I know the F-35 has a horrible track record of breakdowns, failures, and some crashes. If the Russian plane has a better one, and costs less, I would think India would go for that one.
I did wonder about your point re "remote" shutdown, but I'm guessing other aircraft from other nations also have that risk.
Looks to me the F35 is a money making as opposed to a war fighting initiative, and designed via the supply chain to bind in allies/vassals. Not being an expert on these matters it would seem the F35 is a poor choice if a nation wants real and sustainable war fighting capability. Hanger queens. I also wonder if the money would be better spent on missiles - offensive and air defence systems - maybe supported by older aircraft? Sure, have a handful of modern aircraft, but large numbers probably represent a target sitting in repair shops, not a military capability.
India ordered 99 jet engines from GE for its indigenous Light Combat Aircraft in August 2021.
Deliveries have yet to commence. The excuse given was that GE's supply chain is screwed, but in this same period GE has delivered the same type of engines to South Korea.
There is good reason to believe the blob throttled deliveries to India to inflict political pain on the Prime Minister, and to sabotage the indigenous aircraft program.
India has no reason to assume something similar might not happen with a potential F-35 order, leaving us up shit creek without a paddle.
Contrast this with Russia delivering S400 air defence systems to India even in the middle of the Ukraine war (with minimal delays), and it doesn't bode well for an F-35 sale. Russia has been a reasonably reliable supplier. The US isn't reliable at all, especially when democrats assume power.
I have not followed the engine story but I will try and learn more. I also note that when Turkey bought the S-400 we cut off any possible sale of the F-35. Now the Turks are quite angry that India is getting preferential treatment (and they have a valid point).
That is easy to explain. There are no American military bases in India.
"AI Overview:
The United States has multiple military bases in South Korea, including Camp Humphreys (the largest American military base in the world), Suwon Air Base, USAG Daegu, Osan Air Base, and Kunsan Air Base."
This is a very fair article and interesting in comparison of the known technologies. The other issue with US weapons beyond being expensive and complicated, is the restrictive caveats that the US would impose on India for the F-35's use. Any military action that does not fit in with US Foreign Policy would restrict/forbid the use of the F 35. These restrictions would not apply to the SU 57.
Furthermore, the Indians buy three quarters of their complex weaponry from the Russians. Remember the trouble Turkey got into when they purchased the S400 anti-air system where the US cut them out of the F 35 programme altogether - both for political and technical reasons. In 2018 India brought five Regiments of the S400 (perhaps four Regiments have been delivered by now - if not all). How will the US square this with the sale of the F 35?
As I noted in another comment. the Turks are very angry India is being offered the F-35 and their attempt to buy the plane was cut off when they acquired the S-400. This is a still unreconciled issue. You are right in noting that the US uses its arms sales leverage in a way that causes problems for buyers. The Europeans tried to do the same thing regarding F-35 spare parts for Israel during the Gaza war.
'The Russians also have focused on two other components: strong air defenses, including mobile air defenses, and on advanced ways to detect stealth threats'
A piece on the choices the RU make, by one of Substack's great essayists:
The original RFP for the F35 required maneuverability comparable to an F16, which explains why the F35 is supersonic but not supercruise: enough speed for a short dogfight only. There have been tests, reported by RAND, between the F35 and F16 where the F16 got the better of it.
In retrospect, with air launched ballistic missiles with ranges of hundreds of miles, it's hard to see the benefits of a stealth aircraft that needs to penetrate within air defense range of its targets.
The greatest benefit of India buying the SU-57, for the US, is that Russian relations with China will suffer if it arms China's long-standing rival. Perfect time to sweeten the pot by negotiations on Ukraine.
Some good observations, especially the last on China. The F-35 is designed to avoid dog fights which it will always lose, and focus on stand off weapons where it has superiority, or so it is claimed.
The F35 wasn't initially designed to avoid dogfights: that's the reason it has supersonic dash. The original RFP was that it should be agile as an F16. I believe the F35A still claims 9G maneuvers.
Clearly that requirement has been lost but the program survived thanks to the miracle of initial production before completing testing.
If dogfights were not expected, then clearly a stealthy subsonic aircraft with larger range and payload would have been a better choice.
The ideal (if somewhat unlikely) scenario for India would be if it could suck up its pride and approach China about the J-20. If China would consider it, then create a three-way competition: the F-35, the Su-57 and the J-20.
The F-35 is hideously expensive and something of a hangar queen. Lots of cool tech though!
The Su-57 is likely to be cheapish and India could participate in building them. But the Su-57 has very little track record to go by. Until fairly recently there was only a dozen of them in existence, and their operational effectiveness isn't known.
The J-20, on the other hand, numbers about 300 in the service of the PLAF. Twin engine design, stealthy, supercruise, and likely to be cheaper than the F-35 if China were to export it.
That would probably be the accepted wisdom. On the other hand, India and China aren't such big adversaries that they can't co-exist in BRICS and the SCO. Moreover India wouldn't actually have to buy the J-20, but it could at least have a benchmark against which to compare the Su-57 and F-35. Plus having three countries vying for the sale could keep prices competitive.
China is actively looking for vulnerabilities in the F-35’s stealth. Just a week ago there was an article in the South China Post about Chinese scientists discovering a way to detect the plane with the help of high altitude balloons. The range cited was 2000 km if memory serves.
The Russian plane is probably a better choice for India.
I am also no expert, but I believe that the F-35 is too expensive and too delicate to maintain if faced with an all-out war of attrition/annihilation. The Russian military bases its decisions and acquisitions on this philosophy (of which I believe, Stephen, you wrote about before). The Russian jet makes more sense from this perspective.
The Russians invented the mathematical basis for stealth technology. The paper was noticed by an engineer at Lockheed in the 1970's. This is from the Skunk Works book by Ren Rich who was Kelly Johnson's deputy and later boss of the Skunk Works.
The Russian S-400 missile defense system can see anything in the air without regard to stealth, primarily because it uses the same radar frequencies as were used in WW3 and isn't designed to ignore some targets, like the Patriot system is.
Dumb question: stealth in the air of a remote weapons platform is one thing, but the platform has to park somewhere between missions.
Around 40 Iranian missiles hit the Adirs' home at Nevatim, and given their notorious maintenance problems, some would have been on the ground.
It's not clear any were destroyed last time, but without stealth bases there seems to be a problem against a closer, more sophisticated, or luckier 'adversary'?
Thanks for interesting and detailed comparison of the two aircraft systems.
Note: ".. In combat circumstances stealth coatings are likely to degrade and combat teams may be hard pressed to clean them up for operations...." - is quite reasonable.
Thanks for interesting and detailed comparison of the two aircraft systems.
Note: ".. In combat circumstances stealth coatings are likely to degrade and combat teams may be hard pressed to clean them up for operations...." - is quite reasonable.
I know the F-35 has a horrible track record of breakdowns, failures, and some crashes. If the Russian plane has a better one, and costs less, I would think India would go for that one.
An aircraft that you cannot reliably get parts for is a very expensive paperweight or a static target.
Moreover, the US is said to be able to remotely shut down F-35s.
I did wonder about your point re "remote" shutdown, but I'm guessing other aircraft from other nations also have that risk.
Looks to me the F35 is a money making as opposed to a war fighting initiative, and designed via the supply chain to bind in allies/vassals. Not being an expert on these matters it would seem the F35 is a poor choice if a nation wants real and sustainable war fighting capability. Hanger queens. I also wonder if the money would be better spent on missiles - offensive and air defence systems - maybe supported by older aircraft? Sure, have a handful of modern aircraft, but large numbers probably represent a target sitting in repair shops, not a military capability.
Stephen, there is another consideration.
India ordered 99 jet engines from GE for its indigenous Light Combat Aircraft in August 2021.
Deliveries have yet to commence. The excuse given was that GE's supply chain is screwed, but in this same period GE has delivered the same type of engines to South Korea.
There is good reason to believe the blob throttled deliveries to India to inflict political pain on the Prime Minister, and to sabotage the indigenous aircraft program.
India has no reason to assume something similar might not happen with a potential F-35 order, leaving us up shit creek without a paddle.
Contrast this with Russia delivering S400 air defence systems to India even in the middle of the Ukraine war (with minimal delays), and it doesn't bode well for an F-35 sale. Russia has been a reasonably reliable supplier. The US isn't reliable at all, especially when democrats assume power.
I have not followed the engine story but I will try and learn more. I also note that when Turkey bought the S-400 we cut off any possible sale of the F-35. Now the Turks are quite angry that India is getting preferential treatment (and they have a valid point).
So much for NATO membership being a good thing for countries wanting defense autonomy.
When did India become a member of NATO?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-india-imposes-penalties-on-ge-aerospace-amid-delays-in-tejas-engine-deliveries-3655964/lite/
That is easy to explain. There are no American military bases in India.
"AI Overview:
The United States has multiple military bases in South Korea, including Camp Humphreys (the largest American military base in the world), Suwon Air Base, USAG Daegu, Osan Air Base, and Kunsan Air Base."
This is a very fair article and interesting in comparison of the known technologies. The other issue with US weapons beyond being expensive and complicated, is the restrictive caveats that the US would impose on India for the F-35's use. Any military action that does not fit in with US Foreign Policy would restrict/forbid the use of the F 35. These restrictions would not apply to the SU 57.
Furthermore, the Indians buy three quarters of their complex weaponry from the Russians. Remember the trouble Turkey got into when they purchased the S400 anti-air system where the US cut them out of the F 35 programme altogether - both for political and technical reasons. In 2018 India brought five Regiments of the S400 (perhaps four Regiments have been delivered by now - if not all). How will the US square this with the sale of the F 35?
As I noted in another comment. the Turks are very angry India is being offered the F-35 and their attempt to buy the plane was cut off when they acquired the S-400. This is a still unreconciled issue. You are right in noting that the US uses its arms sales leverage in a way that causes problems for buyers. The Europeans tried to do the same thing regarding F-35 spare parts for Israel during the Gaza war.
"Only NATO countries, Japan, Korea and Israel have the ......... F-35" and Australia (perpetual suckers for US supplies)
You are correct about Australia. My oversight.
'The Russians also have focused on two other components: strong air defenses, including mobile air defenses, and on advanced ways to detect stealth threats'
A piece on the choices the RU make, by one of Substack's great essayists:
The Missile Will Always Get Through.
But who is prepared to admit it?
https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/the-missile-will-always-get-through
Core point: much more than the west the RU rely on missiles to attack enemy territory.
The F35 supply chain is spread among many nations that take part in the program. Roughly one third of F35 wings are built by Israel Aerospace:
https://www.defensemirror.com/news/25570/Israel_Aerospace_Delivers_100th_F_35_Jet_Wing__to_Manufacture_800_by_2034
The original RFP for the F35 required maneuverability comparable to an F16, which explains why the F35 is supersonic but not supercruise: enough speed for a short dogfight only. There have been tests, reported by RAND, between the F35 and F16 where the F16 got the better of it.
In retrospect, with air launched ballistic missiles with ranges of hundreds of miles, it's hard to see the benefits of a stealth aircraft that needs to penetrate within air defense range of its targets.
https://www.twz.com/air/israeli-f-16i-shown-loaded-up-with-four-rampage-stand-off-missiles
The greatest benefit of India buying the SU-57, for the US, is that Russian relations with China will suffer if it arms China's long-standing rival. Perfect time to sweeten the pot by negotiations on Ukraine.
Some good observations, especially the last on China. The F-35 is designed to avoid dog fights which it will always lose, and focus on stand off weapons where it has superiority, or so it is claimed.
The F35 wasn't initially designed to avoid dogfights: that's the reason it has supersonic dash. The original RFP was that it should be agile as an F16. I believe the F35A still claims 9G maneuvers.
Clearly that requirement has been lost but the program survived thanks to the miracle of initial production before completing testing.
If dogfights were not expected, then clearly a stealthy subsonic aircraft with larger range and payload would have been a better choice.
The ideal (if somewhat unlikely) scenario for India would be if it could suck up its pride and approach China about the J-20. If China would consider it, then create a three-way competition: the F-35, the Su-57 and the J-20.
The F-35 is hideously expensive and something of a hangar queen. Lots of cool tech though!
The Su-57 is likely to be cheapish and India could participate in building them. But the Su-57 has very little track record to go by. Until fairly recently there was only a dozen of them in existence, and their operational effectiveness isn't known.
The J-20, on the other hand, numbers about 300 in the service of the PLAF. Twin engine design, stealthy, supercruise, and likely to be cheaper than the F-35 if China were to export it.
India will not purchase a weapons system from its principal adversary (note, adversary, not enemy).
That would probably be the accepted wisdom. On the other hand, India and China aren't such big adversaries that they can't co-exist in BRICS and the SCO. Moreover India wouldn't actually have to buy the J-20, but it could at least have a benchmark against which to compare the Su-57 and F-35. Plus having three countries vying for the sale could keep prices competitive.
China is actively looking for vulnerabilities in the F-35’s stealth. Just a week ago there was an article in the South China Post about Chinese scientists discovering a way to detect the plane with the help of high altitude balloons. The range cited was 2000 km if memory serves.
The Russian plane is probably a better choice for India.
Good point. Even if the F-35 were all that and a bag of chips, once it longer is stealthy, it's kind of a turkey.
Our weapon systems are quite good against non-peer adversaries. We just need to remember who’s non-peer and who’s near-peer.
I am also no expert, but I believe that the F-35 is too expensive and too delicate to maintain if faced with an all-out war of attrition/annihilation. The Russian military bases its decisions and acquisitions on this philosophy (of which I believe, Stephen, you wrote about before). The Russian jet makes more sense from this perspective.
In my opinion the Su-35 is an even better choice because it is less costly.
The Russians invented the mathematical basis for stealth technology. The paper was noticed by an engineer at Lockheed in the 1970's. This is from the Skunk Works book by Ren Rich who was Kelly Johnson's deputy and later boss of the Skunk Works.
very interesting, thanks
An F35 pilot's hi-tech helmet costs $½m...
But apparently they're glitchy and pilots roll the plane to use their eyes.
The plane seems emblematic of the Lockheed-sponsored dead-end of American 'defemse'.
The Russian S-400 missile defense system can see anything in the air without regard to stealth, primarily because it uses the same radar frequencies as were used in WW3 and isn't designed to ignore some targets, like the Patriot system is.
Dumb question: stealth in the air of a remote weapons platform is one thing, but the platform has to park somewhere between missions.
Around 40 Iranian missiles hit the Adirs' home at Nevatim, and given their notorious maintenance problems, some would have been on the ground.
It's not clear any were destroyed last time, but without stealth bases there seems to be a problem against a closer, more sophisticated, or luckier 'adversary'?
Thanks for interesting and detailed comparison of the two aircraft systems.
Note: ".. In combat circumstances stealth coatings are likely to degrade and combat teams may be hard pressed to clean them up for operations...." - is quite reasonable.
Thanks for interesting and detailed comparison of the two aircraft systems.
Note: ".. In combat circumstances stealth coatings are likely to degrade and combat teams may be hard pressed to clean them up for operations...." - is quite reasonable.