What a surprise! The french threaten to sell Nuclear technology to Pakistan two weeks back and look how India caved !
Now possible MMS will use French planes to deliver nukes to Puke instead
Shiv uncle, I have come to Delhi from Meerut and joined Army ublic School in Ist standard and Poda bhayya in 3rd standard. We will stay in Manekshaw Marg army officers flats, third floor.Aap hamari mummy se jalool jalool milne aana. Aap hamare ghar jalool aana, Manekshaw Marg mein aur hamare ghar khaana bhi khaanaCheeni Sharmac/o 56 APO
buy only rafale,mig35 ,these two aircrafts are better than others
which one is better - rafale or mig35 ??
which one is better - rafale or mig35-------------------------------rafale is best of allmig35 is cheaper and has commonality with mig29,mig29k both of these comes without hiccups and sovereign authority over aircraft and its software
Happy to see her back cos Rafael is the most matured system after F18 in this competition. All other competitors have yet to qualify with their AESA radars.But still the cost of Mirage 2000 upgrade is making my stomach churn.
We should buy the British Spitfires.
The french cannot sell their nuclear technology to pakistan as US will not let it happen.They do not want to see a nuclear taliban...do they now...Any way..I still say we go for Mig 35....That baby is hot
to shiv and friendsfrance talking with UAE to sell 60 rafales for $ 9-10 billion US currencydo we really afford 126 of these jetsalong with TOT,i don't think so let alone maintain them for 40 yearstyphoon will be still costlier than this,just think how muchf16 blk50/52 without AESA still costs 60 million US dollars to turkey despite turkey has infrastructure and trained personnel already and turkey has build f16 at home with TOTeven su30mki comes cheaper than thismorocco bought f16 blk50/52 for 100 million US dollars which included ground based infrastucture,training,and sparesmig29k with AESA being offered for75 million US dollars which included ground based infrastucture,training,and sparesand the same price likely to be askd for mig35and the cost of procuring f16blk60 must be higher than f16blk50/52now can we afford even f16 blk60now only gripen NG and mig35 comes into sightgripen NG will have lower operating cost than mig35 because of being single engine85 gripen NG were offered to norway for 6 billion US dollars which included everything infrastucture,training,and sparesnow considering all these fighters are more or less provide same capabilities and AESA being no panacea because of induction of AWACS,so which fighter should be choosen
gripen NG/IN has operating cost less than 3000 dollars per hourbut again in gripen IN there areSYSTEMS FROM USAengine,wheel brake and controls,audio management system,air data computer-------------------------------SYSTEMS FROM UKcontrol stick,throttle lever,some parts of airframe,refuelling probe,ejection seat,enviromental systems,landing gear,hydraulic system--------------------------------SYSTEMS FROM FRANCEfuel systems,may be AESA radar--------------------------------GUN IS FROM GERMANY-----------------------------SYSTEMS FROM SWEDENrodome,parts of airframe and landing gear,MFD,flight control systems,system computerand this is gripen IN
sorry85 gripen NG were offered to netherlands instead of norway
Do not worry about French selling Nuclear tech to Pakistan. If the French won't, Chinese will Or US will via Chinese. It is all a game to control India, not Pakistan.Besides, I say let them gift Pakistan as many ICBMs and hydrogen bombs as they want. We all know that Pakis are eventually going to be using them on Paris and Pentagon anyway, roflmao. Any day now, JDAM in US or Europe. AoA.
Those days have gone when when IAF could only ask for cheap and affordable jets like LCA. Now we can afford the best. By the time MMRCA jets will be joining the IAF our defense budget would have grown to about $50 billion.The problem with Mig 35 (apart from the fact that it does not exist as yet) is sanctity of Russian contracts. Also MMRCA is supposed to be on the lighter side with low operating cost. Not many people realize that Mig29/35 is actually bigger than F18 or any other aircraft in this competition.At this point if there is one key capability IAF is lacking its cruise missile defense. No other contender other than F18 SH with its AGP79 radar can meet this challange.
to anon at 7.48who told you that mig35 doesn't exixt,if mig35 doen't exixt then why did russians wrote down mig35 on that aircraft,according to you as if russians don't even know what they are doingand from where you get this info about that only f18 with apg79 can defeat cruise missilesthere is rafale,typhoon fitted with aesa radar are more than match to defeat cruise missiles and we already have su30 which can defeat cruise missiles and if money is doesn't matters then typhoon and rafale beat f18 along wiht its apg79 hands downand if u say low operating cost than nothing beats gripen NG in thisand for your info about cruise missile defence their is need of LLQRM which is "MAITRI MISSILE" being developed
Not many people realize that Mig29/35 is actually bigger than F18 or any other aircraft in this competition.----------------------------------when empty and unloaded both f18e and mig35 weigh around same and both are of similar dimensionsonly rafale,typhoon weigh less and both are of smaller size
After building an AESA it takes years to develop and fine tune algorithms to process the data being received from the sensor. Radar reflections from different types of targets in different environmental conditions must be tested to build the data base to allow the sensor identify targets reliably. Remember the software component of a modern combat aircraft is the most difficult and expensive to develop.Only AGP79 is matured in this regard. Followed by RBE2 AESA which has undergone over 5 years of testing. All other systems in question are in their infancy.
Yes the Russians painted "Mig35" on a Mig29. It was a technology demonstrator.
Oh, about the cruise missile defense. LLQRM is a point defense system and can only defend important targets. No ground based radar can detect a low flying CM beyond 20-25km. The preferred defense against CM involves use of interceptor aircraft. The aircraft sensor becomes even more important because even AWACS cant keep continuous track of low flying targets in our Himalayan frontiers.
After building an AESA it takes years to develop and fine tune algorithms to process the data being received from the sensor. Radar reflections from different types of targets in different environmental conditions must be tested to build the data base to allow the sensor identify targets reliably. Remember the software component of a modern combat aircraft is the most difficult and expensive to develop.Only AGP79 is matured in this regard. Followed by RBE2 AESA which has undergone over 5 years of testing. All other systems in question are in their infancy.------------------------------------as if we are going to induct f18 next month and thats y we need apg79 so badlyand get this there will be no MMRCA going to be inducted before 2014 and by 2014 all contenders will have aesa better than apg79and if mig35 isn't good than nothing is special in f18e
and yes su30mki will be fitted with irbis e radar which has much better detection range than apg79
Lets not get into irbis e vs AESA. There is good reason why IAF has set AESA as a precondition for MMRCA. Su30 and irbis e are not in competition for MMRCA.We sure wont induct any MMRCA next month but all the contenders are going to be tested in the coming months. So far nobody except F18 and Rafael is ready for these tests. How can we select a system which has not been developed yet. What is the point of these tests if we are to select the winner on the basis of hypothetical capabilities that have not been proven and cannot be tested.Its not about what you would like to have. You have to face the ground reality.
to anon at 3.32We sure wont induct any MMRCA next month but all the contenders are going to be tested in the coming months. So far nobody except F18 and Rafael is ready for these tests. How can we select a system which has not been developed yet---------------------------------how long it takes to evaluate aesa radar capability,i say no more than 3-4 hours in flight and how long it takes to evaluate fighter capability no more than 5-6 flights in various configurations and india has taken 8 yearsand what is the difference between the tech of rbe2 aesa and amsar,both of these radar being developed in joint venture and will be similar but amsar being of bigger diameter and comparable in tech with apg79 but with better range and amsar alredy been test flown on typhoon and if russkiescan bring their zhuk get this that europeans can do this pretty welland if we select european aircraft and if we evaluate their aesa radar in 2012 it will not take long to evaluate it and again saying tech of apg series and european aesa radar is comparableand yes apg79 is in operation but what about the source codes and its operating software will it be shared ???? US not even sharing with israel too,let alone they will share with indiawhen india bought bars was it proven??/ no ,but it was the most powerful radar india could buy and was best in asia and for that matter range comparable to apg63(v2) but apg63 being aesa and hence more reliableand even if selected will apg79 be world class in 2014 i don't think so and how long it took to develop irbis e after bars no11 6-7 years,just think what would russkies will have in 2015 when india will be getting apg79 why not just buy apg79,80 for LCA why buy their jets
IAF has already clarified MMRCA competition will be over and contract signed by the end of 2010.Let me put it this way. Can you use the same photo editing software for an image taken by a mobile phone camera and one taken by Nikkon D5000? Even though both cameras work in the visible spectrum there is a huge difference in the quality and quantity of data generated. Once an AESA array is ready the radar must be flight tested for several years to generate the required data and develop suitable algorithms to exploit the enhanced capability of the radar. Simply replacing the planer array with an AESA array does not make much of a difference.What you must realize is that computer software is the most complex of all human creations. US has over 20 years of experience in aircraft AESA radars. They are now onto their 4 gen of fighter AESA with AGP-81. Europeans and the Russians cant bridge this gap overnight or even over a decade just like the Americans cant easily bridge the gap with Russian technology in niche areas like rocket propulsion. Yes we chose to be guinea pigs for Su30MKI and consequently we suffered delays. IAF is keen to avoid uncertainty this time.US has agreed to share the source code and thats how they are in this competition. They are refusing to share that of F35 with Israel or anyone else and so we are into MCA and PAKFA.
to anon at 10.46They are now onto their 4 gen of fighter AESA with AGP-81. Europeans and the Russians cant bridge this gap overnight or even over a decade just like the Americans cant easily bridge the gap with Russian technology in niche areas like rocket propulsion.----------------------------------yes european aesa radars are of same tech as of apg79,and you should also do not have doubt about this as well,european software isn't bad or second to none US developing aesa tech for last 25 years so what,only mass production started in 2005 with f22 induction and europeans aesa radar will go into production this yearapg81 isn't offered so not to talk about it here concern is apg79and in 2015 will apg79 be world class ,i heavily doubt this and we need apg79 not f18 and this is bottom line u also understand this very well why not just talk about this radar to mount on LCA
to anon at 1009 Yes we chose to be guinea pigs for Su30MKI and consequently we suffered delays. IAF is keen to avoid uncertainty this time.------------------------------------this is just you hype or phobia created by media now days for russian hardware just seeaustralians paid $ 6 billion in AUSSIE currency or $ 4.8 billion in US currency for 24 f18eand this costs $ 200 million per f18e which include ground equipment,taining,simulator,and manitiance for 10 yerascompared to what russians asking $ 75 million per mig29k for next 30 which include ground equipment,taining,simulator as well include aesa radar ,yes there are no fully trained naval pilots to fly mig29k as of nowwhen india bought su30mki was world class and had world class radar,now its going to be irbis e and su30 is still better than MMRCA contender and what delay you are talking about ,in last 6 yeras since inducton of mki we have 115 su30and this is 19 aircraft per yearso if u think even this is delay you can think soif was HAL who could not grasp the tech transfer for mki,while chinese did for su27 so what kind of tech transfer HAL will grasp this time for MMRCA ,i heavily doubt this too
Take a look at this AESA Techpaper. Americans have been flying AESA since 1988. Just to correct myself- AGP79 is their fourth gen AESA. AGP81 is fifth gen.I have already explained to you, the AESA needs to be flown to generate data first. Europeans have only started testing their AESA. And it is more difficult to develop the software than it is to develop the radar. Why you think EF Typhoon hasn't yet opened its full air to ground envelop despite several years of testing. It often takes 10 years for a new system to mature and become reliable. Americans are not going to give up their lead. AGP79 and F18 will evolve to be even more integrated, networked and capable with subsequent software upgrades.Here is a chart on US 2010 defense spending. Latest F18 cost comes out to be about $111 million a unit. Given our 50% offset policy the cost will come down by about 30% with local manufacture. Also note F18 has more fuel efficient engines, longer engine life and lower MTBF than Mig29/35.As per the original plan Su30MKI (tranch 3) was to join IAF in 2000. This was delayed to 2003 partly because of our involvement in subsystems and partly by the Russians in the development of new systems. IAF surely has no patience for such delays this time around.
Also note F18 has more fuel efficient engines, longer engine life and lower MTBF than Mig29/35.----------------------------------so what the mid life upgrade of mig is still cheaper several millions $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$just see mirage2000 upgrade deal cost $ 40 million per aircraft no new engine(don't need new engine)mig29 upgrade cost 16 million per aircraft with 2 new rd33-3 engines on each mig29so it doesn't matter which engine has more life in mid life upgrade the radar is already outdated has to be thrown in dustbin just like radars of m2000,mig29american flying aesa since 1988 so what they were flying aesa only on wide body aircraft like JSTARS,AWACS onmly because cooling is resolved easily on bigger aircraft but they could only mount aesa on fighter aircraft only by 2002 on f15 because of cooling problems posed on smaller aircraft and had to be resolved sir apg79 is no panacea by the ime IAF induct aircraft in 2014 all other contenders will have operational aesa so no rush
Post a Comment