Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

b_karan · Post by **b_karan** » 22 Jun 2010 13:36

Arunkumar wrote:Well heres what the official website of aero india 2011 has written in its 'about us' content. Cant they proof read things before posting for a premiere event like this?

http://www.aeroindia.in/AboutUs.aspx

Aero India 2011, the 8th International Aerospace and Defence Exhibition, WAS organised by the Ministry of Defence in association with the Confederation of Indian Industry, CII, from 11th to 15th February 2011 at Air Force Station Yelahanka, Bengaluru.

Inaugurated by Mr A K Antony, Minister of Defence, Govt. of India and Mr Yeddyurappa, Chief Minister of Karnataka, Mr Rao Inderjeet Singh, Minister of State for Defence Production, Mr Pallam Raju, Minister of State for Defence and Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major, PVSM, AVSM, SC VM were also present at the Inaugural Session. The show witnessed an unprecedented growth compared to the LAST show in 2007. 592 exhibitors including 303 from 25 countries, showcased their potential in technologies, products, innovations and aircrafts, over a period of three exclusive business days to the industry, government and overseas delegations.

I have just called the number in the "contact us" section ...and informed them regarding this blunder . The guy at the other end ,thanked for informing and told that it will be rectified asap .

Hiten · Post by **Hiten** » 22 Jun 2010 17:50

Is this the Vidhwansak or the Denel AMR?

I thought the BSF used the former - no news of them using the latter. However the Vidhwanasak does not have this loop-like construction under the furniture [at the Rifle butt]
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/we ... 26-amr.jpg

whereas the NTW20 does
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/ntw20_1.jpg

Any help id-ing the rifle would be much appreciated
TIA

Matthew_H · Post by **Matthew_H** » 23 Jun 2010 00:19

Deleted spam posted on multiple threads.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Jun 2010 06:57

Matthew_H wrote:Deleted spam posted on multiple threads.

Why not gift this gent the houris he is asking for?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 23 Jun 2010 08:13

Hiten wrote:Is this the Vidhwansak or the Denel AMR?

Any help id-ing the rifle would be much appreciated
TIA

Certainly looks like the Denel AMR. But then wasn't the Vishwansak supposed to be a licensed copy?
In either case, I can't help wondering what would happen if someone managed to score a headshot on a piglet with that thing.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 23 Jun 2010 14:18

Northrop Grumman Surpasses Fiber Laser Goals, Receives Phase Two Contract From DARPA

With a 1 kilowatt (kW) single mode fiber amplifier, the company demonstrated a near-perfect beam quality of better than 1.2 and efficiency better than 30 percent, twice the program's goal of 15 percent. Northrop Grumman also demonstrated a polarization extinction ratio of 50:1, and extremely low phase noise, which is essential for the coherent combination of laser chains used to scale power to weapons-class levels.

The $4.6 million, 18-month Phase II DARPA contract calls for scaling power to 3kW in a single mode fiber amplifier. The company has patents on techniques used to facilitate combination of many fiber amplifier beams, while maintaining near-ideal beam quality. The ultimate goal is to develop the technology to 100kW, the power necessary to field a lethal laser weapon.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 24 Jun 2010 08:44

shiv wrote:
Carl_T wrote:newbie pooch:

What is the point of tanks? Wouldn't the enemy just bomb your tanks if you have a whole bunch of tanks attacking an area?

Also, wouldn't squadrons of UAVs fitted with hellphyrr missiles be good enough to stop enemy tanks instead of buying more tanks of your own?
Tanks cannot be disabled easily. The reason why tanks still exist in armies is that they tend to have more than half a meter of steel for protection and weapons to take out others at ranges up to 5 km. Rambo with 5 km long arms.

In other words if a whole lot of tanks come rushing at you, unless you happen to have all those aircraft and hellphyrs handy - you are keema. "Bombing tanks" is easier said than done.
What if you have 50 tanks attacking spread out about 50-100 meters from each other. That is at least a kilometer wide and kilometer deep sea of tanks. Which bombs will take out these tanks. Even if you have a 1000 men defending just one tank is enough to get them running unless they are able to defeat that tank. It's not for nothing that the US wanted to use Neutron bombs against Soviet tanks in Europe.

Attacking aircraft have a high risk of being shot down because tanks come with anti aircraft defences as well. And the tanks themselves may have air cover. All in all they remain a potent weapons platform. There are many instances of battle having been "turned" just because of one tank or a handful of tanks.

To further add to what the good daktir has said...today Tanks wont just be attacking themselves they will in all probability have organic aircover in terms of Shorad and Medium range mobile sams and AAAs this will hold true for most big armies from 1st world to 3rd world which makes targeting and destroying them that much harder. The way I see it just Tanks are the next stage of the logic "boots on the ground" due to their solid presence.

I personally believe that the belief in itself that Tanks can be easily destroyed is borne out of the propaganda from the Gulf wars where the Iraqi armourded cores were attacked by hordes of allied jets this when they did not have proper AD cover or their AD had already been taken out...this will definitely not be the case when a similar tank column belonging to IA will be attacked or for that matter even the PLA or TSPA as they will have accompanying mobile AD cover at all time. This problem is further complicated with the deployment of Long Range mobile sams like S300 ityadi...

The importance of tanks is well recognised in Asia just look at IA and our neighbours all have significant armoured stregth.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 24 Jun 2010 11:44

^^^
To add to what andyB and the daktir said, here's a post I made about the topic a while back:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 55#p849155

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Jun 2010 18:19

ArmenT wrote:^^^
To add to what andyB and the daktir said, here's a post I made about the topic a while back:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 55#p849155

I had not seen that when you posted it. It is an eminently archivable piece of gyan and I recall using the same logic in a recent discussion on Akash missiles all along the border. But this one takes my own gyan to a higher plane.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 27 Jun 2010 14:28

what is the tail like structure here:
http://monimag.eu/upload/480/2010_06_23 ... 000198.jpg

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 27 Jun 2010 14:50

^^^ Refueling probe?

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 27 Jun 2010 16:25

AdityaM wrote:what is the tail like structure here:
http://monimag.eu/upload/480/2010_06_23 ... 000198.jpg

Thats the refuelling boom that khan uses. Most of the USAF fighter bombers like the solah, pandrah, spirit, buff, lancer, raptor ityadi use it.

Basically the recieving aircraft moves in underneath the tanker guided by lights on the tanker's belly at which point the boom operator manouvers the boom into position for positive contact. Benefits are mainly higher amount of fuel flow compared the droughe and probe refuelling. Although this system is lot more complex and expensive...even the USN uses drough and probe.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2010 18:51

andy B wrote: Thats the refuelling boom that khan uses. Most of the USAF fighter bombers like the solah, pandrah, spirit, buff, lancer, raptor ityadi use it.

Basically the recieving aircraft moves in underneath the tanker guided by lights on the tanker's belly at which point the boom operator manouvers the boom into position for positive contact. Benefits are mainly higher amount of fuel flow compared the droughe and probe refuelling. Although this system is lot more complex and expensive...even the USN uses drough and probe.

Yup the two types are "Flying boom" in the photo (which I think only the US uses) and "Probe and drogue" which India uses

Gyle_S · Post by **Gyle_S** » 27 Jun 2010 20:20

I have a newbie question.

For deals such as Su-30MKI license production in HAL, how does it work out?
We sign a contract of say $X mil/plane. Initially, we get planes in knockdown kits and HAL assembles but then HAL starts manufacturing most of the components locally.
Who do we pay? Sukhoi? HAL? split?
When do we pay? All up front? Pay as you go?
Recently, HAL says that its manufacturing cost of Su-30MKI is lower than initially anticipated.
Who gains? Sukhoi? HAL? GOI?

Thanks for answering this question.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 28 Jun 2010 11:22

thank you.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 30 Jun 2010 11:54

shiv wrote:
ArmenT wrote:^^^
To add to what andyB and the daktir said, here's a post I made about the topic a while back:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 55#p849155

I had not seen that when you posted it. It is an eminently archivable piece of gyan and I recall using the same logic in a recent discussion on Akash missiles all along the border. But this one takes my own gyan to a higher plane.

Thanks much for the compliments saar. It means a lot coming from you. Should I recommend it for archiving to the good posts thread then?

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 30 Jun 2010 12:54

Lockheed Martins New Magazine Site

link

if this can be cross posted to the links thread, please do.

asbchakri · Post by **asbchakri** » 30 Jun 2010 13:17

Hi guys,

i came accross the following info in a blog

I was testing a radar system that controlled the guns and missile launchers on a naval combat ship. The radar system consisted of a Fore subsystem, Aft subsystem and a Weapons subsystem. After several months of testing we discovered that if we started the subsystems in a certain sequence the Fore guns and Aft guns would reverse and point at the ship. The scary thing was this bug had existed for years without being detected! Fortunately all ships have mechanical interlocks to guard against any weapon pointing at the ship itself and committing suicide.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/micahel/archive ... tebug.aspx

does anyone know if this is true and if what (who's) system was this

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 01 Jul 2010 00:42

US scandal on military burials:

Choice plots at Arlington reserved for VIPs
How top officials at Arlington National Cemetery violated Army guidelines -- and may have broken the law

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 01 Jul 2010 10:57

Snecma is creating issues with integration of the Shakti engines to LUH.

Does DRDO/GTRE have the capability to reverse engineer the Shakti? What are the other engines that have comparable high altitude performance?

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 04 Jul 2010 11:09

NIDian conjures up dream fighter aircraft

Nirav Panchal, an undergraduate product design student at the National Institute of Design (NID), Ahmedabad has designed a fifth-generation twin-seater VSTOL multirole strike fighter aircraft in the sixth semester of his course as an independent project.

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 04 Jul 2010 12:07

I have a newbie koshchun. We are frequently reading of new divisions being raised, or CRPF raising new battalions, etc. etc. What I don't understand is, HOW THESE ARE RAISED? For eg. MHA approves the raising of 10 new CRPF battalions. How do they go about it? Is it as easy as that? How do they recruit men for 10 battalions? As it is, we are facing an officer shortage, then how do you man the new divisions/battalions approved?

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 04 Jul 2010 12:16

atreya wrote:I have a newbie koshchun. We are frequently reading of new divisions being raised, or CRPF raising new battalions, etc. etc. What I don't understand is, HOW THESE ARE RAISED? For eg. MHA approves the raising of 10 new CRPF battalions. How do they go about it? Is it as easy as that? How do they recruit men for 10 battalions? As it is, we are facing an officer shortage, then how do you man the new divisions/battalions approved?

CRPF has recruitment offices and starts with new recruitment drives across the country.They also have officer entry exams via upsc.They try to match targets.And yes its a routine job unlike hiring a software geek with mind numbing ctcs.

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 04 Jul 2010 16:42

The newbie is back - A question about the IAF

All of us get used to the specific car we have been using for a long time. Let's say I own an Indica and am used to driving it. If one day, i drive my friend's Indica (with exactly the same trim level), I still shall take some time to adjust to this new car. Does that happen with aircraft as well? - I am assuming it does.

So, in any squadron (say an MKI squadron), is there a set of pilots and WSos assigned to every a/c or any combination of pilot and WSO can fly any MKI in the squadron? - This may be relevant in crunch situations. Also, do we have specific combinations of pilot-WSO or any pilot can fly with any WSO. I am assuming we would aim for the flexibility of any pilot-WSO combination, but I am assuming it would be tricky to adjust to a new partner every different time.

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 04 Jul 2010 17:32

Doesn't happen that way.Depends on availability of personnel.If a pilot -wso combination is detailed to fly a bird on monday and tuesday, it may not be the case on wednesday.

That apart..every bird may have unique glitches.As long as flight controls respond identically...no pilot should have problems shuffling between birds.I assume you still have maverick and cougar in mind.Putting names on ac is an american practise.I haven't seen the same happening in IAF.

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 04 Jul 2010 17:36

Kailash wrote:Snecma is creating issues with integration of the Shakti engines to LUH.

Does DRDO/GTRE have the capability to reverse engineer the Shakti? What are the other engines that have comparable high altitude performance?

HAL does have a foundry and forge divison.Reverse engineering is going to be difficult as End User Agreements are tough nowadays.If the basic metallurgy is in place....forging the engine shell and gears shouldn't be difficult.The HAL is likely to have access to all cross section drawings...part specs...sizes...service intervals etc.The gaskets and cooling systems may be difficult to clone.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Jul 2010 20:12

Anshul wrote:Doesn't happen that way.Depends on availability of personnel.If a pilot -wso combination is detailed to fly a bird on monday and tuesday, it may not be the case on wednesday.

That apart..every bird may have unique glitches.As long as flight controls respond identically...no pilot should have problems shuffling between birds.I assume you still have maverick and cougar in mind.Putting names on ac is an american practise.I haven't seen the same happening in IAF.

except once on a mig-29 back in 80's, jagan might have the pic. on an aside this might be the 3rd time I'm typing this on BR !

Mayuresh · Post by **Mayuresh** » 04 Jul 2010 23:04

Anshul wrote:I assume you still have maverick and cougar in mind.

Not really. I was just wondering if putting names to planes (or at least keeping the combination of pilot-WSO the same like rally drivers or tennis doubles partners) would increase performance in crunch situations.

I guess the IAF can easily keep the pilot-WSO combination constant and make them fly different MKI birds based on availability. I think it would lead to a small increment in the performace due to the combination having practised together, know each other's work style very well. I say only a small increment because the established operational protocols and procedures would take care of standardizing the work styles of most officers, hence the individual touch would be minimal.

More on the same topic - Does this happen in the army? Is a soldier's standard issue equipment (INSAS rifle, pistol, etc.) remain with him for his use only? Much less complex machines here, but some individual unique chaacteristics nevertheless. What about tanks?

In the navy, what abt the ships? - I think personnel would be assigned to a particular ship, so there would be no such issues here. So it would not be that the captain and his XO would sail in INS Mumbai, then in INS Mysore, then in INS Delhi, then in INS Shivalik depending on availability

atreya · Post by **atreya** » 04 Jul 2010 23:22

Does this happen in the army? Is a soldier's standard issue equipment (INSAS rifle, pistol, etc.) remain with him for his use only? Much less complex machines here, but some individual unique chaacteristics nevertheless

No. At the end of the day, the soldier has to return his weapon to the store. He may or may not be issued the same weapon the next day. This is not the case in the Australian Army. They can take their weapon to their quarters and don't have to return it.

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 05 Jul 2010 10:08

Mayuresh wrote: I still shall take some time to adjust to this new car. Does that happen with aircraft as well? - I am assuming it does.

Yesterday I was watching "Great Planes - SR71 Blackbird", it mentioned that "flying characterstics" varied from aircraft to aircraft and each bird had a "personality" of it's own. Since the fuselage was made mostly of titanium and the titanium forging was being tried for the first time (on that scale), there were minor variations in all the aircrafts. But that was a special case and I don't think the flying characterstics vary with aircraft. Though it is possible, say, the AC doesn't work the same or the acceleration is different (just like the cars) due to variation in usage/age of components.

When one of the two SR-71B trainers, #61-7957, was lost on approach to Beale AFB on 11 January 1968, a replacement was built. Designated SR-71C, it was built from the aft fuselage of YF-12A #60-6934 and the SR-71A static test model from Lockheed. This aircraft never lived up to the usability of the SR-71B as it had irregular maintenance procedures and its aftermarket construction caused the aircraft to fly in a constant yaw, which gave it its nickname "The ********."

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 07 Jul 2010 20:09

Anshul wrote:They try to match targets.And yes its a routine job unlike hiring a software geek with mind numbing ctcs.

Since this was mentioned here

. And yes, CRPF does not have a hire and fire policy so they are very careful in understanding the total vacancies in each trade etc. Generally all English and vernacular dailies would have advertisements calling for potential candidates. Educational qualifications, medical requirements, reservation quotas, pay-scale etc. would be clearly listed out here.

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Jul 2010 21:47

X posting from LCA dhaga

With a payload of 4000 Kg, the LCA cannot even carry Brahmos (3000 Kg)! The new Brahmos version is a Scramjet, in very early stages! I don't think such a light fighter has much use in the Navy!!

LCA carries what IAF wants it to same is the case with IN's NLCA. It is as simple as that .

Matrten, Read my post! I have mentioned already Rafale-M 9500 Kg(France/Brazil?), Super Hornet-8000kg(US), Su-33-8000Kg(Russia/China), Su-32/34-8000 Kg(Russia)[shore based fighter bomber} need more.............?????

Even the MKI out of the box cannot carry the Brahmos, structural modifications are being done on certain AC to carry BRAHMOS again as per IAF reqs.

Btw IN is yet to reach true blue water capabilities hence projection of air power is not a part of its requirements from NLCA , Tejas fills in for SHar i.e. primarily for air defense and patrolling our sea lanes and it still packs enough punch to take care of our neighbor in NW.

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 07 Jul 2010 22:38

Gyle_S wrote:I have a newbie question.

For deals such as Su-30MKI license production in HAL, how does it work out?
We sign a contract of say $X mil/plane. Initially, we get planes in knockdown kits and HAL assembles but then HAL starts manufacturing most of the components locally.
Who do we pay? Sukhoi? HAL? split?
When do we pay? All up front? Pay as you go?
Recently, HAL says that its manufacturing cost of Su-30MKI is lower than initially anticipated.
Who gains? Sukhoi? HAL? GOI?

Thanks for answering this question.

The payment is of course based on some unit cost,spare parts ,training crews, and maintenance over a period of years,basic upgrades. Specifics are huge.
Sukhoi will be paid something per aircraft..but once you master the jigs(moulds) its in your court. Russians are masters of cost control so a plane from there will always cost less than one from USA.

But now HAL is getting into assembly manufactaring of around 25 planes/yr..these bring down cost immensely(order of millions) compared to Low rate prod.
But again you see we need to go back for Brahmos intg ..5 year old planes need complete makeover.
Hope the answer helped.

akshay · Post by **akshay** » 07 Jul 2010 23:09

akimalik wrote:Just going through the many posts regarding the LCA's development, I would request the "gurus" to help me with the following:
- it appears that one of the problems with the program have been bad project management.
- i bring this up by drawing parallels to the way in which projects are executed in the software industry (although this might be over-simplifying the issue),
- as a project starts, there is a feasibility study,

Now, could the esteemed seniors here try and comment as to where the problems arose?

p.s. :- on the by, when DRDO gets a project, is there a legal binding to it similar to the manner in which contracts are signed between foreign defence firms? I mean if IAF gives DRDO the task of developing the (A)MCA, would there be a clause in the contract to state that the IAF must buy a minimum number of aircraft once they pass the IAF's requirements (as agreed in the program's requirements). Similarly, can the IAF charge the DRDO for late delivery of weapon systems?

Too many questions for one post, though as with any project there will be delays
Software Projects are famous for never being ontime (just eg)

Two major factors
1. US Sanctions
2. Overconfidence

The sanctions hit every major part from Radars to Engines to Flight software.Mind you India had ZERO experience.

Inshort it was overconfident Govt policy to try to achieve 80% indigenisation. That is basic difference between the 1980 and 2000. Now you see rather than Single Indian Entity you have Indo Israel and Indo Russain JV which is bearing fruits.
The Navy did this from the beginning and now they churn out world class chips.The Airforce started this some years back and in 5 years u will see change.The Army, well, still has to start.

Lastly 20-30 years is not that bad for us, look at the Rafale timeline or Eurofighter timeline from proposal to LRP.
This is ofcourse my opinion of a brfite-trainee

Vinu · Post by **Vinu** » 08 Jul 2010 17:54

Reg: JSF for IN.

When ever I come across the news about LM's offer of JSF to IN, I am so thrilled, mainly becasue of the ripple those news create in the Paki's forums.

It seems in BRF many are not impressed to see this AC for IN.
Could any one please point me to the discussion forums / topics in BR about this AirCraft. - Thank you.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 08 Jul 2010 19:01

^^ For a start, if you look up the current state of the project and the costs involved, it will give you an idea of why they might want to include us as well as provide some incentive for the F-16 in the MRCA circus.
Secondly we on BR would like the LCA to carry a Brahmos on it.

So the F-35 with 2 piddly bombs just doesnt cut it for us.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 08 Jul 2010 19:37

Vinu wrote:Reg: JSF for IN.

When ever I come across the news about LM's offer of JSF to IN, I am so thrilled, mainly becasue of the ripple those news create in the Paki's forums.

It seems in BRF many are not impressed to see this AC for IN.
Could any one please point me to the discussion forums / topics in BR about this AirCraft. - Thank you.

I have not come across any detailed discussion on JSF at BR. However, search the net and you will find enough info about why there is so much criticism of F-35 all over the world. In short, as Shameek pinted out, the most criticized aspect is huge cost escalation. US department of defence has raised the cost estimate of F-35 program to a staggering figure of "$382 billion"! Considering the rate of cost escalations, one can only shudder to think about how much it will end up costing in the end.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... llion.html
This is when one of the critical design goals was to develop a affordable fighter that can serve as the backbone of AF and Navies.
Aside from that its radar capability is in question basically because of the small size of the noze. Then there are many questions of maneuverability. Even with a decently good twr, the a/c has reached max speed of 1.2 mach with design goal of eventually reaching just 1.6 mach. Some point this out as an indication of an extremely draggy airframe. And even though it has a very good external payload, its internal payload is absymal. Add to that the fact that the export variants of F-35 will receive a dumbed down stealth skin, I do not wonder that few people are excited for it to join IN. The only aspect in which F-35 is expected to outclass other a/cs is in sensors. But the question is whether that will be enough to overshadow its other deficiencies.

Shameek wrote:Secondly we on BR would like the LCA to carry a Brahmos on it. So the F-35 with 2 piddly bombs just doesnt cut it for us.

Nice dig.

Kanan · Post by **Kanan** » 08 Jul 2010 20:02

Vinu wrote:Reg: JSF for IN.

When ever I come across the news about LM's offer of JSF to IN, I am so thrilled, mainly becasue of the ripple those news create in the Paki's forums.

It seems in BRF many are not impressed to see this AC for IN.
Could any one please point me to the discussion forums / topics in BR about this AirCraft. - Thank you.

JSF,as pointed out by the seniors, has its own share of problems. Then what aircraft doesn't? Like its aerodynamics, which outdone by many 4 the Gen aircraft! But the JSF is designed to evade most RADARS in service and will be a weak platform once Sensors become a lot better! (Then again the same is true for other aircraft)! JSF will have a few unique features : 360 degrees situational awareness, Capability of Cyber Warfare(Can launch a virus/bot attack) AESA Jammers etc.......! It is hardly a desirable dog fighter but IN has a great dogfighter in MiG-29K! It will be a worthy complement to the Fulcrums! And that is why our Navy has expressed some interest in it, no matter what others think!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Jul 2010 20:09

JSF will have a few unique features : ..... Capability of Cyber Warfare(Can launch a virus/bot attack)

on what ?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 08 Jul 2010 20:17

Kanan wrote:Capability of Cyber Warfare(Can launch a virus/bot attack)

Man, then I sure will pray daily that F-35 is not purchased by India. I have enough problems of virus attacks on my PC as it is.

ADDED LATER: On a more serious note, if the cost of F-35 was reasonable, I would not have minded too much if IN chose to acquire it. This is basically because we are unlikely to face another stealth a/c in our neighborhood in the near future. Mind you, I still would not have been thrilled, but I would not refuse food and water for weeks (like now). But at the present cost estimates, acquiring it would be a crime against the Nation. And if, by some unfortunate chance, out Eastern neighbour is able to develop its own 5th gen fighter in near future, then F-35 will be a big burden on us at any cost. This is because against another 5th gen fighter, there is good probability that it will be required to engage in dog fights. And I would not root for F-35 in that scenario.