundreds of miles - so for it being, for example, 400 miles away or just 50 miles away isn't terribly different. The major threat level is mostly the same, but the closer you are, the lesser the chances for the opponent to escape.
If you can first defeat the opponent, and then literally gun down incapacitated wrecks to the bottom - do it.

(4)YJ-12 isn't the main nor even secondary strike asset of the PLAN outside of Chinese seas (those units don't belong to CBGs anyways). It's either YJ-18(now) or a YJ-21/HQ-9B/YJ-83K combination in the future.
Just a remain (backup if you will) from the times when PLAN itself was doing what IN is doing right now.
 
F

Fulcrum007

New Member
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
(1)this is a huge oversimplification of naval/air combat. If anything, it depends on specific place, conditions (weather etc), and so much more.

Generally, PLAN CBG wants to be closer to the opponent than the Indian one - even when/if it has a first-strike range/detection(track) advantage. Precisely because it's stronger, and relies on a superior/more advanced and complex fighting concept.

For Indians, it's really about trying to get off a well-aimed ship-based ASM salvo and praying for the best (depending on the results - either try to run for life, or try to pursue and make the opponent scuttle the damaged stuff).

(2)airstrikes can generally be mounted further out than ASCM strikes. The airplane itself is an efficient intermediate platform for an ASCM. J-15/YJ-83K (or mig-29k/Kh-35M) combination reaches further out, and is monumentally less dependant on fine-tracking of targets many hundreds or even thousand miles away. On top of that - air ops don't really give out the location of the one who performs them.

Many ship2ship weapons (especially ballistic and hypersonic) are both highly dependent on precise targeting, timely updates, and immediately give out the precise location of the attacker the moment he launches them.

(3)information superiority - the main asset of USN/PLAN is best realized closer to the enemy than salvo superiority (where IN, with its significant Brahmos salvo, is at the very least competitive). It is just a better set to let it realize information/weapon system combination superiority, and allows for the most decisive action achievable (what's the point of all the ludicrous investment into the information/engagement bubble otherwise).

PLAN CBG can push into the envelopes(which are by themselves little more than circles on the map for IN - reach doesn't equal knowing what the heck is going up in endless empty seas), it can ensure relatively uninterrupted information/engagement space for hundreds of miles - so for it being, for example, 400 miles away or just 50 miles away isn't terribly different. The major threat level is mostly the same, but the closer you are, the lesser the chances for the opponent to escape.
If you can first defeat the opponent, and then literally gun down incapacitated wrecks to the bottom - do it.

(4)YJ-12 isn't the main nor even secondary strike asset of the PLAN outside of Chinese seas (those units don't belong to CBGs anyways). It's either YJ-18(now) or a YJ-21/HQ-9B/YJ-83K combination in the future.
Just a remain (backup if you will) from the times when PLAN itself was doing what IN is doing right now.
Click to expand...
How do you view YJ-12 with respect to YJ-83? Wouldn't it be more practical for Chinese Frigates to carry the former given its better range, speed and payload?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top