INS Vikrant (IAC1) & INS Vikramaditya - News & Discussions

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
@Nilgiri

The USAF's frustration is evident in this article.

The obstacles to integrating AI are many. DoD has long been hardware-oriented toward ships, planes, and tanks. It is now trying to make the leap to a software-intensive enterprise. Spending remains concentrated on legacy systems designed for the industrial age and Cold War. Many Departmental processes still rely too much on PowerPoint and manually driven work streams. The data that is needed to fuel machine learning (ML) is currently stovepiped, messy, or often discarded. Platforms are disconnected. Acquisition, development, and fielding practices largely follow rigid, sequential processes, inhibiting early and continuous experimentation and testing critical for AI.
 

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,795
1,226
switzerland
To me, Robert Gates broke their spearhead with the stroke of a pen and they haven't got it back since. A sobering self-assessment of the USAF says the F-22 lacks the range, the F-35 is not up to the mark,
But any thing which India possess in aerial warfare cannot beat F35 and that's more than sufficient to know in India's point of refrence. Apart from that more importantly what Russia has which can counter F35 that's more worth knowing.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
But any thing which India possess in aerial warfare cannot beat F35 and that's more than sufficient to know in India's point of refrence. Apart from that more importantly what Russia has which can counter F35 that's more worth knowing.

The Americans are not competing with us. If we considered America an enemy, then we would have made the appropriate arrangements necessary towards deterring them, first and foremost a larger military budget. Since that's not the case, we are making purchases that are more suitable to deal with our current enemies.

In the mid-90s, we rapidly moved towards an unfinished MKI because we assumed we would be challenging the US, the first two squadrons were raised in Pune, where we faced no real threat from both the Pakistanis and the Chinese. The Americans would constantly violate our ADIZ via drones during the time. We would have done the same with Su-57 had we been in the same situation today. It's also among the reasons why we bought so much Russian tech during the Vajpayee era. Right after all those contracts were signed, we got a whole lot closer 'cause of the changing world order signaled by China's rise. The defence budget growth started falling after that point.

Anyway, our situation is very different from what the Americans are facing. We have almost every geographical advantage imaginable versus the Chinese, which neither numbers nor technology can bridge at this point. Otoh, the Americans are dealing with a lot of disadvantages. So what we both need are very different.

Russia is not bothered about countering the F-35. To them it's a low end jet. They wanted to surpass the F-22, and they got that with the Su-57. So they need to worry about NGAD next. Now it's a waiting game for both China and Russia. In our case, we are not waiting to counter the J-20, we are waiting for the J-20 successor, which will give us the MKI replacement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: screambowl

Nilgiri

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
635
1,502
But do you think it qualifies as a spearhead? To me, Robert Gates broke their spearhead with the stroke of a pen and they haven't got it back since. A sobering self-assessment of the USAF says the F-22 lacks the range, the F-35 is not up to the mark, legacy systems are unusable and their actual spearhead, which is yet to be sired in the form of NGAD and B-21, is needed not to achieve air supremacy but to merely contest it. In the meantime, whistle-stoppers and pencil-pushers coerce and compel the air force to do their bidding for the sake of protecting jobs.

What the USAF really needs:

But what they are reluctantly getting:
“rapid prototype aircraft”

“When you look to the future, ideally you’d like to be able to look at capability that can be defensible,” he said.

Acquiring the Wedgetail “gives us a path” while the service awaits a space-based capability, he said, as “an option to be able to get the capability much faster than if we were to start a new start from scratch.”


They have no spearhead. All they are doing is playing with a hand that rhymes with "puff", and if the Chinese call it, the Americans are gonna drop... their pants, for a nice round of butt-puffing.

To sum it up, the USAF's spearhead today is merely a bunch of abbreviations in the DoD's files. And they are just doing everything they can to buy time.

With all that going on, whistle-stoppers are happy getting votes by forcing the USAF to buy more legacy systems.

They went through the same motions versus the Soviets....while actually getting things gestated and done and into place for the war that never came.

Its about Pentagon having the most leverage possible on the financier-politician matrix in DC.

You also have to consider where and what the scope actually is of the likeliest conflicts.

Nuclear powers are not going to go all out and try attack the others homeland bulk for fear of doomsday.

That leaves lot of contested ocean and airspace for a punitive kind of conflict at most (possibly regd a third party).

What kind of assets come into play for most of the spearheads?

It's mostly stuff the US has sizeable lead on, like SSNs, CBGs and VLS totals.....along with having airforce stuff based closer to opponents than the opponents can base close to US.
@Nilgiri

The USAF's frustration is evident in this article.

The obstacles to integrating AI are many. DoD has long been hardware-oriented toward ships, planes, and tanks. It is now trying to make the leap to a software-intensive enterprise. Spending remains concentrated on legacy systems designed for the industrial age and Cold War. Many Departmental processes still rely too much on PowerPoint and manually driven work streams. The data that is needed to fuel machine learning (ML) is currently stovepiped, messy, or often discarded. Platforms are disconnected. Acquisition, development, and fielding practices largely follow rigid, sequential processes, inhibiting early and continuous experimentation and testing critical for AI.

Yes there is obviously (another) cold war in full flow now.....and the related consequence in the media of the "We need more" stripe just like the first one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amal

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,795
1,226
switzerland
The Americans are not competing with us. If we considered America an enemy, then we would have made the appropriate arrangements necessary towards deterring them, first and foremost a larger military budget

You may not be competing the Americans but you are competing with some one(China) who is competing the Americans. So there it self you have to revive your policy. And not wait until storm strikes.


In the mid-90s, we rapidly moved towards an unfinished MKI because we assumed we would be challenging the US, the first two squadrons were raised in Pune,
India still did not have a decent stealth program forget aircraft like F117 in 90's
 

screambowl

Senior member
Dec 19, 2017
2,795
1,226
switzerland
Russia is not bothered about countering the F-35. To them it's a low end jet.

But not for India, even S400s can't counter it or detect it. India is still struggling with a conventional powerplant for LCA. F35 or anything beyond 5th Gen, NGAD etc is a far fetched issues. This is a serious problem.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
They went through the same motions versus the Soviets....while actually getting things gestated and done and into place for the war that never came.

Its about Pentagon having the most leverage possible on the financier-politician matrix in DC.

You also have to consider where and what the scope actually is of the likeliest conflicts.

Nuclear powers are not going to go all out and try attack the others homeland bulk for fear of doomsday.

That leaves lot of contested ocean and airspace for a punitive kind of conflict at most (possibly regd a third party).

The crux of the matter... Who are they going to fight? And are they going to fight? At least we know the ones they are meant to fight, they can't fight, at least at this time.

What kind of assets come into play for most of the spearheads?


It's mostly stuff the US has sizeable lead on, like SSNs, CBGs and VLS totals.....along with having airforce stuff based closer to opponents than the opponents can base close to US.

Their navy's good. If the US is to fight Taiwan, even if they lose the island but wipe PLAN off the map, that's good enough.

But it's the second part that's the problem. The opponent is based closer to US allies and bases, and US aircraft cannot touch opponent bases. You are looking at continental US, but that's not the battlefield. The Americans have no choice but to fight the Chinese on their turf.

I think the world is very, very lucky Taiwan has turtled well beyond expectations. They have done the best they can and it shows. Completely opposite to the Europeans.

Yes there is obviously (another) cold war in full flow now.....and the related consequence in the media of the "We need more" stripe just like the first one.

They were very well funded the first time around. This time, their protests are being marked with resignations.

Do you know the Chinese are planning on releasing a new free Google Maps competitor with live near real-time video?

Things are getting more and more ridiculous. I think such disruptive technology is making the possibility of a massive war more and more real.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
You may not be competing the Americans but you are competing with some one(China) who is competing the Americans. So there it self you have to revive your policy. And not wait until storm strikes.



India still did not have a decent stealth program forget aircraft like F117 in 90's

There are a lot of countries trying to challenge the US in their own ways with different measures of success. At least we were doing a lot better than the Chinese in the 90s. Things have changed for the Chinese only in the last 5-6 years or so.

The issue with the Americans is they are way ahead of the Chinese, but are temporarily stuck with incompatible designs for the geography they need to operate in. They have no presence in Taiwan, Jap islands lack strategic depth, and their main bases are 3000Km away from the battlespace with main targets 4000-4500Km away. And the tech they need to fight China are not available in the required capacity yet.

In India, although we could have done better, but we can still make do with what we have, with geography giving us a tremendous advantage. And we have a plan that's being implemented and we are getting better with time. But the Americans cannot make do with what they have and are running out of time.

If the Chinese decide to take Taiwan by force in the next 2-3 years, bolstered by another 150-200 J-20s joining their fleet by then, the Americans are gonna have to rely much more on their older 4th gen assets, and their old F-22 with tech from 20 years ago that can't operate over China. That's how bad it really is. I can't imagine a Sino-US war over Taiwan with the Chinese holding the air advantage.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Let's not be delusional here. The f-35 is still superior to the su-57 so is the Rafale.

Nah, the F-35 is not even in the same class.

“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” Hostage told the Air Force Times.

Too much has been made of the F-35. It's simply not a jet that will survive in a highly contested environment. Even the USAF officially says the F-22/F-35 combo will be outdated in a few years.
 

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,409
898
California
Nah, the F-35 is not even in the same class.

“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” Hostage told the Air Force Times.

Too much has been made of the F-35. It's simply not a jet that will survive in a highly contested environment. Even the USAF officially says the F-22/F-35 combo will be outdated in a few years.

Clueless as usual. Using a 2014 article when at the time the USAF was begging for money to upgrade the F-22, what else are they going to say? Also at the time the F-35 wasn't near IOC. Man you're full of yourself.
 

Lolwa

Senior member
Feb 6, 2020
1,683
1,052
Delhi
Nah, the F-35 is not even in the same class.

“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22,” Hostage told the Air Force Times.

Too much has been made of the F-35. It's simply not a jet that will survive in a highly contested environment. Even the USAF officially says the F-22/F-35 combo will be outdated in a few years.
The f-35 and Rafale both are technologically ahead though. The Rafale's OSF QWIP is actually a generation ahead than the su-57's 101-KSV. Russian area radar is also a gen behind to what the f-35 and Rafale are using. Plus A2G is far more mature for both Rafale and f-35
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hydra

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
The f-35 and Rafale both are technologically ahead though. The Rafale's OSF QWIP is actually a generation ahead than the su-57's 101-KSV. Russian area radar is also a gen behind to what the f-35 and Rafale are using. Plus A2G is far more mature for both Rafale and f-35

Pretty much all of the hardware on the Su-57 is ahead compared to the Rafale F3. Rafale doesn't yet use QWIP, it uses MCT.

But what's most important is the technological gap the new engine provides. So it's not just the airframe and avionics hardware superiority.

Mach 2 supercruise with heavy payload, 5000Km basic range, VLO... Plus advanced sensors and EW suite, next gen self-protection suite with DIRCM, next gen cockpit, high speed/high bandwidth patrol link... The list is endless.

As for software, there's no way to tell. We do not know where the Russians are when it comes to sensor fusion. And we don't know enough about American and French software to compare with anyway.

Maturity is different. The Su-57 doesn't have to use conventional tactics like the F-35 and Rafale, it can simply supercruise in and out of enemy territory. Even our air force officials have pointed out that the Rafale is inferior to the FGFA, like the AF chief said it would be a generation ahead.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
Clueless as usual. Using a 2014 article when at the time the USAF was begging for money to upgrade the F-22, what else are they going to say? Also at the time the F-35 wasn't near IOC. Man you're full of yourself.

Even today the USAF still believes that, even after the F-22 upgrade was funded. Instead they decided even the F-22 isn't enough, they now need the NGAD.
 

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,409
898
California
Even today the USAF still believes that, even after the F-22 upgrade was funded. Instead they decided even the F-22 isn't enough, they now need the NGAD.
When NGAD enters service the USAF will complain they need a more capable fighter. USAF will never be satisfied with what they have and that is a good thing. If USAF didn't demand this and that the USAF would look like the French air force... nothing but 4th gen fighters.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
When NGAD enters service the USAF will complain they need a more capable fighter. USAF will never be satisfied with what they have and that is a good thing. If USAF didn't demand this and that the USAF would look like the French air force... nothing but 4th gen fighters.

You should join the USAF and teach them how to run it.
 

Nilgiri

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
635
1,502
The crux of the matter... Who are they going to fight? And are they going to fight? At least we know the ones they are meant to fight, they can't fight, at least at this time.



Their navy's good. If the US is to fight Taiwan, even if they lose the island but wipe PLAN off the map, that's good enough.

But it's the second part that's the problem. The opponent is based closer to US allies and bases, and US aircraft cannot touch opponent bases. You are looking at continental US, but that's not the battlefield. The Americans have no choice but to fight the Chinese on their turf.

I think the world is very, very lucky Taiwan has turtled well beyond expectations. They have done the best they can and it shows. Completely opposite to the Europeans.



They were very well funded the first time around. This time, their protests are being marked with resignations.

Do you know the Chinese are planning on releasing a new free Google Maps competitor with live near real-time video?

Things are getting more and more ridiculous. I think such disruptive technology is making the possibility of a massive war more and more real.

To be perfectly honest, I'm more concerned about the marxism (esp neo-marxism) that is seeping into the US military right now....since that will actually have impact on their realised combat effectiveness in a hypothetical war however many years downstream.

That is at least the summarised impression I have made in the last 5+ years discussing with people (whom I trust) in the US military (or its allies) at various levels. i.e the combat asset level and the matrix arraigned behind it remains quite potent where it matters....but it wont be presented as some eternal fait accompli hubris like say in the 1990s after GW1 etc.

On the media + think tank side etc etc.... the criticism and fearmongering (to generate extra pressure and capacity directive) will always be commensurate to the system's need and legacy for this approach.

The latter simply doesn't exist in China, Russia (USSR) et al...so no one can end up comparing them fairly enough on the apex or the bulk by the narrative process they construct and employ (quite differently).

It is also not merely what you have, but how you network and practice this stuff behind it (especially with others who can provide input say in NATO)...till you have as much "muscle memory" as possible in all the realms needed (and can openly wield and deter others with this too past the words and media narrative flow).

There are entire voids of this within the PRC military that remain hard to gauge performance wise if an actual shooting war starts and escalates.

That's not to say it (material things they have made strides on and achieved) can be casually dismissed....

....but narrating and using the worst case scenarios (while keeping the better case scenarios limited in discussion) are best way to strengthen and prepare as an opponent (all things considered).

We ( by design) just dont have access to Chinese analysis on their worst case scenarios (and if they able to take this further)....so that has to be taken into consideration.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,983
10,992
India
To be perfectly honest, I'm more concerned about the marxism (esp neo-marxism) that is seeping into the US military right now....since that will actually have impact on their realised combat effectiveness in a hypothetical war however many years downstream.

That is at least the summarised impression I have made in the last 5+ years discussing with people (whom I trust) in the US military (or its allies) at various levels. i.e the combat asset level and the matrix arraigned behind it remains quite potent where it matters....but it wont be presented as some eternal fait accompli hubris like say in the 1990s after GW1 etc.

On the media + think tank side etc etc.... the criticism and fearmongering (to generate extra pressure and capacity directive) will always be commensurate to the system's need and legacy for this approach.

The latter simply doesn't exist in China, Russia (USSR) et al...so no one can end up comparing them fairly enough on the apex or the bulk by the narrative process they construct and employ (quite differently).

It is also not merely what you have, but how you network and practice this stuff behind it (especially with others who can provide input say in NATO)...till you have as much "muscle memory" as possible in all the realms needed (and can openly wield and deter others with this too past the words and media narrative flow).

There are entire voids of this within the PRC military that remain hard to gauge performance wise if an actual shooting war starts and escalates.

That's not to say it (material things they have made strides on and achieved) can be casually dismissed....

....but narrating and using the worst case scenarios (while keeping the better case scenarios limited in discussion) are best way to strengthen and prepare as an opponent (all things considered).

We ( by design) just dont have access to Chinese analysis on their worst case scenarios (and if they able to take this further)....so that has to be taken into consideration.

There are two things about the US military I'm not worried about at all. Marxism and long term future. Marxism, we mainly see fringe elements on the internet, but with enough training, even snowflakes will expect competence within their units regardless of political standing. When the shooting starts, more often than not incompetence is introduced to 'accidents'. Long term, the Americans are gonna react exactly how they should react.

But in the short term, and very, very specifically Taiwan, the Americans are not prepared. They have no presence, and they are not prepared to fight a whole new culture. We saw the same in Korea, Vietnam and even Afghanistan. They took a long time to understand the new terrain, and they struggled to understand the people they fought with and against in all three countries. This is not the sort of disadvantage they want in a peer fight. Otoh, the Chinese have been training for this very fight for decades.

As for voids within the PRC, pretty much every single Western open source assessment of any credibility has underestimated the Chinese military time and time again. I won't be surprised if present and future predictions also fall short.

Coming to scenarios, I believe that eventually Taiwan will fall into Chinese hands. The US is incapable of protecting Taiwan forever and the Chinese are unlikely to show any modicum of respect towards Taiwan that the US had towards Cuba. So all the US has to do is buy time. Regardless of whether the Chinese take back Taiwan or not, as long as a significantly tough war buys the world 15-20 years, it will have reached the point needed to reject Chinese ideology. As long as the Chinese fail at creating their own bloc, the US wins. The worst case scenario for the US is they simply decide to surrender Taiwan to its fate.

The worst case scenario for the Chinese is the US successfully buys time, and the Chinese fail to take back Taiwan. I doubt it's gonna go beyond that.

But I feel that at this time, the US will allow the Chinese to have their best case scenario. 'Cause I don't believe the Pentagon is lying when they say the US will lose a war over Taiwan. I'd actually say that if the US is serious about it, they will actually have to rearm and attempt to take back Taiwan a few years down the line after failing to defend the island the first time.
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
5,350
8,830
Bangalore
FXTpGPlVQAELmxg