AESA availability:jai wrote:What are the basis for this statement ?
SH: 2005
EF: 2015 (planned)
10 years, assuming everything goes according to plan
AESA availability:jai wrote:What are the basis for this statement ?
The MRCA argument has been to expedite the process. The CAESAR demonstrator started flight testing in 2007. Not the kind of thing that happens if there was no plan to put an AESA on it.GeorgeWelch wrote:Because they never expect to use them.
Any weapon is good enough in peace time.
Their own approach to AESA clearly demonstrates this. If they weren't trying to win the MMRCA, there would still be no plan to ever put AESA on the EF. What does that tell you?
That's a subjective statement you're making. If India does join the consortium, that will mean a share in Eurofighter Gmbh expressed in very numerical and tangible terms.The only 'say' India is going to have is what upgrades it's going to fund itself.There's a consortium of four countries involved, with India getting a (presumably equal) say in the future upgrade path.
Sure it wouldn't at par with the JSF (neither is the SH for that matter) but 'obsolete'?
Its the F-35C that's at the cutting edge of avionics. Yes the US has and will continue to be ahead of the rest as far as technology goes. But the F-18E/F isn't at the high end of its inventory. Been technically superior can only go so far, to compensate for the fact that the Captor-E will be larger more powerful than AN/APG-79.Avionics is a very unforgiving world. Either they're better than your opponents or they aren't. And if they aren't, it's going to be a very tough road. And with the EF falling further and further behind, it's going to become and more likely that you're on the short end of the stick.
If the IAF expected deliveries last year, that would probably have settled the argument. If it was between the F-35A and the EF, the former's avionics would make it far superior choice, to say nothing of stealth. Unfortunately, the SH's advantage at avionics is marginal at best, and the same argument doesn't hold.GeorgeWelch wrote: AESA availability:
SH: 2005
EF: 2015 (planned)
10 years, assuming everything goes according to plan
Henrik wrote:You really have an issue with the Gripen don't you?
No, I am a common Indian man. Do I need to show you my passport or my birth certificate ?Henrik wrote:Are you some Rafale salesman perhaps?
Henrik wrote:Why would the Gripen crash in the hands of indian pilots?
Is that another assumption of yours ?Henrik wrote:What do you know about the technology transfer?
No, I don’t have the time, mostly the ones from Sweden.Henrik wrote:Have you read all the documents from all the vendors?
No, I am here to learn, why don’t you teach me something about the Grippen, like what all things we will gain in terms of technology buying the Grippen ?Henrik wrote:You must have since you seem to have extensive knowledge on the issue.
You used the word “price” that proves you are the vendor and I used the word “cost” that proves I am an Indian (belong to the community of customer ).Henrik wrote:And by the way, that price is way to high.
I am probably not as good in abusing as the Swedes. So, I think I will loose out to you here. I would rather use logic to win a debate. Would you prefer to stick to logic rather than abuses ?Wickberg wrote:Just don´t bother replaying to idiots. The common bharat reader is smarter then that. It´s just that simple....
Not true, the SH's avionics are top-notch. It is already 10 years ahead of the EF and the USN has committed to funding upgrades for the next 25 years at least.Viv S wrote:Unfortunately, the SH's advantage at avionics is marginal at best, and the same argument doesn't hold.
Boreas, you stand correctedBoreas wrote:But News is MiG-35 is not packing their bag to come to Aero India 2011.
If you think a little you can figure out why they are doing so. When everybody else is sending two aircraft each.
SriSri wrote:Cross posting..
Air Force MMRCA Competition Contenders to Turn Out at Aero India 2011
This has been the case with other acquisitions also. We have received one-gen older or slightly degraded performance items on defense purchases in the past. Recall when we received Mig-29 they were one block (if one might call it that) older. Some of the weaponry available to us also was older. Do we have access skhval from the Russians? How about the Sea Dragon suite for the IL-38?Singha wrote:also its a lot more likely we will get a neutered APG79 compared to a neutered Captor-E since not a dime of indian money was used for the APG79.
for example the P8A != P8I because good number of classified systems are not for export to India.
if they were so committed, why was there no actual decision about an upgrade program till this year?Viv S wrote:And while Italy and Spain have been wishy washy about it, the bulk of the RAF and Luftwaffe inventories will comprise of the EF by 2015 and they are both very much committed to a good upgrade program.
It is for the USN.Viv S wrote:But the F-18E/F isn't at the high end of its inventory.
unknown and unknowable at this point, not to mention the SH's radar will evolve tooViv S wrote:Been technically superior can only go so far, to compensate for the fact that the Captor-E will be larger more powerful than AN/APG-79.
Russian MiG-35 to skip Bangalore airshowSriSri wrote:^^ Not sure.. there is a PTI input that MiG 35's won't be there.. There isn't enough clarity, waiting for a direct response from MiG.
The Russian MiG-35, one of the six fighter planes competing with American and European rivals for a $10.2 billion (Rs 45,900 crore) Indian Air Force contract, will not be putting in an appearance at Aero India-2011 in Bangalore next week. Befuddled by the move, the defence ministry is making
last-ditch efforts to get the Russians onboard.
RK Singh, secretary (defence production), said on Tuesday, “We don’t know why the MiG-35 is not coming. We want them to participate and have asked our embassy in Moscow to take up the matter.” Russia, however, is among the 45 official delegations expected.
The biennial airshow, to be held from February 9-13, offers international exhibitors a prestigious platform to showcase newest aerospace equipment and technology. More than 675 exhibitors from 60 countries will attend the eighth edition of the airshow, compared to 592 exhibitors from 25 countries in 2009. The exhibitors include 380 Indian firms compared to 303 two years back.
China, Pakistan and Iran have not been invited. Beijing turned down an invite in 2009. Singh said participating countries were short-listed by the ministry of external affairs. Chinese journalists have also been kept out. The US presence will be the biggest with 250 official delegations.
There goes the reverse engineer and the beneficiaries.sum wrote:China, Pakistan and Iran have not been invited. Beijing turned down an invite in 2009. Singh said participating countries were short-listed by the ministry of external affairs. Chinese journalists have also been kept out. The US presence will be the biggest with 250 official delegations.
This actually makes more sense.Avid wrote:
Also, BAE is subject to following up on US sanctions. Thereby, if you would like to go with source of components/systems and the sanctions vulnerability, then it is identical for:
EF = SH = F-16 = Gripen
From sanctions regime pov, only two stand distinctly apart:
Rafale and Mig-35
Oh my god, why even bother...B_Ambuj wrote:Henrik wrote:You really have an issue with the Gripen don't you?
Yes, I am not a Grippen FAN. Grippen has so many vendors what if at some point of time Unkil buys out any of the vendor. We will end up hunting for parts. Unkil had brought out aircaft related companies earlier also.
No, I am a common Indian man. Do I need to show you my passport or my birth certificate ?Henrik wrote:Are you some Rafale salesman perhaps?
Henrik wrote:Why would the Gripen crash in the hands of indian pilots?
So you have already assumed India is buying Grippen. How ?
Is that another assumption of yours ?Henrik wrote:What do you know about the technology transfer?
No, I don’t have the time, mostly the ones from Sweden.Henrik wrote:Have you read all the documents from all the vendors?
No, I am here to learn, why don’t you teach me something about the Grippen, like what all things we will gain in terms of technology buying the Grippen ?Henrik wrote:You must have since you seem to have extensive knowledge on the issue.
You used the word “price” that proves you are the vendor and I used the word “cost” that proves I am an Indian (belong to the community of customer ).Henrik wrote:And by the way, that price is way to high.
I am probably not as good in abusing as the Swedes. So, I think I will loose out to you here. I would rather use logic to win a debate. Would you prefer to stick to logic rather than abuses ?Wickberg wrote:Just don´t bother replaying to idiots. The common bharat reader is smarter then that. It´s just that simple....
Boeing isn't a marketing a futuristic variant of the SH to the IAF. What they have on offer is 5 years old, due to be ten years old by the time domestic manufacture begins. Also, I specifically mentioned the fact that the IAF's aircraft will through just about 2 upgrade cycles. So even if the SH's avionics are constantly a few years ahead of the EF, it wouldn't make any real difference to the IAF's capability.GeorgeWelch wrote:Not true, the SH's avionics are top-notch. It is already 10 years ahead of the EF and the USN has committed to funding upgrades for the next 25 years at least.Viv S wrote:Unfortunately, the SH's advantage at avionics is marginal at best, and the same argument doesn't hold.
The MRCA contract came out six years back. I could repeat the same question and ask why no actual decision was taken till this year.GeorgeWelch wrote:if they were so committed, why was there no actual decision about an upgrade program till this year?Viv S wrote:And while Italy and Spain have been wishy washy about it, the bulk of the RAF and Luftwaffe inventories will comprise of the EF by 2015 and they are both very much committed to a good upgrade program.
their own behavior condemns them
Weasel out of the EF program and into ... ? Unless they plan to decommission the RAF altogether, they have to be committed to the EF, which will comprise the bulk of its strength in a few years time, when the Tornados start retiring.and in case you haven't noticed, the UK is trying to weasel out of the EF program as fast as it can. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming into T3A and it now planning to scrap all it's early EFs. If they're your example of an EF 'leader', well then . . .
Not once the F-35C enters service.It is for the USN.Viv S wrote:But the F-18E/F isn't at the high end of its inventory.
The size limitation still persists. Until the F-22's AN/APG-77 entered service, the most powerful fighter radar was the NIIP N011M Bars, a Russian product, and primarily because of its massive size. Its a pity the F-15SE isn't a participant in the MRCA competition.unknown and unknowable at this point, not to mention the SH's radar will evolve too
I don't think getting the physical device can be described as the 'easy part'. And with regard to the software, the Euroradar folks will take less time to get there (pioneers always have it the hardest).not to mention just getting the physical device is the easy part. The code to actually take advantage is the tough part.
Again not true. The 'international variant' on offer includes additional goodies like the EPE engine, integrated IRST and conformal tanks.Viv S wrote:Boeing isn't a marketing a futuristic variant of the SH to the IAF. What they have on offer is 5 years old, due to be ten years old by the time domestic manufacture begins.
That's a very good question. If they've known for 6 years that it would need AESA to compete and they STILL drag their feet, well I think that says everything you need to know about their willingness to fund upgrades when a 126 plane order isn't on the line.Viv S wrote:The MRCA contract came out six years back. I could repeat the same question and ask why no actual decision was taken till this year.
Nothing. They're broke and are dramatically scaling back their forces. Which is the point. Don't look to them to be leading a new upgrade efforts.Viv S wrote:Weasel out of the EF program and into ... ?and in case you haven't noticed, the UK is trying to weasel out of the EF program as fast as it can. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming into T3A and it now planning to scrap all it's early EFs. If they're your example of an EF 'leader', well then . . .
The only 'committment' they're going to demonstrate is not scrapping the planes they just bought. Beyond that . . .Viv S wrote:Unless they plan to decommission the RAF altogether, they have to be committed to the EF, which will comprise the bulk of its strength in a few years time, when the Tornados start retiring.
Different situation. Gates wanted to kill F-22 to bolster the F-35 program by leaving no alternatives. Funding per se wasn't the problem. The UK on the other hand is broke and simply doesn't have any money to do anything except fly a few token training missions with its shiny new jets.Viv S wrote:Also cutting of the orders doesn't imply that upgrades will be sacrificed and that's amply borne out by the F-22 program.
Um, how much size difference is there between the nose of the SH and EF? The SH is a big plane, we're not talking the F-16 here.Viv S wrote:The size limitation still persists.unknown and unknowable at this point, not to mention the SH's radar will evolve too
That's because you don't understand modern radar.Viv S wrote:I don't think getting the physical device can be described as the 'easy part'.not to mention just getting the physical device is the easy part. The code to actually take advantage is the tough part.
We'll see, but for now I shall categorize this as more wishful thinkingViv S wrote:And with regard to the software, the Euroradar folks will take less time to get there (pioneers always have it the hardest).
It's easy to INSTALL, but never confuse that with easy to CREATE.Viv S wrote:And fortunately a software upgrade is easy to implement, unlike a hardware upgrade which will only take place a couple times in the aircraft's lifetime.
Only, the IRST comes under the category of avionics and again... its not something that's futuristic or even ahead of the pack.GeorgeWelch wrote:Again not true. The 'international variant' on offer includes additional goodies like the EPE engine, integrated IRST and conformal tanks.Viv S wrote:Boeing isn't a marketing a futuristic variant of the SH to the IAF. What they have on offer is 5 years old, due to be ten years old by the time domestic manufacture begins.
Or maybe the AESA was going to happen in any case. When the Tranche 3 was sanctioned, the AESA was ordered as well. In addition, 'they' will include India and the IAF isn't going to be dependant on their goodwill to chart out upgrades.GeorgeWelch wrote:That's a very good question. If they've known for 6 years that it would need AESA to compete and they STILL drag their feet, well I think that says everything you need to know about their willingness to fund upgrades when a 126 plane order isn't on the line.Viv S wrote:The MRCA contract came out six years back. I could repeat the same question and ask why no actual decision was taken till this year.
Umm... things aren't quite that rosy in the US either. Its going through a second spending cycle to spur the economy but it has to end at some stage. Public debt has increased to over 96% of the GDP and defence spending was a whopping 4.7% of the GDP for 2010. I'm just as optimistic (or pessimistic) about the collective fortunes of the UK and Germany as I am about the US.Nothing. They're broke and are dramatically scaling back their forces. Which is the point. Don't look to them to be leading a new upgrade efforts.
That's very subjective statement you're making. Plenty of contempt expressed but no real illuminating facts.The only 'committment' they're going to demonstrate is not scrapping the planes they just bought. Beyond that . . .
Hardly a different situation. If the money was flowing in abundance, why not have heaps of both the F-22 and F-35? It was always about spending priorities.Viv S wrote:Also cutting of the orders doesn't imply that upgrades will be sacrificed and that's amply borne out by the F-22 program.
Different situation. Gates wanted to kill F-22 to bolster the F-35 program by leaving no alternatives. Funding per se wasn't the problem. The UK on the other hand is broke and simply doesn't have any money to do anything except fly a few token training missions with its shiny new jets.
My point was the SH's importance within the USN will wane with time, and its very optimistic to expect its avionics fit to remain far ahead of the rest.And? No plane remains at the high end forever.
Your argument was that the SH is currently behind (or at least not ahead of) the EF because it's not at the 'high end'. This is false.
Well the AN/APG-79 is believed to field around 1100 t/r modules (not a lot higher than the APG-80's 1000) compared to the Captor-E which will come with about 1425. The detection range would be only somewhat higher but with much greater degree of versatility available. And the steerable antenna will impart a greater field of view.Um, how much size difference is there between the nose of the SH and EF? The SH is a big plane, we're not talking the F-16 here.
Please explain modern radar to me.That's because you don't understand modern radar.
We'll see, but for now I shall categorize this as more wishful thinking
It's easy to INSTALL, but never confuse that with easy to CREATE.
Except there is zero evidence to support such a position.Viv S wrote:Or maybe the AESA was going to happen in any case.
Tranche 3A: July 2009Viv S wrote:When the Tranche 3 was sanctioned, the AESA was ordered as well.
Which is exactly what I said. The only 'say' India has over EF upgrades is what it's willing to pay for itself.Viv S wrote:In addition, 'they' will include India and the IAF isn't going to be dependant on their goodwill to chart out upgrades.
Far rosier than the situation in the UK and Germany.Viv S wrote:Umm... things aren't quite that rosy in the US either.
fact: they're planning to retire their new C-130Js when the A400M arrives since they can't afford to operate bothViv S wrote:That's very subjective statement you're making. Plenty of contempt expressed but no real illuminating facts.The only 'committment' they're going to demonstrate is not scrapping the planes they just bought. Beyond that . . .
The US military isn't not under the same monetary pressure that the UK military is. In fact, there is such a huge difference that to in any way equate the situation is just laughable.Viv S wrote:Hardly a different situation. If the money was flowing in abundance, why not have heaps of both the F-22 and F-35? It was always about spending priorities.
The only upgrade program that can be charted is the one India is willing to foot the bill for.Viv S wrote:Between them a very decent upgrade program can be charted.
Even after the full F-35C buy, the SH will still make up the majority of the USN fleet. It will remain critically important for decades to come.Viv S wrote:My point was the SH's importance within the USN will wane with time, and its very optimistic to expect its avionics fit to remain far ahead of the rest.
You can't equate size with number of modules as different modules are different size. It's even less rational to equate module count with capability unless both radars use the same modules, which is not the case here.Viv S wrote:Well the AN/APG-79 is believed to field around 1100 t/r modules (not a lot higher than the APG-80's 1000) compared to the Captor-E which will come with about 1425.
AESA allows a quantum leap in capability, but only if the software takes advantage of it. Anyone can just replace a traditional radar antenna with an AESA array, but to truly take advantage of its capabilities requires a ton of effort. Now more work goes into the software to control the radar than in the actual physical radar design. Enabling features like simultaneous air and ground mode and putting SAR capability and jamming and anti-jamming capability becomes incredibly sophisticated and difficult.Viv S wrote:Please explain modern radar to me.That's because you don't understand modern radar.
Viv S wrote:Maintaining a technological lead always costs a premium and catching up is usually easier than staying ahead.
And no one thinks that all fighter technology will remain static and thus allow the EF team to eventually 'catch up.'Viv S wrote:Also, there is a ceiling to what can achieved with newer software modes on a radar. Eventually, the Euroradar will catch up.
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/bengalur ... l-show-449This top-of-the-line multi-role aircraft will not pitch itself against other competitors next week, marking its exit from the race. Sources in the ministry of defence said Russia's focus would be on major deals such as the aerial tanker aircraft for mid-air refuelling of IAF's fighters, heavy-lift helicopters and radars during the five-day airshow beginning February.
The Tranche 3 was always supposed to have an AESA. Italy and Spain did drag their feet over it, but it did get sanctioned without any additional export orders actually being placed.GeorgeWelch wrote:
Except there is zero evidence to support such a position.
AESA was NOT guaranteed for EF until this year, and even at this point, it's going to be 10 years late at best.
One simply cannot deny that they have been VERY reluctant to actually commit to any sort of AESA plan.
Tranche 3A: July 2009
AESA: July 2010
India's investment in upgrades (as well as workshare) will be proportional to its alloted share in EF Gmbh and no more. Unless all four countries are set against further upgrades, they ARE going to happen. And India will recover its sunk cost once the upgrades are implemented.Which is exactly what I said. The only 'say' India has over EF upgrades is what it's willing to pay for itself.
You're missing the point - the rosiness is due a second round of monetary injections by the Fed which is debt financed. The US economy isn't really in much better shape than the Germany or UK. A defence spending amounting to 4.7% of the GDP is NOT sustainable for a near-stagnant economy. Bottom-line is, cuts (real cuts not spending freezes) are inevitable.Far rosier than the situation in the UK and Germany.
Even the 'cut' in defense budget is not a true cut, but a stoppage of growth.
UK is undergoing real and significant defense budget cuts.
The last two are still far from certain. But, that aside none of these cuts imply nor has been stated anywhere that upgrades to the EF will be scrapped.Viv S wrote:
fact: they're planning to retire their new C-130Js when the A400M arrives since they can't afford to operate both
fact: they're planning to mothball one of their CVFs as soon as it is delivered
fact: they're scrapping their entire Harrier fleet
fact: they're cancelling their order of F-35B and replacing it with a smaller order of F-35C
fact: they've scrapped their brand new $6 billion Nimrod MRA4 fleet before it even enters service
fact: they're cutting the Tornado fleet from 134 to 60
fact: they're planning to retire 55 Tranche 1 Eurofighters
You've ignored the point altogether. This wasn't a comparison. I was using the F-22 as example to prove that a shrinking of the original fleet size does NOT imply that upgrades have been or are to be compromised on. If 381 F-22's were on order today instead of 187, the aircraft would remain just as capable as it is today and no more (maybe even less).The US military isn't not under the same monetary pressure that the UK military is. In fact, there is such a huge difference that to in any way equate the situation is just laughable.
The SH is of far more critical importance today. The Rafale will field an AESA by 2012, the Gripen and EF by 2014. In Asia its very much possible that the Sukhoi family, J-10B and Tejas Mk2 will be equipped with AESA radars as well. What upgrades are planned for the SH in that time frame to enable it to far outstrip the rest?Even after the full F-35C buy, the SH will still make up the majority of the USN fleet. It will remain critically important for decades to come.Viv S wrote:My point was the SH's importance within the USN will wane with time, and its very optimistic to expect its avionics fit to remain far ahead of the rest.
Viv S wrote:Well the AN/APG-79 is believed to field around 1100 t/r modules (not a lot higher than the APG-80's 1000) compared to the Captor-E which will come with about 1425.
I'll try to dig up the source - the peak power output of a Captor-E module is about 10W.You can't equate size with number of modules as different modules are different size. It's even less rational to equate module count with capability unless both radars use the same modules, which is not the case here.
We're assuming that research on software modes hasn't been ongoing since the CAESAR began flight testing in 2007. Its jamming capability aside how does the APG-79 see-and-shoot the EF first? And how long do YOU reckon it'll be before the RBE-2 and Captor-E reach achieve their maximum software potential?AESA allows a quantum leap in capability, but only if the software takes advantage of it. Anyone can just replace a traditional radar antenna with an AESA array, but to truly take advantage of its capabilities requires a ton of effort. Now more work goes into the software to control the radar than in the actual physical radar design. Enabling features like simultaneous air and ground mode and putting SAR capability and jamming and anti-jamming capability becomes incredibly sophisticated and difficult.
The best (that would be the F-22 and F-35) aren't competing for the MRCA contract. The EF is just the best among the rest.In war, the most expensive weapon is the one that's second best.
To sum up, the SH will field far superior avionics than the EF and Rafale because of better software on similar hardware?However, that doesn't apply so much to software as it does hardware. With hardware, often the difficulty is in knowing how something can be done or if it can be done at all. With software, the how usually isn't the question. It's simply a matter of actually doing it and doing it reliably and on time and on budget. I would compare it to the several failed efforts to rewrite the FAA's flight management system. There was no great secret of how to get it to work, but it was so complicated they still failed miserably.
That's why I stressed on the fact that the technology to be delivered to the IAF will be essentially a decade old. And it will probably be ten years before any hardware upgrades can be carried out. If for example, the SH has a GaN based radar available in 2018, the Europeans will have one available by 2022. Without the gap making a lot of difference to an IAF MLU program beginning in say... 2024-25.And no one thinks that all fighter technology will remain static and thus allow the EF team to eventually 'catch up.'
They might catch up in one area, but by then they will have fallen behind in something else.
Individually yes. Collectively - I'm not sure I agree. Between them the consortium has a budget of over $150 billion, and that of the EU countries in excess of $400 billion, without any global bases, naval carrier battle groups, trans-national missile defences, Egypt-like authoritarian states, Israel-like democratic states etc. to expend money and resources supporting. And they are increasingly pooling their resources. The basic GaAs module technology for all European AESA radars came from the AMSAR program. That for the GaN radars will come from the Korrigan program. European defence spending is not sufficient to keep pace with the US across the board. They don't for example have any fifth generation fighters in development or production, but in key critical areas they can keep up. And keeping the EF upgraded is very important to regional AFs and will become even more so if and when India enters the consortium.It is INEVITABLE because they simply cannot afford to spend the money it takes to keep up.
B_Ambuj wrote:Boreas, you stand correctedBoreas wrote:But News is MiG-35 is not packing their bag to come to Aero India 2011.
If you think a little you can figure out why they are doing so. When everybody else is sending two aircraft each.
SriSri wrote:Cross posting..
Air Force MMRCA Competition Contenders to Turn Out at Aero India 2011
Hindustan Times wrote:Russian MiG-35 to skip Bangalore airshow
The Russian MiG-35, one of the six fighter planes competing with American and European rivals for a $10.2 billion (Rs 45,900 crore) Indian Air Force contract, will not be putting in an appearance at Aero India-2011 in Bangalore next week. Befuddled by the move, the defence ministry is making last-ditch efforts to get the Russians onboard.
RK Singh, secretary (defence production), said on Tuesday, “We don’t know why the MiG-35 is not coming. We want them to participate and have asked our embassy in Moscow to take up the matter.” Russia, however, is among the 45 official delegations expected.
Dear Ambuj, My facts are not based on newspaper reportsDeccan Chronicle wrote:Russian MiG-35 to skip biz deal, show?
Feb. 1: Is Russia backing out of the battle for Indian Air Force's $ 12 billion medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) contract? MiG-35, the Russian contender for IAF's cash-guzzling deal, will give Aero India 2011 a skip.
This top-of-the-line multi-role aircraft will not pitch itself against other competitors next week, marking its exit from the race. Sources in the ministry of defence said Russia's focus would be on major deals such as the aerial tanker aircraft for mid-air refuelling of IAF's fighters, heavy-lift helicopters and radars during the five-day airshow beginning
Although its not going to happen, but its good to see an innovative option.kmc_chacko wrote:IAF better think of swaping existing Mig-29s to 126 Mig-35s and Mirages replaced by 126 rafales all problems are solved we will have modern fighters and upgrading cost will be saved and can be invested for Tejas Mk2
Yup, convinved them that not to have any hopes for Mig-35SriSri wrote:Has MoD convinced the Russians?
Contenders for Indian fighter deal to show in force at Aero India 2011
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110202/162414414.html
All six participants of a tender to supply 126 light fighter jets to the Indian air force will showcase full flight displays at Aero India 2011 air show, the organizers said.
.
.
Aero India-2011, which will be held in the southern city of Bangalore on February 11-15, is most likely to attract the record number of leading manufacturers, vendors and suppliers from 63 countries.
Don't know who made it, but it has some great footage that apparently are from a swedish television documentary about Gripen fighter pilots.Wickberg wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tlCx_FTpgI
Specially 1:41 in the video. Shows some of the agility. When will we see the LCA do maneuvers like that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03uOXGny7sI
Just for awesomeness.
Singha wrote:if RAF is planning to retire 55 EF and if we go for EF maybe we can reduce the order and get these EF uprated to latest std at lesser cost? the airframes will be same I suppose but internal eqpt and sw will vary.
Based on my chaiwala ... EU is going with unmanned drones ... no more manned fighter jets. So everyone is trying to suck last penny by exporting its stuff.Viv S wrote:ust because the UK isn't interested in buying more aircraft than its contractually obligated to, doesn't mean the aircraft is due to be scrapped or upgrades are being cut as well. They still have more units on order than Germany, but no one's claiming the Germans are interested in scrapping it.
But I thought you said the UK and Germany wanted it? So if they wanted it, what's the holdup with Italy and Spain? Do you have to have unanimous consent before upgrades go through?Viv S wrote:The Tranche 3 was always supposed to have an AESA. Italy and Spain did drag their feet over it
Right, because it was required to get additional export orders in the first place. Rest assured if AESA wasn't important for the MRCA competition, the EF would still be in AESA limbo.Viv S wrote:but it did get sanctioned without any additional export orders actually being placed.
So you're saying India's need for upgrades can be held hostage when Italy and Spain drag their feet in the future?Viv S wrote:India's investment in upgrades (as well as workshare) will be proportional to its alloted share in EF Gmbh and no more.
Only if India funds it all.Viv S wrote:Unless all four countries are set against further upgrades, they ARE going to happen.
You assume the other countries will buy the upgrades you fund. I wouldn't assume any such thing.Viv S wrote:And India will recover its sunk cost once the upgrades are implemented.
The real point is the US has a much stronger commitment to defense than the UK or Germany.Viv S wrote:You're missing the point - the rosiness is due a second round of monetary injections by the Fed which is debt financed. The US economy isn't really in much better shape than the Germany or UK.
Sure it is, it's just a matter of priorities.Viv S wrote:A defence spending amounting to 4.7% of the GDP is NOT sustainable for a near-stagnant economy.
WHAT UPGRADES?Viv S wrote:The last two are still far from certain. But, that aside none of these cuts imply nor has been stated anywhere that upgrades to the EF will be scrapped.
A shrinking fleet by itself no, you have to look at the full picture.Viv S wrote:You've ignored the point altogether. This wasn't a comparison. I was using the F-22 as example to prove that a shrinking of the original fleet size does NOT imply that upgrades have been or are to be compromised on.The US military isn't not under the same monetary pressure that the UK military is. In fact, there is such a huge difference that to in any way equate the situation is just laughable.
So your position is that once everyone has AESA that all development on fighters will cease and all planes will be on equal footing? Sorry I don't buy that. I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that it will be advanced beyond today.Viv S wrote:The SH is of far more critical importance today. The Rafale will field an AESA by 2012, the Gripen and EF by 2014. In Asia its very much possible that the Sukhoi family, J-10B and Tejas Mk2 will be equipped with AESA radars as well. What upgrades are planned for the SH in that time frame to enable it to far outstrip the rest?
I'm assuming nothing beyond the fact that even they recognize it won't be ready for at least another 4 years.Viv S wrote:We're assuming that research on software modes hasn't been ongoing since the CAESAR began flight testing in 2007.
I'm not sure there is such a thing. If Microsoft has taught us anything, it's that there are always new features to addViv S wrote:And how long do YOU reckon it'll be before the RBE-2 and Captor-E reach achieve their maximum software potential?
Proof?Viv S wrote: The best (that would be the F-22 and F-35) aren't competing for the MRCA contract. The EF is just the best among the rest.
That's a big part of it, but certainly not all.Viv S wrote:To sum up, the SH will field far superior avionics than the EF and Rafale because of better software on similar hardware?
You're just looking at one component. Maybe they will catch up in one area, maybe not, but they will always be behind in something, so whenever your hypothetical MLU program happens, the SH will still have the edge.Viv S wrote:That's why I stressed on the fact that the technology to be delivered to the IAF will be essentially a decade old. And it will probably be ten years before any hardware upgrades can be carried out. If for example, the SH has a GaN based radar available in 2018, the Europeans will have one available by 2022. Without the gap making a lot of difference to an IAF MLU program beginning in say... 2024-25.
I am. The US has the will to spend on the military and Europe doesn't.Viv S wrote:Individually yes. Collectively - I'm not sure I agree.It is INEVITABLE because they simply cannot afford to spend the money it takes to keep up.
But it's not. They don't forsee any threats and thus there is no pressing need to keep them upgraded.Viv S wrote:And keeping the EF upgraded is very important to regional AFs
A second, longer-lasting problem was refining the software for the baseline Wedgetail missions and capabilities that were constantly evolving as electronically scanned array radar technology matured.
After FOC and you will much better things when Tejas MK - II will be arround.Wickberg wrote: When will we see the LCA do maneuvers like that?
Yeah, but I´m old and prefer the electric guitar in front of some "euro pop trash". Some good old Black Sabbath, Dio o or what ever will do it for me. And as I said, ignore responding to retards cause....well, they are retards ((B Ambij))Henrik wrote:Don't know who made it, but it has some great footage that apparently are from a swedish television documentary about Gripen fighter pilots.Wickberg wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tlCx_FTpgI
Specially 1:41 in the video. Shows some of the agility. When will we see the LCA do maneuvers like that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03uOXGny7sI
Just for awesomeness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJxI7VYOEg
Edit: Some footage with Gripen firing the Meteor at 2:56.