Bharat Rakshak

Last page of previous thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5390&start=3960

Is the previous thread locked yet??

ADDED LATER

^^ Now it is!

It only makes economic sense to go with a fighter that share the same engine as the LCA..


http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101003/j ... 011954.jsp

Couple of quotes from what I had posted in Jul.....

I still think that the deal will be expanded and there will be more than one winner but SH will corner the major share.....

Pure technicals never made/broke a deal. Its all about perceived gains and perceived repurcussions of other's actions.

Someone long back on BR forum had advocated the book "The Predictioneer's Game". I too strongly recommend it.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101003/j ... 011954.jsp[/quote]

If we believe the 12% figure than the Super Hornet and Gripen will come very close to L1 fighters i.e F-16IN and MiG-35. Also this can have very little effect if life cycle costs are ignored in the evaluation because the GE win won't bring down the fly away cost considerably.

If IAF looking for fighters then it should have called for competition between,

Sukhoi Su-35BM, F-15SE Silent Eagle, Dassault Rafale F3, Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block III

and if US was to be selected then
and orders split between F-15SE Silent Eagle & F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block III

If not then between Dassault Rafale F3 & Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3

and instead ordering 42 Su-30MKI they should have ordered 62 Sukhoi Su-35BM making total 300 Sukois

Seems like it is the F18., a weird and warped logic.One has to be really brain washed to accept some of the logics aired about.

Sounds like the decisions are not even "political" rather corruption then.

Since you have pointed out pretty much everything in this forum the next thing for you to do is to go on a fast in front of the PMs house highlighting his perfidy. The nation will be eternally grateful to you




Wow even Shankarosky did not say that

[quote="Philip"][/quote]


Same hackneyed statements without any logical reasoning or factual basis repeated ad-inifinitum does not lend to a mature and cogent discussion. Anything that does not fit into a personal worldview must therefore appear to be a sellout. This is a narrow viewpoint which cannot be argued against. Please spare us.

If F/A-18 was selected, We wasted 100 pages and countless number of our time, discussing about this MRCA competition. Its no more conspiracy theory, everything is rigged in India, from Elections to defense deals with MMS at helm.

That's why the term "educated illiterates" is gaining prominence and there are countless of them related to the main opposition party in India.

[quote="Philip"][/quote]

Philip, you've gone off the boil again. What makes you better or more patriotic than the nominated head of the party that has the mandate to form the central government? You are better than ALL other Indians, is it? Let's focus on the (in?)competence rather than the eligibility to be PM.

so yeah, the main opposition party cant be accused of a color now, with Ayodhya Verdict accepted nation wide. On a side note, My only liking for them is they still have some nationalism left over. Majority of Indians would agree with it. Else every p-species is opportunistic.

Ooops, let us cool down a bit guys...

<Complete OT, I agree. Apologies>
I thought you said, everything in India is rigged. And as per your "educated theory" itself, even this judgement is "rigged", main opposition parties "nationalism" is also rigged to the "need of the hour", coz nationalism is itself a word which gives different meaning to diff people
<end>

Forget everything else, SH is a potent US platform and will remain so for some time to come. The modern war is all about electronic warfare and IAF have themselves indicated their liking towards the technological superiority of US hardware which is the single most factor in todays warfare.
Even if SH is chosen (let's assume your correct), can you pls tell me how this purchase is going to be a wastage of taxpayers money? And pls don't include the basic argument that this is a vintage design.

the answer is simple - it cannot be used in conflict if US does not want to use it - remember the Malaysian example -

""The most recent event involving the MiG-29 occurred during the military exercise of nations under the Five Power Defense Arrangement, namely Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and United Kingdom. Malaysian MiG-29's, upgraded with recent Russian and Western technology, fought mock air battles with Australia's F/A-18A Hornets. The MiGs succeeded in downing all of the Australian Hornets during simulated air combat battles in both medium and short range combat. The Malaysians used AA-10, AA-12 and AA-11 missiles, against Australia's AIM-9 and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. It has been reported that Malaysian AA-11 Archer missiles have a better warhead, longer range and a better IR sensor."
and we are comparing F-18 with Mig 35 ?

And you are comparing the F-18A and the F-18E? The americans should have given the SH a new number like the russians do.

produce the article, examine the RoEs and then talk about it. these kind of comments don't mean anything otherwise. Its like the blind men who tried to describe what an elephant looked like by touching one particular part of its anatomy.

Listen mister not everyone is a engineer on this board working for the wonderful HAL. You like to use a lot of technical detail and sound like a professor. And if someone does not agree with you a lot of choice adjectives are thrown their way

I could use a lot of technical detail and medical jargon which most on the board may not understand but that does not make me a professor of surgery.

Have some respect for the view of others as i have for yours

Sparrows?

Let me try and explain what he said:
1. This forum is for serious discussions where people argue/discuss stuff based on factual/ tangible data. Stuff written here which are devoid of facts and mere perceptions should be avoided unless backed by some facts else can be best put up in a person's own blog. Think about this as your medical journal, you can't write anything unless you have facts, else you will end up loosing your license.

Shankar,
I was waiting for Thomas's reply on my question to him and I suspect that he might be busy researching.
I would strongly recommend that you try and compare India with a equal footed country, or atleast Top-10 economies based on PPP. Its 2010, the world order is very different now. To be equated with Pakistan/Malaysia (no offences to them, they are our friends) is not a correct comparison.

Boeing F/A-18 is primarily an Naval Aircraft, USAF which operates more than 5000+ aircraft, doesn't have one F/A-18 on its payroll. They knew technically F/A-18 has slimmer chances, that's why they allowed F-16 (soon to be used as target practice for USAF) in this competition. Why on earth should we shortlist and pay $60 millions a piece for this? Buy it for IN if the Indian Aircraft Carrier can carry it, not for Air force. We operate the best sukhoi fighters in this region, given a choice I will buy more Sukhois rather than F/A-18.

The American fighters have a proven AESA radar and American electronic warfare, air-to-ground, and air-to-air missile capabilities are also very superior. The F/A-18E/F has superior range and payload compared with the F-16IN, and two engines are better than one from a safety perspective.

Wow! All Russia haters of the world unite!
Oh and some MOP (Main Opposition Party) haters as well...............

You need twin engines only when operating in sea, that's an Naval Aircraft.

And even that's becoming unnecsessary, just look at the F-35.

due to more chances of bird hits and FOD in a env like India, two engines might be a safer statistically over indian airspace. the chance of IAF having to deal with PLANAF/PLAAF over the bay of bengal is also high in future.

nothing against the F16IN, just pointing out the operating conditions in india are tough. in northern latitudes there are hardly any common birds except maybe terns and geese in selected areas - tropical areas teem with crows, ravens, mynahs, pigeons, sparrows, kites, vultures, hawks, ...100s of types wandering around.

Stumbled on this piece of information while doing a bit of net search - any of you who have some access to australian news papers can verify and confirm please

Even if we take the report as unconfirmed we can always refer back to COPE INDIA exercise news when IAF Migs WON 9/10 fling against F-15 s

And F-15 is far more capable air to air aircraft than F-18

Actually having twins or single engine has nothing to do with if a military aircraft operating over the sea or land. In the past (and present) many aircraft with single engines operated from carriers successfully and safely. The number of engines has more to do with performance then safety. But obviously having more than one engine would be safer if one fails but safety is not automatic. There have been many instances where twin engine fighters have crashed when just only one of the engines has flamed out due to internal or FOD related failures.

imo widely spaced twin engines have some greater chance of getting damaged by a IR SAM / AA and make it home on the other engine.
but the F18/EF/Rafale are side by side, so that wild theory is not applicable there....f15/su30 qualify.

when Yak38 forger used a separate lift fan engine, all writers incl bill gunston criticized it for perceived critical point of failure in landing
phase if the lift fan engine failed to start.

cut to F-35 and its all the "right stuff" now. makes me think, stuff needs the blessings of american use to find favour with western media.

getting some more information when the mig 29s from 17th squadron -trounced Australian F-18 s from 75 th squadron based on northern territories and ooops one of the pilots was most probably Major Patricia Wapps flying her Mig 29
Australians were some what bugged that Malaysia did not use thier Sukhois

so what you're saying is that its just fine if someone comes on to BRF and talks stuff without any technical or logical reason and expect others not to question it ? Especially if there is a clear bias behind it ?

I am not someone who works for HAL or ADA or DRDO, I never have, but I won't sit idly by while someone allows his bias to colour facts and tries to pass it off. If you have no technical or logical argument then make that clear. I've been on this forum long enough to know not to talk when I had no basis or facts to back it up. You're still new here and maybe you need to be reminded of that.

Its not a necessity. There have been other naval fighters as well that have operated with a single engine (e.g. Etendard, Harrier, etc.)..of course, it is better due to possible lower attrition, but with twin engines come higher empty weight, and generally, larger dimensions. Which translates to larger hangar and deck space and requirements for larger lifts. A smaller carrier may do well with a smaller single engined aircraft.

The rules of engagement are a big factor in any DACT. You should know that. In one-on-one combat, an F-15 will almost certainly trounce a MiG-21 Bison and even a die-hard IAF fan should know that. They were constrained from firing BVR shots beyond 20 km and the Bisons were not..the Bisons were part of a package (that included Su-30s that likely handing out target data) that generally had numerical superiority over the defending F-15s and the defenders had to try and get the strike MiG-27s from reaching the target. They accepted that the IAF trounced them because they were not expecting a very well trained and professional AF, but that doesn't mean that the Bison is a better fighter than the F-15 !

if you believe otherwise, then well I won't argue further.

An actual war over the skies will not be a dog-fight but a be a BVR game.
Track first, fire first and then get the hell out of there.
In this scenario, the twin engine which provides a better get-away is always better than a single engine one.
Single engine in general should be used for interdiction role in today's warfare primarily when you will have numbers within your airspace along with your SAM's.

iirc the harrier in its various incarnations has suffered much higher attrition compared to 'regular' planes like f16/f15.

the exposed head-on fan blades of the engine is allegedly a high RCS thing and repairing the engine takes the whole rear end of the a.c
apart - no convenient slide out rails etc.

all in all, a specialized 1960s WW3 a/c regardless of amraams and blue vixens bolted on.

I have always wondered why F-15 is missing from MRCA contest if F-18, Rafale and Typhoon are present.