Indian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

P

Paradigm

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...
Of course war is not as simple as a few paragraphs or even a book's worth. There are many complexities, variables and luck involved. Nothing is a given.

That said, I disagree that a Chinese CBG will go closer to Indian or American CBGs in battle. Overall, they have missile range over the Americans. The real danger is Brahmos. They would be wise to keep their distance and take out the launch platforms from afar.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Fulcrum007 said:
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?
Click to expand...
It depends on what we want from a Frigate.

If the frigate is our main strike ship, and we want it to threaten top units(destroyers, carriers) - then obviously YJ-12. It's fast, it's less vulnerable to interrupted targeting data(who cares that you only saw position/vector once when you fly fast enough to get there without midcourse updates), and it's outright more destructive.
Also, in the case of onyx/Brahmos/Yj-12 - they're quite sneaky, too - they don't really give away location of the shooter, and if launched close enough - can avoid going over radar horizon at all.

Which is useful for a frigate(read - salvo)-based navy, which Indian navy undoubtedly is (IN destroyers are de facto heavy frigates, and IN frigates are just slightly worse versions of thereof).

If we're talking about 054a - there is a whole navy for it to hide behind, it isn't a frontline combatant.
Thus it tends to operate in Chinese seas, and potential target range from a shitty hangar on the Philippine coast(where NASAMS launcher may hide) to Taiwanese boat minelayers(barely distinguishable from fishing boats for a radar seeker), from LCS to Vietnamese missile corvette hiding upstream - YJ-83K IMHO is the optimal choice.
It is able to meaningfully engage the widest choice of targets in difficult congested conditions, for optimal weight budget on a ship, without interrupting anyone else. And it will be able to hit even something small, maneuverable, and hiding in clutter.

Frigate found something to engage (or someone in the vicinity requested engagement) - frigate launches a missile, without thinking too much.
As a bonus - YJ-83K(and all the other subsonic missiles of its type) is also among the sneakiest around, the only way to detect the launch is to see the launch itself. At which point the ship itself is probably found already.
 
Last edited:
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Chandragupt said:
Can anyone here list the single engine light category fighter jets with the capability to operate from an aircraft carrier
I didn't find a single video of SAAB Gripen operating from an aircraft carrier
Click to expand...

Single-engine, jet-powered, carrier-based aircraft with empty weight <9000kg:

De Havilland Sea Venom 4200kg
Douglas A-4 Skyhawk 4500kg
Grumman F9 Panther/Cougar 4600/5200kg
Dassault Etendard IV 5900kg
North American FJ4 Fury 6000kg
Grumman F-11 Tiger 6200kg
Dassault Super Etendard 6500kg
BAe Sea Harrier 6600kg
Douglas F-6 Skyray 7300kg
Vought F-8 Crusader 8500kg
LTV A-7 Corsair 8700kg
....
LCA-N 8800kg empty

(There are probably a few others, the Americans made way too many different fighters in the late-40s to early-60s period...)

The Dassault Super Etendard was retired only a few years ago. Here is a great video of the type:

 
Last edited:
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Lethe said:
Single-engine, jet-powered, carrier-based aircraft with empty weight <9000kg:

De Havilland Sea Venom 4200kg
Douglas A-4 Skyhawk 4500kg
Grumman F9 Panther/Cougar 4600/5200kg
Dassault Etendard IV 5900kg
North American FJ4 Fury 6000kg
Grumman F-11 Tiger 6200kg
Dassault Super Etendard 6500kg
BAe Sea Harrier 6600kg
Douglas F-6 Skyray 7300kg
Vought F-8 Crusader 8500kg
LTV A-7 Corsair 8700kg
....
LCA-N 8800kg empty

(There are probably a few others, the Americans made way too many different fighters in the late-40s to early-60s period...)

The Dassault Super Etendard was retired only a few years ago. Here is a great video of the type:

Click to expand...

Harrier are still being used on carrier.

But to do a strike, carrier would be in range of shore based missiles... It's not a big problem if used to club small countries that have no means to fight back . If you use it to harass cargo ships and lone military ships without air support, it still could be useful.

Nothing more...

Late A-4 in Brazil Sao Paulo carrier.

 
Last edited:
Z

zavve

New Member
Registered Member
Chandragupt said:
Tejas being the best 4th generation fighter jet is not my claim I am only repeating what the pilots who flew this jet have said repeatedly and based on the specs (this fighter jet comes with) any neutral analyst would agree that it's the best 4th gen fighter jet in the world.
Click to expand...
As I've said many times before in a nicer way than I'm saying now, anyone who thinks Tejas Mk1A is better than Gripen E, F-15EX etc is smoking something.
Chandragupt said:
Just Because Tejas has been rejected by some Country doesn't mean it's useless Indian Airforce has rejected several different aircrafts in MMRCA that doesn't make those aircrafts useless if we go by your logic no country uses Chinese made fighter jets (except for bankrupt Pakistan) does that make Chinese fighter jets useless
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that China does not export their best fighters (J-20, J16 etc). Tejas is the best and only combat aircraft India makes and they can't even sell that to the Philippines (lost to F-16 and Gripen)
Chandragupt said:
SAAB is trying to develop Gripen maritime since 2018
it's a single engine light fighter as well but so far they haven't been able to land it on an aircraft carrier or for that matter even a shore based test facility
Click to expand...
SAAB has not been trying to develop maritime Gripen since 2018 because it has never been in development. It was a proposal to export it to India because their programme (LCA-N) was a shitshow.
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...
I think many here are thinking that the 0.5m^2 figure that you're talking about is in the optimal conditions, ie no weapons/drop tanks and at the best angle for the smallest possible RCS. In combat conditions, the RCS would be exponentially higher.
 
C

Chandragupt

Junior Member
Registered Member
Bellum_Romanum said:
Lol Tejas is now better plane than J-20..Man the CCP should have scratched that so-called 5th generation fighter and just order them a ship loaf of Tejas quick. Hail the mighty Tejas
Click to expand...
Nobody outside China believes that J20 is a fifth generation fighter , fifth generation means stealth it means small RCS like F22 Raptor or F35
The Under development Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) in India would have RCS comparable to F35 or F22 Raptor

And it's the only 5th generation fighter jet which is under development outside US
J20 or KF-21 are not Fifth Generation fighter jets
 
Z

zavve

New Member
Registered Member
Chandragupt said:
The Under development Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) in India would have RCS comparable to F35 or F22 Raptor

And it's the only 5th generation fighter jet which is under development outside US
J20 or KF-21 are not Fifth Generation fighter jets
Click to expand...
AMCA will fly in 2035 at the earliest, meanwhile China has J-20 operational and J-35 in testing right now. Of course AMCA is the only 5th gen currently being developed, all major players already have 5th gen or are developing 6th gen like Tempest and NGAD. The absolute majority of people outside of India believes J-20 is a 5th gen fighter.
 
C

Chandragupt

Junior Member
Registered Member
zavve said:
AMCA will fly in 2035 at the earliest, meanwhile China has J-20 operational and J-35 in testing right now. Of course AMCA is the only 5th gen currently being developed, all major players already have 5th gen or are developing 6th gen like Tempest and NGAD. The absolute majority of people outside of India believes J-20 is a 5th gen fighter.
Click to expand...
A fifth generation fighter jet with an RCS bigger than a 4th generation fighter that’s what makes it so special
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top