It is relevant. There is a distinct possibility that the IAF will have such unenviable tasks at hand. Frankly, i'd rather see a rafale/Ef-2000 with Scalp/Taurus type. I think it'd stand a far better chance.nachiket wrote:That point is moot, since none of the MRCA contenders would be able to do what you are saying (least of all the Mig-35). You need something in the class of an F-22/35 to do that.
What part of Osan, Kadena, Andersen being close enough to Taiwan do you not understand? Furthermore, weren't there were B52s taking off from louisiana to iraq? Similarly, B2s flew from missouri to kosovo and i think iraq. IIRC, there are B2s at Guam as well. Still further, who is to say, the USAF won't get more basing rights in Japan and Soko if they really need 'em? YOu think the two countries will say no?GeorgeWelch wrote:What part of 'nearby land bases are unavailable' do you not understand?
heh heh, you do know that they took that route to especially avoid the S300s right? Might not have that option against china which has a far more robust AD network.Yes
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... 6d649146cd
As I said, if you want the best SAMs, buy Russian.The big mystery of the strike is how did the non-stealthy F-15s and F-16s get through the Syrian air defense radars without being detected? Some U.S. officials say they have the answer.
U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis.
If you want to beat the best SAMs, buy American.
ROFLMAO! You ought to do SH commercials! Have a headache? here take a superhornet; have cancer? the shornet will do the trick, car not working? try the shornet; why have vi*gra when you can have shornet! - The super hornet - a solution for all occasions.Sounds like you need the SH to me. Robust, reliable, and extremely capable in all missions. It just plain works now and has the most clear upgrade path for the future.
Oh yes, the rafale and typhoon would be better at A-to-A than the SH(assuming that the CAESAR and RBE-2 AESA are not too far behind the APG-79). IMHO the rafale might still be in trouble due to shorter range of MICA compared to AIM-120C5/7.Cain Marko wrote:It is relevant. There is a distinct possibility that the IAF will have such unenviable tasks at hand. Frankly, i'd rather see a rafale/Ef-2000 with Scalp/Taurus type. I think it'd stand a far better chance.nachiket wrote:That point is moot, since none of the MRCA contenders would be able to do what you are saying (least of all the Mig-35). You need something in the class of an F-22/35 to do that.
CM.
There is the very distinct possibility that the Meteor as well as the AStra will be ready when the MRCAs start arriving. Another thing, A2A (even BVR) is not purely about radar/electronics or marginal differences in RCS either. When AWACS are involved as they will be, there is strong possibility of turning fights (even BVR). Why else would the IAF engage in dogfights in expensive intl exercises,? Think about it - even the Bison proved to be a handful despite E3s. There is a lot to tactics. But for that you need speed, agility, acceleration etc. I remember during Cope II (or was it I?) one of the USAF pilots in v.capable eagles/vipers mentioned how particularly difficult the Bison was thanks to its small size and v.high speed.nachiket wrote:Oh yes, the rafale and typhoon would be better at A-to-A than the SH(assuming that the CAESAR and RBE-2 AESA are not too far behind the APG-79). IMHO the rafale might still be in trouble due to shorter range of MICA compared to AIM-120C5/7.
You never know. The recent tiffy t3 contract was not too bad iirc.The typhoon is out of question as far as the MRCA order is concerned because of its cost. The rafale IMHO might also be unaffordable.
The key for the mig-35 is its cost. If it really undercuts the eurocanards and teens, then it'll be a v.hard choice to give up for the bean counters. While there is a clear difference in the chart between the mig and the others, it'll not be so pronounced (more marginal) in real life i think esp. A2A.The Mig-35 is inferior even acc to your chart. So what does that leave?
I suggest you read the Rand reports which explain quite clearly why they are not close enough. And that assumes China 'plays nice' and doesn't obliterate those too. If they do launch a massive ballistic missile barrage against those bases, then what? Launch F-22s from HawaiiCain Marko wrote:What part of Osan, Kadena, Andersen being close enough to Taiwan do you not understand? Furthermore, weren't there were B52s taking off from louisiana to iraq? Similarly, B2s flew from missouri to kosovo and i think iraq. IIRC, there are B2s at Guam as well.GeorgeWelch wrote:What part of 'nearby land bases are unavailable' do you not understand?
Why do you make stuff up?heh heh, you do know that they took that route to especially avoid the S300s right?
You make it a joke, but the SH truly is the most versatile plane in existence.Cain Marko wrote:The super hornet - a solution for all occasions.Sounds like you need the SH to me. Robust, reliable, and extremely capable in all missions. It just plain works now and has the most clear upgrade path for the future.
Huh? You were saying that Indian planes will have to act alone without all the support that American planes receive. I point out that SHs perform in the same way, being supported only by a few hawkeyes and that India has a similar (if not better) capability. In other words India can support SHs just as well as the USN can. It does not rely on an armada of specialist planes to perform all the other missions for it.Cain Marko wrote:Precisely the reason why a marginally better radar like the APG 79 won't cut it. Also the reason why aircraft kinematics will come into play.India also has AWACS
Who knows? But what I do know is that there will be significant advances over the next 10-15 years and that America will be at the forefront of it.Cain Marko wrote:They are already on the SH. What do you suppose they'll have next Klingon cloaking devices?If there are avionics that can be retrofitted on non-stealth planes, (ie the kind you are worried about for advanced flankers and J10s), they will go on the SH first.
If those planes are available for use, of course not.Cain Marko wrote:So you are telling me that a CBG is going to use super hornets at H-Hour when the nation sits on a pile of F-22s, F-15s and what not?
Kadena is about 450nm from the centerline of the Taiwan straight where the fiercest fighting would be expected as China tries to send an invasion fleet. But more importantly it is only one base and alone cannot generate enough sorties to stem the Chinese tide.Kadena AFB, home of the 18th fighter wing is about 200 miles from Taiwan as the crow flies.
Um, what? AWACS helps to reduce turning fights and ESPECIALLY WVR.Cain Marko wrote:When AWACS are involved as they will be, there is strong possibility of turning fights (even BVR).
You think Red Flag is about dogfights? You are sadly mistaken.Cain Marko wrote:Why else would the IAF engage in dogfights in expensive intl exercises,?
No, tactics adapt to whatever you have. They do not require anything except a brain.Cain Marko wrote:Think about it - even the Bison proved to be a handful despite E3s. There is a lot to tactics. But for that you need speed, agility, acceleration etc.
I read that rand report, and even that said Kadena, misawa and osan are definitely workable. And why is your starting point the Rand report anyway? So that you can conveniently take away all USAF assets in the region? or are other scenarios not possible at all ?GeorgeWelch wrote:I suggest you read the Rand reports which explain quite clearly why they are not close enough. And that assumes China 'plays nice' and doesn't obliterate those too. If they do launch a massive ballistic missile barrage against those bases, then what? Launch F-22s from Hawaii
B2s and B52s can both cause havoc by getting rid of Command centers and AD sites thereby not allowing PLAAF air assets to work too well. That leads to airsuperiority so stop this non sense about TLAMs, B2s, B52s not leading to air superiority.Yes B-2s can fly from Diego Garcia or somewhere, but B-2s by themselves don't give air superiority.
Not really making things up. Just wanted to point out that the israeli route went north over the mediterannean (no SAM coverage there), then via turkey into the eastern part of syria where their target was (the supposed nuke site @ Ar Zawr). The eastern part of syria has little to no SAM coverage as seen from this:Why do you make stuff up?
Too true! That was a mistake on my part, which, however only reinforces the point that if at all israeli F-16s/15s overflew syrian sam sites, they were dealing with obsolete syrian/russian sams such as the SA6 - not exactly the same as shornets tangling with China's S300s and derivatives.Syria did not have S-300s then.
Nice one!You make it a joke, but the SH truly is the most versatile plane in existence.
While I still think that the difference might be more than marginal, the IAF has clearly specified that any extra performance beyond what the RFP requires will not receive extra points. In light of this I agree that the Mig-35 is the front runner due to the low cost. I guess it always was the moment the Mirage-2k was withdrawn. Its only us jingos salivating over rafales, typhoons and superbugs.Cain Marko wrote: The key for the mig-35 is its cost. If it really undercuts the eurocanards and teens, then it'll be a v.hard choice to give up for the bean counters. While there is a clear difference in the chart between the mig and the others, it'll not be so pronounced (more marginal) in real life i think esp. A2A.
CM.
Cain Marko should have been with me on Friday when the first shornet made it's final 90 deg turn over Logica CMG and landed on runway 27 of HAL. I could not even take a picture - the turn was so low and so steep. Brick indeed.GeorgeWelch wrote:The SH is hardly a brick, it is very maneuverable. Besides, I've never seen a Mach 1.8 brick. Coincidentally, that is the same speed as a Rafale, is it a brick too?Cain Marko wrote:To offer a bird that as philip points out is virtually 70s tech and flies like a brick is a rip off!
Hi Shiv. Which paper and on which date ?shiv wrote:Hi Devesh this is shiv from CiX. I was on your BBS too before the www killed all. I saw your photo in the paper.
if thats the case why even look at unkil's toys?Who said?With the EULA restriction, as per what i gather prevents use of American hardware/software against american allies
India and the United States have "not signed" the End User Monitoring Agreement, said Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon [ Images ] on Tuesday evening while delivering a lecture organised by the Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training in New Delhi [ Images ].
Speaking on 'India's foreign policy: challenges and opportunities', Menon said, "We didn't sign it," which pacified some of the agitated parliamentarians he was addressing. MPs took the lecture seriously and quizzed Menon on Pakistan, the US, China, Sri Lanka [ Images ] and Myanmar. Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Acharya presided over the function.
Menon pointed out that India and US have "agreed" to have an end user monitoring arrangement but no agreement has been signed yet.
According to the Indo-US joint statement, both countries 'agreed on the end user monitoring arrangement that will henceforth be referred to in letters of acceptance for Indian procurement of US defence technology and equipment. This systematises ad-hoc arrangements for individual defence procurements from the USA entered into by previous governments.'
Even we're not that dumb.Cain Marko wrote:And what makes you think the Americans won't attack first?
If China wants to win, that's what they'd do.Cain Marko wrote:You simply went ahead and assumed that all the close by airbases, whether in japan, soko or even taiwan itself were all flattened eh? how convenient.
Not quiteCain Marko wrote:Too true! That was a mistake on my part, which, however only reinforces the point that if at all israeli F-16s/15s overflew syrian sam sites, they were dealing with obsolete syrian/russian sams such as the SA6 - not exactly the same as shornets tangling with China's S300s and derivatives.Syria did not have S-300s then.
Admittedly that doesn't prove anything with regards to the S300, but no one else in the world could have done that.The system in question is thought to be the new Tor-M1 launchers which carries eight missiles as well as two of the Pechora-2A system
Cain Marko wrote:
To offer a bird that as philip points out is virtually 70s tech and flies like a brick is a rip off!
Gee I must have touched a raw nerve there. This is like the 4th poster to get after me for that particular statement. Super Hornet boys are out for justice I think, better watch out.Cain Marko should have been with me on Friday when the first shornet made it's final 90 deg turn over Logica CMG and landed on runway 27 of HAL. I could not even take a picture - the turn was so low and so steep. Brick indeed.
Um read up on indradhanush and you may hear about turning during on BVR.GeorgeWelch wrote:Um, what? AWACS helps to reduce turning fights and ESPECIALLY WVR.
YOu think red flag is the only exercise the IAF participated in? sadly mistaken, hint: look @ what they did @ moutain home AFB idaho or at indradhanush.You think Red Flag is about dogfights? You are sadly mistaken.
.
:1:10, choosing SH only perhaps make it 1:20. 
.http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=11155order: SH, F16, M35, EF, R, G.
Technical paperwork review.
The performance of each of the aircraft will be quantified for take-offs, sustained turns and tight turns.
Sample missions will be assigned to the aircraft for ground strike, maritime strike, air-defence/air-superiority, acceleration and climb performance.
“We might assign, for example, an aircraft to accelerate from 0.8 mach to 1.42 mach within a specified time (seconds),”
The evaluation will also assess systems navigation, radar abilities, self-defence suits, electronic warfare systems and the ability of the aircraft to carry extra load (weapons, bombs).
One of the requirements to evaluate the “multi-role” ability of the aircraft is whether they are capable of carrying and dropping big 2000-pounder bombs at designated ground targets.
“The tests have to be tabulated and the results brought out statistically,”
“lifecycle costing” or “cost of ownership” to conclude the expenses to be incurred on each aircraft. (the costs will also be offset against performance because twin-engine aircraft will be more powerful and are expected to be more versatile, if heavier.)
finally political package.
Hello! AWACS are just one part of that armada, btw, india just has one as of now. And the AWACS is hardly an offensive platform used for SEAD/DEAD. The armada to degrade enemy AD starts with lets see - TLAMS, Stealth bombers/fighters, B2s, B52s, B1s, EW assets. Now that sir is the bulk of the armada that goes in well before the shornet and does much of the damage.GeorgeWelch wrote:Huh? You were saying that Indian planes will have to act alone without all the support that American planes receive. I point out that SHs perform in the same way, being supported only by a few hawkeyes and that India has a similar (if not better) capability. In other words India can support SHs just as well as the USN can. It does not rely on an armada of specialist planes to perform all the other missions for it.
They are already on the SH. What do you suppose they'll have next Klingon cloaking devices?
Aah so they will have klingon cloaking devices, clever buggers! Come on man, the picture for the next 15 odd years can be estimated.Who knows? But what I do know is that there will be significant advances over the next 10-15 years and that America will be at the forefront of it.
Cain Marko wrote:So you are telling me that a CBG is going to use super hornets at H-Hour when the nation sits on a pile of F-22s, F-15s and what not?
So at long last you agree to something, I'd almost given up on you. That wasn't that hard was it?If those planes are available for use, of course not.
They aren't by any chance planning to attack McMurdo, Antartica are they? I already gave you 3 AFBs that can be used for ops near Taiwan. Btw, what was the last major war the U.S. went in and the USAF twiddled their thumbs?But those planes are dependent on nearby bases. If those aren't available, the US just gives up. Oh wait! No, they send a carrier. Again the purpose of the CBG is to go where the USAF cannot. If the USAF is available to do the job, fine let them do it. But finding friendly host countries is never a guaranteed thing.
Look up google, its nowhere near 450nm. Perhaps KM. Admittedly, carriers will play a role here just as the do anywhere else.Kadena is about 450nm from the centerline of the Taiwan straight where the fiercest fighting would be expected as China tries to send an invasion fleet. But more importantly it is only one base and alone cannot generate enough sorties to stem the Chinese tide.
So lets make assumptions that totally favor your super hornet scenario right.Frankly, I would make no such assumption.
Surya saar,Surya wrote:Ok CM
We understand what you say - but the IAF is looking at whatever aircraft as part of a system they have envisaged. And barring the Gripen the SHornet is part of a whole system.
And you cannot discount the fact that it is still going to be the main aricraft for the USN for a long time to come and the USN has better foresight and more muscle to support enhancements etc then the drip, drip approach the Europeans will bring in- (depending on whose individual need wins out )
And that no amount of theoretical supremacy on the others will overcome.
If the SHornet is chosen - a large part will be for the characteristics GEorge is making. Assuming we learn to tie up the agreements etc. in our favor -
Personally I like the Gripen for its system approach from day 1
I can understand B-2s, but sending in B-52s and even B-1s into chinese controlled airspace without escorts is suicide. You can carry out SEAD missons using bombers but who's going to take care of the legions of flankers the PLAAF can throw at you. In the absence of F-22s and F-15s that job falls on the SH. And the USN would not be buying 460 of them if it wasn't up to the task.Cain Marko wrote: Hello! AWACS are just one part of that armada, btw, india just has one as of now. And the AWACS is hardly an offensive platform used for SEAD/DEAD. The armada to degrade enemy AD starts with lets see - TLAMS, Stealth bombers/fighters, B2s, B52s, B1s, EW assets. Now that sir is the bulk of the armada that goes in well before the shornet and does much of the damage.
The US is more likely to fund upgrades for their aircraft than the europeans who don't really seem to like the idea of spending any more money on the Typhoon and Rafale. Dassault had to struggle with the french govt. to get funding for the RBE-2 AESA IIRC. We might end up financing even the development of the upgrades ourselves.Aah so they will have klingon cloaking devices, clever buggers! Come on man, the picture for the next 15 odd years can be estimated.
I don't know if prestige is a real issue for the IAF, yet, wouldn't buying second hand MiG-29s (as you have been advocating), which only Yemen (does it qualify for your "lesser nations" theory?) now seem interested in, put the IAF on the same "plane" as what is a second-rate Air Force ?Philip wrote:The Swedes have no political clout whatsoever and with the Thais and other smaller states buying it,the IAF will not want to be on the same "plane" (pun intended) as these lesser nations.
the MiG-35 is not single engined. and its a pity that they can hardly convince their own AF to be really interested in the lighter, multi-role MiG-35 when they have such large numbers of Su-25s and Su-24s to replace.Russia will leverage its 5th-gen project with us to make us buy the MIG-35,as a "lighter" and cheaper single-engined alternative to extra SU-30s.
your theory basically discounts the IAF evaluation totally and makes it out to be a complete political buy. I'd be very disappointed if that turns out to be true.The Europeans (EADS) will be given the EJ-200 deal along with RR engines for the LCA and upgraded Jaguar along with ASW helos.The Israelis will provide AESA radars for the LCA and perhaps for the MIG-35 too and everyone will be given a share of the cake.
As we've just seen ,there are many hidden angles and connections to some of our deals (ATV-Gorshkov-Akula) which for legitimate reasons cannot be made public.The reason for buying US weaponry was the (secret) price that MMS made to get his N-deal through the Bush admin.How far the O-team will oblige India in keeping to the spirit of that deal remains a big Q mark.Watch this space as a rough ride is expected.
only extra Su-35s and Su-27SMs or whatever they're called. the MiG-35 purchase has been spoken of, but as yet, nothing concrete has emerged. and, HAL has decades of experience building and overhauling hundreds of western sourced fighters as well- Jags, Hunters, Gnats, Mirages, etc. so the MiG experience will hardly count, and anyway, I don't think that this will influence the IAF's choice, since there is going to be deep ToT for whichever fighter is chosen and HAL is building the British Hawk as well as the Russian Su-30MKI.MAKS is on right now.Russia will announce the buying of MIG-35s and extra SU-30/34/35s for its air force,whcih will make its aircraft more appealing to the export market in the developing world.With HAL having decades of assmbling and building hundreds of Russian MIGs and now Sukhois,plus in the future 5th-gen fighters,don't dismiss the MIG-35s chances at all.
AFAIK the gripen has the smallest payload of all MRCA contenders. So bang for the buck might not be a good way to describe it considering the fact that the Mig-35 would probably be cheaper(initial cost ofcourse) and carry more weapons.Surya wrote:Agreed its not flawless.
None are
Personally - Pure bang for buck would be the Gripen but it is darn close to our LCA and Sweden is a nobody in the political clout arena.
It flies on American engines.Kartik wrote: the Thais are happy with the Gripen/Erieye system because it offers them a very capable solution, and is not a US product and is hence sanction-proof.
well enough to land with a decent bring-back payload, on aircraft carriers pitching about at sea and yet to have a great service safety record. BTW, within a couple of years, the USN plans on testing out an automated approach and landing for its Super Hornets.Gee I must have touched a raw nerve there. This is like the 4th poster to get after me for that particular statement. Super Hornet boys are out for justice I think, better watch out.
Btw, Devesh, I presume the shornet was clean? HOw well does it perform with weapons that are canted outwards? More importantly, below 200-250 kts, the shornet is supposed to be great like its predecessor, not as good as a fulcrum or flanker but still, its after that envelope that it lands into trouble. JMT
CM.
so do Iranian F-14 Tomcats that have been under an arms embargo for well over 2 decades.nachiket wrote:It flies on American engines.Kartik wrote: the Thais are happy with the Gripen/Erieye system because it offers them a very capable solution, and is not a US product and is hence sanction-proof.
