What to read next

15 Comments

  1. 1

    Anonymous

    Cool !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  2. 2

    keshto

    Shiv yr language was not up to the mark when u said on the left side of the cockpit, because viewers are looking at right side.

    You would have been better off using a nautical language.

    Saying port side or star board….you are smarter guy baba…

    Reply
  3. 3

    achu909

    what are the underwing pods for?? fuel??? recce??

    Reply
  4. 4

    Anonymous

    @keshto,
    Nothing wrong with his language. It's clearly stated LEFT of the 'cockpit'.

    Reply
  5. 5

    Ram

    It would be good to see them in IAF. Any version for Special Ops being acquired??

    Reply
  6. 6

    Anonymous

    ^^^keshto is a nit picking id**t

    Reply
  7. 7

    MPatel

    Love to see american hardware. It is amazing to see this beast looking so beautiful. We just need to find some good looking pilots now.

    Reply
  8. 8

    Anonymous

    @ 9:49

    Would have been appropriate n adequate from a defense journalist to use technical language when he writes such columns. In this case, adequate nautical terms were missing.

    Boeing n Airbus never use the term left or right – its always port or starboard.

    However I did not blame him for that. I marely expressed my POV saying he would have been in a better position to use technical terms as he is a defense journo.

    For a defense journo to denote the aircraft´s wing by saying right wing is rediculous n ambigous – simply say starboard wing, which has no other meaning.

    Do you need more knowledge punishment? 😉

    Reply
  9. 9

    Anonymous

    @ 12:58

    What if American hardware is bugged and every mission info lands at the CIA desk officer?

    Reply
  10. 10

    ABHISHEK

    ONE OF BEST ASSETS EVER ACQUIRED EVER BY IAF .QUITE BETTER THAN AN 32

    Reply
  11. 11

    Mathi Man

    Compared to all the hype and hoopla and the amount of money spent this plane is not as big I thought it will be . Disappointed by the size of it when I scompared to the photographer next to it.

    Regards,
    " my posts never make it to your blog for some unknown reason" guy

    Reply
  12. 12

    Heberian

    Anonymous @ 3:56

    Good lord, you are a "mastah killa ninja" dude! So lucky we are to learn from the fount of your deep knowledge about aviation (terminology).

    While you are dishing out advice on the appropriateness of "technical terms", use spell check…it may help your cause a bit more by making it look less amusing.

    Knowledge punishment? Wow !?! What be that o master? Is it what you so ably demonstrated, or is something more potent held in reserve where all that advice spouted from?

    Reply
  13. 13

    Ram

    C-130J cannot be compared with An 32. Each have their own advantages. In fact more An-32 have been sold across the world than the c-130 in its various variants. Russian Hardware take lot of strain and work perfectly in toughest of the climate.

    Reply
  14. 14

    Anonymous

    Thanks Heberian. 3:56 asked for it.

    Ram: Fully agree with you. They are in two different class and both have their own very respectable service record. But sometimes our perception is influenced by the look.

    If we take the three components of an aircraft: the airframe, engine and avionics, Russia is, still today, ahead of US and other Western countries in airframe. West tops avionics and engine (although in recent days, Russia made considerable progress in civilian engines).

    Russia's strength in airframe comes from the lead in two vital areas:
    1) Titanium, and
    2) fluid dynamics.

    As of this day any western country would be proud if they are able to field such craft as AN-124 Ruslan or AN-225 Mriya.

    beauty or a beast? enjoy:
    "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOMiKpmBmtg&feature=related"

    – nanovacuum (US)

    Reply
  15. 15

    Gautam

    I can't seem to understand the logic behind the C-130 purchase. The reason stated was that the Il-76 and An-32 fleets didn't have the avionics and mission suites suitable for Para Special Forces operations, but aren't both of these set to be replaced in a few years by more modern planes?

    Don't get me wrong, the C-130 is a very capable plane, but this just seems an unnecessary acquisition, especially considering the prices quoted.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.