'Make in India' Single engined fighter

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Nov 2017 12:52

What is the max range of the current top BVR missiles? Hundreds of KMs?

Even the AWACS killer being developed by the Russians has a range of 400KM. Thus overtly sophistciated aircraft can only carry the same weaponry that legacy aircraft can and again,CANNOT be in two [places at once!.

This determines that we need the numbers and that
one Rafale " is NOT the equiv. of 4 JF-17s /whatever.larger numbers of aircraft will carry more AAMs that a single rival and in the end,as many analysts say,the battle ends up in a dogfight,why the Israelis emphasise such importance to aircraft carrying guns/cannon. This is why,LCAs in the IAF in large numbers very affordable,costing 1/8th of a Rafale,1/3rd of a legacy US bird,can do the biz equally well and from the reports of US analysts may even best the JSF in air combat.

UB,I am sure that the F-18 can operate from a STOBAR CV,but the problem with our two med. sized CVs is that their lifts cannot accommodate the bird,discussed elsewhere.Secondly,the entire new req. for 50+ birds was a dodge by the IN to actually get their large CV passed! Now that they've dropped the nuclear-powered CV idea,as our great strategic partner,the Yanquis have refused to give us N-reactor tech,only expensive EMALS which trump has condemned himself(!),they're scratching their heads as to how to obtain the extra power needed for EMALS in a conv. powered GT CV. When the final cost of the CV and its accompanying protective escorts,tanker,sub,etc.,are totted up,the MOD/Fin. Min. will have heart attacks!

The entire SEF requirement is yet another attempt to sabotage the LCA,as I've just posted how the Canadian AVRO ARROW project was mysteriously shelved when it was the best aircraft flying in both west and east.Pl ck the link in my earlier post.Very revealing.With the SEF proposal,we are going to reinvent the wheel which we have already done with the LCA. As I've said before,a war has broken out between firang OEMs to corner the Indiana aircraft market,with sev. vested interests both firang and domestic lobbying hard.How the DM/GOI are going to take objective decisions that will benefit us in the long run is anyone's guess.RG just joked that "self reliance" for India meant "self Reliance"!

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 17 Nov 2017 13:30

ashishvikas wrote:Boeing and HAL discuss building F/A-18 fighter

http://wap.business-standard.com/articl ... 015_1.html

Perhaps a look at how well meaning and planned are our DPSUs for National Betterment, is in order? Or is it too much for a forum aligned
to "engineering only"?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Nov 2017 17:34

Philip wrote:Tx Khalsa.I am nobody's mouthpiece.I am totally independent and objective of opinion.I ask the hard tough Qs which many do not like perhaps becos they serve the purpose of vested interests The quote was from Pierre Sprey himself,the designer of the F-16! This is the fighter that is being touted for the IAF for the SEF too! Now you can argue the same with him.[/b]

Yet more lies eh commissar? You've been corrected on this plenty of times before. Screaming it in bold, doesn't make it true.

Funny that you choose to believe his nonsense on the F-35 but stick your head in the sand when it comes to his other outlandish claims -

“The Su-30MK is simply another modification of the Su-27, a not-very-high-performing Russian imitation of our F-15 that had its prototype flight in 1977. The new version is significantly heavier and has poorer dogfight acceleration and turn than the original, mainly because of all the weighty and draggy gadgetry (e.g., canards, vectored thrust nozzles) added to allow these spectacular maneuvers. The more of these turkeys the Russkies sell, the longer the now-ancient F-16 (designed in 1972) will reign supreme as the world’s best fighter." - Pierre Sprey

For the benefit of others - Pierre Sprey is no aircraft designer. He is was a statistician assisting John Boyd when the latter worked on his EM-theory. Sells recording equipment today. He is, if at all, only marginally more credible than ol' Philip himself.

chola · Post by **chola** » 17 Nov 2017 17:45

I expect a certain level of entertainment when reading Filipov but these most recent posts are not only outrageously false but unforgivably long winded! His rolling smilies are irritating as hell too.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 17 Nov 2017 21:12

He (P Sprey)) seems to have gone a bit quiet on the F35s flight dynamics after it's demo earlier this year (Paris?)

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 18 Nov 2017 02:47

Wow! I knew the ~~trillion~~1.5 trillion-dollar JSF Mafia was powerful and vindictive but this is getting a bit too personal, isn't it? A brief check on Googleswara using the term "F 35 problem 2017" brought this out at the top:
As a general rule, the postor who gets shrillest with personal allegations is the one with the worst facts or logic. Otherwise, why get THIS insecure on an internet forum? It's not like Mr. Lock Heed is hanging on the words posted here, is he? Cool down, ppl. No sense in desis calling each other names over some issues in a massively overpriced boondoggle program 10,000km away.

On the other hand, why should really knowledgeable ppl come here or on the open Internet and lay out all the real capabilities? Those may become evident all too soon: There are F-35s now in Japan/Okinawa and maybe South Korea, minutes away from intense combat against well-armed adversaries, and over challenging terrain.
Since that March 2017 report, here is a June report that F35s were grounded over oxygen problems No big deal, no one seems to have died, presumably fixed by now. But the criticism that F-35s, at least the S/VSTOVL versions, need unwieldy support infrastructure to move with these amazingly nimble vehicles.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 18 Nov 2017 03:26

As the Mongol would know the $1 Trillion or 1.5 trillion figure is to design, develop, procure, and sustain 95+% of the US (All three fast jet operators) 5th generation fighters from 2001 (EMD contract award) till past 2050 which is a long long period of time. I guess when everything is now reported in total life-cycle-cost over decades there is no escaping the fact that this will result in memes that will be used by the Pogo's of the world. JSF is not the only program to face this issue (but it is more since it as a program is replacing multiple types with multiple services so stands out). The Triad cost estimate for the same i.e. design, development, procurement and sustainment of all 3 legs of the triad is also a $ 1 Trillion dollar+ meme but hasn't yet proliferated outside of the Arms Control mafia yet. There was a bit of innovation to get it that high though including attributing even the cost of conventional capability (B-21 program whose cost is only 5% nuclear and 95% in support of the conventional mission) to the overall LCC price tag.

The STOVL variants deployability it depends since there are advantages and disadvantages. It shares logistics and depot level work with the other 2 variants so take the Japanese deployment for example. The USMC can simply cycle out of Japan's F-35A infrastructure for logistical work. Similarly, it is designed for LHA operations but if you are going to sustain it in forward deployed operations you will need to do the exact same things that the Harrier squadrons did when they did the same in Afghanistan. The low-logistical footprint forward deployments are for short hop and skip deployments but if you are going to sustain forward based operations outside of air-bases you need to bring in infrastructure. For the Marines this will be able to travel ship to shore once they are fully done with some of the efforts they are engaged with.

For the most part, the F-35B is not going to be forward deployed for any significant length of duration in areas where the USMC or USN doesn't already have infrastructure. At Iwakuni they simply replaced retiring Harrier units that were already there. For other deployments and forward basing there are efforts on to reduce the logistical requirements down to as few C-17/C130 loads as possible. The USMC target is to deploy from a ship, with 6-12 F-35Bs, move inland and use just the V-22s and CH-53Ks for all sustainment and logistical needs in forward deployed locations for a small-medium time-frame. The ship will then act as a backup for other support and re-supply. Elements of this concept will begin to be tested in 2018 when the first LHA deployment is scheduled in the Pacific. Expect this to also show up in some bi-lateral or multi-lateral exercises in that region in the 2018-2020 time-frame. Again, much like they did with the Harrier or the USAF did with the F-22A (lite deployment concepts that are used now when F-22 units deploy to Europe or Asia) this will take time as the service builds up capability and expertise over time.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Nov 2017 03:36

UlanBatori wrote:But quite recently I was told by very insider desi aphsar that the reason for the French offer to build Rafales in India was declined was that HAL etc babus flat-out said that even if given all ToT they didn't think Rafales could be built in India. Which may be one reason why F-16 assembly line is to be shrinkwrapped and shipped to India.

Sirji, the story is that HAL pointed out that they needed x Capex to build the Rafale in India. Seeing the numbers our MOD mandarins had a gasp because the price/Rafale was fairly high. The DPP btw applicable to Rafale/MMRCA mandated 65% of the aircraft to be built in India (don't remember whether it was by value or LRU count). At any rate much of the fancy stuff (AESA radar, Spectra) would remain a black box. What we would get is some alloy, structure, some systems, hydraulics, components.. for which HAL projected a huge amount. At the same time, Dassault was also least interested in working with HAL because they didn't want to guarantee HAL made items (which would have meant the TOT/processes would be audited, better to get CKD/SKD assembled by Reliance) and also, the AMCA/AURA etc would benefit from French secret sauce of whatever kind.
The French also refused (as part of offsets) to transfer any RCS reduction tech for canopies to ADA/LCA team. Hence the local effort.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 18 Nov 2017 03:52

deejay wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Boeing and HAL discuss building F/A-18 fighter

http://wap.business-standard.com/articl ... 015_1.html
Perhaps a look at how well meaning and planned are our DPSUs for National Betterment, is in order? Or is it too much for a forum aligned
to "engineering only"?

Like you and others have mentioned before, this addiction by DPSUs has to be broken. Its become like so what if there is no LCA, we can get free candy from Boeing or Airbus or some uncleji. What motive does OFB have to support Arjun or HAL the LCA, if there is always an easy T-90 or Gripen around the corner?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Nov 2017 04:56

ashishvikas wrote:Boeing and HAL discuss building F/A-18 fighter

http://wap.business-standard.com/articl ... 015_1.html

Could be related to the Navy requirement for 57 aircraft. So assembly and maintenance contract.

kit · Post by **kit** » 18 Nov 2017 05:10

ramana wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Boeing and HAL discuss building F/A-18 fighter

http://wap.business-standard.com/articl ... 015_1.html

Could be related to the Navy requirement for 57 aircraft. So assembly and maintenance contract.

So all quid pro quo s going on

EMALS and F 18s

Areva reactors and french Sub nuclear reactor tech

NO F16s or Gripens

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 18 Nov 2017 05:12

Karan M wrote:story is that HAL pointed out that they needed x Capex to build the Rafale in India. Seeing the numbers our MOD mandarins had a gasp because the price/Rafale was fairly high. The DPP btw applicable to Rafale/MMRCA mandated 65% of the aircraft to be built in India (don't remember whether it was by value or LRU count). At any rate much of the fancy stuff (AESA radar, Spectra) would remain a black box. What we would get is some alloy, structure, some systems, hydraulics, components.. for which HAL projected a huge amount. At the same time, Dassault was also least interested in working with HAL because they didn't want to guarantee HAL made items (which would have meant the TOT/processes would be audited, better to get CKD/SKD assembled by Reliance) and also, the AMCA/AURA etc would benefit from French secret sauce of whatever kind.
The French also refused (as part of offsets) to transfer any RCS reduction tech for canopies to ADA/LCA team. Hence the local effort.

Thanks. The part that sticks out is that building the alloy, hydraulics etc still seems to require massive bootstrapping. This is where I was asking what has been learned in the automobile bijnej. I mean, is Rafale **THAT** much more sophisticated than Renault? Or F-16 than a Ford Fusion? Its done by ppl who buy in the same COTS marketplace and where the same subcontractors bid. And auto bijnej is even more fiercely competitive than fighter planes. There is a disconnect in desh: I think the ToT opportunities are right there and going unexploited like ppl walking on the blooru sidewalks too intent on not falling into the sewers to see the beautiful houris passing by, also watching for the same dangers.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 18 Nov 2017 05:15

Now that I got someone to "bite" on my bait re: the Rafale deal, and confirm the credentials of my chaiwalas, here comes the next. The F-16 line offer is based on something else entirely where there is ToT. IOW, there is absolutely no point discussing its merits in isolation.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 Nov 2017 06:16

UlanBatori wrote:Now that I got someone to "bite" on my bait re: the Rafale deal, and confirm the credentials of my chaiwalas, here comes the next. The F-16 line offer is based on something else entirely where there is ToT. IOW, there is absolutely no point discussing its merits in isolation.

Engines for the AAMKA? I hope anyways...

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 18 Nov 2017 07:29

Strategic.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 18 Nov 2017 10:47

Dont tell me they plan to lease virginia class :o

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Nov 2017 15:11

ramana wrote:
ashishvikas wrote:Boeing and HAL discuss building F/A-18 fighter

http://wap.business-standard.com/articl ... 015_1.html

Could be related to the Navy requirement for 57 aircraft. So assembly and maintenance contract.

It is related to that. And Boeing has made it clear that they think HAL is a better partner given total lack of experience of any other company in India.

Whether we like it or not, one SE and one TE fighter screwdrivergiri is coming. They have already damaged bot hLCA and NLCA already. Worse case, we will not be able to import in time and we would ave stopped working on LCA/NLCA too. So IAF/IN are left high and dry in 2025.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Nov 2017 15:43

UlanBatori wrote:
Karan M wrote:story is that HAL pointed out that they needed x Capex to build the Rafale in India. Seeing the numbers our MOD mandarins had a gasp because the price/Rafale was fairly high. The DPP btw applicable to Rafale/MMRCA mandated 65% of the aircraft to be built in India (don't remember whether it was by value or LRU count). At any rate much of the fancy stuff (AESA radar, Spectra) would remain a black box. What we would get is some alloy, structure, some systems, hydraulics, components.. for which HAL projected a huge amount. At the same time, Dassault was also least interested in working with HAL because they didn't want to guarantee HAL made items (which would have meant the TOT/processes would be audited, better to get CKD/SKD assembled by Reliance) and also, the AMCA/AURA etc would benefit from French secret sauce of whatever kind.
The French also refused (as part of offsets) to transfer any RCS reduction tech for canopies to ADA/LCA team. Hence the local effort.
Thanks. The part that sticks out is that building the alloy, hydraulics etc still seems to require massive bootstrapping. This is where I was asking what has been learned in the automobile bijnej. I mean, is Rafale **THAT** much more sophisticated than Renault? Or F-16 than a Ford Fusion? Its done by ppl who buy in the same COTS marketplace and where the same subcontractors bid. And auto bijnej is even more fiercely competitive than fighter planes. There is a disconnect in desh: I think the ToT opportunities are right there and going unexploited like ppl walking on the blooru sidewalks too intent on not falling into the sewers to see the beautiful houris passing by, also watching for the same dangers.

Saar, which cars need 2-5000Psi pressure hydraulic systems..? Which cars use TFTA carbon composites for heavy structural components? And stuff like Nickel alloys, TiAl alloys..? Auto sector is competitive in a difference sense. These things are too costly to be used in Cars. For a large number of auto applications in fact CFRP is not even needed. GFPR comes out to be more than sufficient and far cheaper material. Problem is not technology being too different, but the precision, order book, stringent qualification/certification requirements and cost at a different level. Would an Indian supplier supplying hydraulic components of say 50psi to auto OEM in thousands per month, set up high precision machine-shop to produce a 5000psi system, when orders are like 12/yr, and when development/qualification/certification is 'no-cost-no-commitment' basis and IPR needed to be surrendered to DRDO/HAL..? One of our European production centre just bought a particular alloy raw material from a supplier in jiffy. It was last batch anywhere in the world for coming few months, may be even an year. And even that is not sufficient for our requirement. Sometimes COTS is not easy to come by even in Europe/US. Low volume production of high precision component (and hence the high cost) is a general challenge in Aerospace. And one has to deal with it.

FIrst and foremost thing is GOI needs to overhaul the procurement process and make the environment more conducive to businesses. Just running behind "technology" is useless.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 18 Nov 2017 16:35

You are absolutely right. Which cars fly Mach 1.4 at 15000 meters in -55deg. weather?
Bumper sticker:

IMPORT YOUR WEAPONS. FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF THOUGHT.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Nov 2017 19:39

On what flat top will these antiquated birds operate from? Both the VikA and IAC-1 can't accommodate them, lifts too small and they haven't been STOBAR tested.Secondly it will take 15 yrs to build a large IAC-2, by which time these obsolete antiques , now 65 yrs old in their false teeth,would have to be reclassified as items worthy of archaeological importance!
Does the IN hope to operate them from INS India? In which case SU-30 MKIs available at lesser cost already being built in India or the upgraded SS std. newly built would bd a far better prospect.Or one step even further, join the FGFA progr.!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 19 Nov 2017 06:55

Karan M wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:But quite recently I was told by very insider desi aphsar that the reason for the French offer to build Rafales in India was declined was that HAL etc babus flat-out said that even if given all ToT they didn't think Rafales could be built in India. Which may be one reason why F-16 assembly line is to be shrinkwrapped and shipped to India.
Sirji, the story is that HAL pointed out that they needed x Capex to build the Rafale in India. Seeing the numbers our MOD mandarins had a gasp because the price/Rafale was fairly high. The DPP btw applicable to Rafale/MMRCA mandated 65% of the aircraft to be built in India (don't remember whether it was by value or LRU count). At any rate much of the fancy stuff (AESA radar, Spectra) would remain a black box. What we would get is some alloy, structure, some systems, hydraulics, components.. for which HAL projected a huge amount. At the same time, Dassault was also least interested in working with HAL because they didn't want to guarantee HAL made items (which would have meant the TOT/processes would be audited, better to get CKD/SKD assembled by Reliance) and also, the AMCA/AURA etc would benefit from French secret sauce of whatever kind.
The French also refused (as part of offsets) to transfer any RCS reduction tech for canopies to ADA/LCA team. Hence the local effort.

In the above context, when LM offers to 'transfer the line' to India and commit to a 'fully locally sourced' fighter in 7 years (minus the engine which they don't produce) is it not worth calling their 'bluff' and saying "OK, 100% ownership at the integrator level, 0% at the local supplier level?

ToT happens at the supplier (chain) level where people learn 'how to'. Let LM/SAAB own 100% at the integrator level and commit to 100% accountability for non performance.

This 'HAL is the only 'experienced' entity in India as RaGa opines is nonsense. And, by allowing 100% at the Integrator level with 0% at the local ecosystem level is the way to get 'how to build the next gen.."

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 19 Nov 2017 10:27

The whole idea of aircraft carriers may be outdated inside 5 years, if NoKo/cheen manage to hit the US fleet/ send them back empty-handed. Nothing is permanent. I don't see how to defend a large target like a supercarrier, from hypersonic-cruise missiles.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 19 Nov 2017 10:45

UlanBatori wrote:The whole idea of aircraft carriers may be outdated inside 5 years, if NoKo/cheen manage to hit the US fleet/ send them back empty-handed. Nothing is permanent. I don't see how to defend a large target like a supercarrier, from hypersonic-cruise missiles.

What do hypersonic missiles bring that supersonic ones don't ? They should be outdated now. If a manouevering target can be hit and therefore outdated, what of all the airbases ? We won't need fighters anymore, just missiles.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Nov 2017 11:06

A carrier is a moving target when it is at sea.Difficult to locate and sink.But it is threatened more from LRCMs,and supersonic BMos than BMs. The advent of hypersonic missiles is another grave threat but the carrier's enemy must have superb real -time data for launching its missiles and some sort of terminal homing too.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Nov 2017 15:54

UlanBatori wrote:Wow! I knew the ~~trillion~~1.5 trillion-dollar JSF Mafia was powerful and vindictive but this is getting a bit too personal, isn't it? A brief check on Googleswara using the term "F 35 problem 2017" brought this out at the top:
As a general rule, the postor who gets shrillest with personal allegations is the one with the worst facts or logic. Otherwise, why get THIS insecure on an internet forum? It's not like Mr. Lock Heed is hanging on the words posted here, is he? Cool down, ppl. No sense in desis calling each other names over some issues in a massively overpriced boondoggle program 10,000km away.
On the other hand, why should really knowledgeable ppl come here or on the open Internet and lay out all the real capabilities? Those may become evident all too soon: There are F-35s now in Japan/Okinawa and maybe South Korea, minutes away from intense combat against well-armed adversaries, and over challenging terrain.

I assure this isn't about insecurity or Lockheed or F-35 or US or whatever. This about intolerance for liars. And I use the word 'liar' in the literal sense not just as pejorative or 'allegation'.

Someone makes a statement X which you know is wrong. No big deal right? So you point it out, and correct him with references, links and such. He doesn't respond, just disappears. Two weeks later he repeats the same statement. No big deal, right? He made not have read your last post or those by others on the same issue. So you type a new post, digging up the old as well as new references. He doesn't respond or acknowledge that. Maybe he conceded the point, huh? Few days or weeks he comes back to repeat the same statement yet again. Unusual for one to not have seen the responses twice in a row, but not impossible. So you repeat your response as well. Two or three cycles later and after multiple false statements on other issues you realise that he's not interested in the objective truth at all.

So all the work/research/fact-checking you put into your responses was useless because you were dealing with someone with an agenda and an unrestrained willingness to lie. For him this is propaganda i.e. to shape local opinion through tedious repetition instead of making an the argument that can stand on its merits.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 19 Nov 2017 16:19

UlanBatori wrote:The whole idea of aircraft carriers may be outdated inside 5 years, if NoKo/cheen manage to hit the US fleet/ send them back empty-handed. Nothing is permanent. I don't see how to defend a large target like a supercarrier, from hypersonic-cruise missiles.

The same could be said with regard to ALL surface vessels not just large targets. However, getting a weapon-grade bearing on a very mobile surface fleet is easier said than done. Then you need to get your launch platform to within the weapon's envelope without being checked by the air defence/strike fighters.

Aside from the SM-3 that's designed to take down high altitude hypersonic targets (albeit ballistic ones), the carrier's fighter complement carries missiles that are hypersonic in the boost stage and likely effective against targets cruising at lower altitudes.

Point is, the offense-defence game isn't coming to a close. Its an evolving equation that factors in numbers, intelligence, sensors, EW, overlapping defences and so on.

Nobody has more experience or success with sustained hypersonic experiments than the US (ref: Waverider/HAWC) but that hasn't stopped China from pumping out warships at a breakneck pace, with five carriers planned at the moment.

chola · Post by **chola** » 19 Nov 2017 16:56

^^^Cheen IMHO is pumping out warships not to make war but to encrouch and occupy gray zones during times of peace. The USN had stated that Cheen could not possibly train enough crews properly to man their ships. But they don’t need to if their intention is to create de facto jurisdiction in bodies of water by flooding them in numbers.

If there is no war, then all of these hypersonic weapons and supersonic ASMs mean nothing. A navy spends 99.9% at peace not war. The PRC as an insidious mercantile nation is trying to solve the cost/return equation of a standing military.

All militaries are a drain in treasure and resource during peace. There is no return. Unless, that is, you are able to use that military to occupy territory during peacetime. Then your return is in square miles or kilometers of new territory that can be exploited by your nation.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Nov 2017 19:41

I don't see how to defend a large target like a supercarrier, from hypersonic-cruise missiles.

Same as you always have - Hard ( Multi-layered SAM system) and Soft Kill measures (Electronic Attack, Cyber, and in the medium term EMRG based hypervelocity projectiles, and directed energy) and tactics - stand-off attack i.e. increase the ability of your carrier strike aircraft to strike at targets from greater distances than currently possible. This can be achieved by both long range stand off weapons and by extending the reach of the strike fighters. Hypersonic weapons still require a kill-chain for them to work, just like any other subsonic, or high - supersonic weapon that has threatened ships for decades. Any successful defensive strategy would naturally address the entire kill chain.

Carriers don't operate in isolation, they are part of a strike group and an offensive/defensive fleet with massive amount of VL cells tasked at protecting it from many threats including those specifically targeting the aircraft carrier. This on top of any organic defensive capability that exists on the carrier itself. Needless to say, a large portion of the VLS will be emptied during the first few days of a conflict in order to focus on the adversaries offensive capability to focus on sea access denial. A carrier strike group has massive amounts of protection in terms of defensive capability and when compared to a fixed air-base for example, is a much harder target to find, fix, locate, target and eventually destroy. You don't need massive hypersonic cruise missiles to take out an air base. You can do the same using much cheaper, and widely available barrage of ballistic missiles.

It isn't a coincidence that both China and the US, both nations pursuing hypersonics at an aggressive pace are also investing in aircraft-carriers, China as mentioned by ViV plans to grow considerably in this department and over a fairly short period of time (quite an aggressive planned increase in capability). It is a cat and mouse game which swings as new capability is fielded.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 19 Nov 2017 22:26

At some point, your standoff distance becomes your capital city. True, we're a long way from there now, but if you spend $6B on a large AC, plus another $B on its retinue and a huge recurring expense every day that the whole armada is on duty, that's so much less that you have to spend on other things that are far more numerous, harder to locate and hence harder to hit than ACs or AC groups. I don't know when the balance swings completely, but the AC has dominated since the large Beyond Visual Range battles of WW2 first showed their prowess. Is it perpetual?

NoKo's current threat IIRC is that one nuke in space can cause enough EMP havoc. This has succeeded in stopping all of the US carrier groups and mainland-based strategic bombers and ICBMs and off-shore aircraft carriers such as Guam, Japan and SoKo. The big interest in COTUS is the Jarnail who is being bullied to declare that he will refuse orders to launch nukes unless he's already been vaporized.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 19 Nov 2017 22:55

his has succeeded in stopping all of the US carrier groups and mainland-based strategic bombers and ICBMs and off-shore aircraft carriers such as Guam, Japan and SoKo.

There are aircraft carriers in the region, almost all the time. If hostilities were to ever break out, carriers will be used alongside other land based aircraft and forces. Exactly what tactics the carriers and the support group use will naturally be closely held but needless to say that the surface fleet of the USN is vital to a whole host of things that the joint US and US-Japan-ROK forces rely on, including ballistic missile defense, space denial (ASAT) etc.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 20 Nov 2017 00:12

Viv S wrote:[
The same could be said with regard to ALL surface vessels not just large targets. However, getting a weapon-grade bearing on a very mobile surface fleet is easier said than done.

Agreed..

Then you need to get your launch platform to within the weapon's envelope without being checked by the air defence/strike fighters.

I'm not so sure about this. The point of a hypersonic is that it could be fired from very long ranges, well out of the range of the cbg fighter bubble. Say, 1200km, a distance that would be covered in about 10 minutes by the missile. The missile might not even need any support assets to provide oth targeting or mid course updates since a target will hardly move more than a dozen km during that time, something that the missiles onboard seeker might be able to track and compensate for.

A swam of such missiles will be a pita for the defense systems of the cbg since these are not taking predicable ballistic trajectories.

And while they may find some solution, at some point this becomes rather unsustainable considering that the cost of enemy missiles is a lot less than carriers.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Nov 2017 02:40

A swam of such missiles will be a pita for the defense systems of the cbg since these are not taking predicable ballistic trajectories.

First such missiles need to exist (those speeds and those ranges) and then we also need to factor in the entire effect on the kill chain not just the missile performance. What sort of prep work will a combined joint operations (air, sea, land, space, and cyberspace) do that would/could inhibit the performance of these weapons? What about upcoming advances in defensive systems such as more agile missiles, better, smaller, SWaP optimized seekers, directed energy and hypervelocity projectiles?

Just a 1200 km missile is not enough. First you have to be able to find and fix targets despite all efforts of the opponent to deny and deceive your ability to effectively command and control and target at long range (and why is 1200 km relevant? what if the CBG is 2500 km away from land?). Then you have to overcome the entire gamut of kinetic and non kinetic effects that can be imparted on such a weapon..everything from electronic attack, directed energy to long range interceptors and down to point defense interceptors and hypervelocity projectiles.

It is a cat and mouse game for sure and the pendulum swings just as it has for years/decades.

Guess who just unveiled plans of developing hypersonic target missiles to test and further develop air-defense systems?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Nov 2017 03:19

The US in its recent wars never faced an adversary who had long range aircraft or missile capability.Perhaps Saddam's forces were the strongest , which waged war with the coalition forces of Bush the father,but GW1 had already cut him down to size before Bush the son performed the coup de gras.His air force was no match for the coalition carrier aircraft and those based on land .There were however his missile strikes against Israel and
one strike aimed at the Saudis.

US carriers however in any spat with China taking place in the ICS-Pacific waters, will face a cocktail of Chinese land based aircraft, a few carrier based Flankers, maybe J-20s and land based anti- ship missiles .The greatest threat will be from Chinese subs not their BMs. methinks as they would still have their targeting difficulties in real time against fast moving CBGs.If a tactical nuke is used as the warhead .....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Nov 2017 03:26

The wars in the ME were PC wars. China will not see a PC war.

And the pieces are being put into place.

To add one comment to the Hard/Soft kill cycle - it is not just that of the US (vs. China). Granted China also may (I expect) get assistance - soft. The man without a face will not keep quiet. But, that is part of the game.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 20 Nov 2017 03:58

brar_w wrote:
A swam of such missiles will be a pita for the defense systems of the cbg since these are not taking predicable ballistic trajectories.
First such missiles need to exist (those speeds and those ranges) and then we also need to factor in the entire effect on the kill chain not just the missile performance.

IIRC, the DF21 is supposed to somewhat manage this - as does the Shourya. At shorter ranges iirc the russians have tested the zircon.

Just a 1200 km missile is not enough. First you have to be able to find and fix targets despite all efforts of the opponent to deny and deceive your ability to effectively command and control and target at long range (and why is 1200 km relevant? what if the CBG is 2500 km away from land?).

I said as much. But in case they can find the target - the hypersonic missile would make the carriers work that much harder as it cannot approach shore targets very easily since such missiles are much harder to shoot down. 1200km is arbitrary but I used it because I believe that is close to df21/Shaurya ranges ~ 1500km @ m7 - m10. The Zircon is supposed to manage around 1000km in a quasi-ballistic trajectory as well.

It is a cat and mouse game for sure and the pendulum swings just as it has for years/decades.

No doubt but the point that UBji was making and i think is quite valid, is that the ability of CBGs to project power across worlds' oceans just got that much harder.
[/quote]

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Nov 2017 04:45

IIRC, the DF21 is supposed to somewhat manage this - as does the Shourya. At shorter ranges iirc the russians have tested the zircon.

DF-21 is a ballistic missile. How many at sea targets has it sunk till date in testing? What sort of defenses? At this moment the USN has 2 missiles meant to defend against this threat (SM3, and SM2/6). In about 2 years, a third missile will also allow them to do this (ESSM-Blk. II). In the future both directed energy and hypervelocity projectiles will go against this and similar threats. And this does not factor in non kinetic effects such as electronic attack. A US CBG comes with a $hit load of VL cells the last I checked and this is before there are dedicated offensive actions taken to make them operate more safely. Don't expect CBG to just sail in unassisted, there will be plenty of initial offensive capability exercised focusing specifically on taking out some of the denial capability of the adversary. Again, one can write pages and pages about potential threats but one should at least spend a little bit of time talking bout actual demonstrated capability of these when pitted against threat representative systems.

Must be careful in attributing mythical capabilities to untested chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles especially against defenses that routinely take out ballistic missiles in testing every year. If it were that easy then there would be no need to build a surface navy for anyone leave aside the USN which has the highest capability as far as defending against such a threat is concerned.

Tactically, expect the first few salvos of offensive capabilities focused at anti-access enablers of the adversaries..it is once those initial cells are exhausted that the CBG will come in to bring volume. CBG sailing in as the first offensive punch isn't a smart thing to do..There is a reason why you have the air-force's bombers, stealth aircraft, submarines and DDG's with a lot of cells. An air-craft carrier brings in volume since it can replenish much quicker and generate sorties and strike targets more frequently than a weapon out of a VLC.

Now I am in no way trying to downplay these systems but suggesting that the defenses are there and are also getting better. Moreover, long range targeting works both ways. Subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles with medium to long range work both ways i.e. just as they allow someone from land to launch them to a target at sea, they also allow something at sea (or air) from launching them back at other targets thereby increasing the stand-off range, and lethality of the aircraft carrier.

Ever wonder why the USAF is investing in a more conventional scramjet cruise missile and a TBG system?

No doubt but the point that UBji was making and i think is quite valid, is that the ability of CBGs to project power across worlds' oceans just got that much harder.

Of course. And the ability of the CBG to project power is also getting progressively better from things that it can do, and from other areas where others can contribute. Hypersonic weapons work both ways..primary targets for the other end would be A2AD enablers.

The Zircon is supposed to manage around 1000km in a quasi-ballistic trajectory as well.

And why would a CBG be operating 1000 km from China? or North Korea? even if one assumes they have this weapon.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 20 Nov 2017 04:47

From discussing rafale/F18 to DF21/Chinese subs, this thread has a covered the whole wide world

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 20 Nov 2017 05:55

ArjunPandit wrote:From discussing rafale/F18 to DF21/Chinese subs, this thread has a covered the whole wide world

Not unlike the impending fate of the imported SEF acquisition programme isn't it?

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 20 Nov 2017 06:57

Kashi wrote:
ArjunPandit wrote:From discussing rafale/F18 to DF21/Chinese subs, this thread has a covered the whole wide world
Not unlike the impending fate of the imported SEF acquisition programme isn't it?

As yogi berra would have liked to say, it aint over till its over

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Nov 2017 14:30

Becos the SEF is also a deadly anti-ship /CBG weapon when used in Kamikaze mode!

I seriously proposed using our few hundreds of legacy MIGs as UAV/UCAVS some time ago.When we're trying to turn legacy Chetaks helps into UHs for the IN why not MIGs for the IAF?

Brar forgot to also mention the rail gun as a defensive/offensive weapon to be aboard USN warships post 2020.They can pour out at enormous speeds solid steel projectiles that due to their sheer kinetic power require no explosives to destroy any type of vessel or missile too if the early targeting and tracking is accurate.
I'm not sure how effective the first gen.lasers to come aboard warshilps are but I would still put my money on a sub attack more likely to cripple a cv.