
at 75 million each aircraft*126=9.5 billion

Cain Marko wrote:SaiK wrote:so you are saying nothing other than france and russkies works fine for us?
For sure, yes because the IAF has hardware from both these makers (flankers/migs & M2ks). So far no problems in terms of heat and take offs. Jags too i guess. The EF-2K should be fine considering its reserve of excess power. I wonder how the Gripen will fare though - it surely does not have as much power as the 35, Rafale or EF-2K. But it is not as bulky as teens.
CM.
NRao wrote:They should have bought the M2k line long back.
MoD is very strange most of the time. Like I said it is only two-three Kargils a year, for 10 years, that can change them. Else they will be in la-la land all the time, shuffling files and waiting for retirement. Ok. Not that bad.
Cain Marko wrote:I would have thought that all planes need some amount of "cover", if not hangers at least cover the cockpit?
I have seen images of fighter cockpits being covered by gunny sack type materials, a good soaking would keep cockpit materials relatively in the shade and cool.
CM.
johnny_m wrote:Actually the Gripen is designed to operate amongst the elements (not hear rather snow and cold, then again neither was the Russian jets). It is designed to be hid among tree cover and operate from road strips.
for BVR not to mentionPhilip wrote:The MIG-35 with 3-D TVC and an AESA radar is a superior aircraft to even the highly upgraded and capable MIG-29K.In effect it is a smaller and should be cheaper version of the larger Flanker.A key factor will be what BVR missiles are mated with the radar to give the aircraft the key BVR advantage.As for strike roles,the Russians have a variety of missiles and ordnance that will suit the IAF,especially as comonality with ordnance on the SU-30MKIs is a bonus.
Rahul M wrote:baldev, info/link on r-74 please.
TIA.
Rahul M wrote:info/link on r-74 please.
Rahul M wrote:baldev, don't think anything comes close to the python-5 at the moment.
btw, the AIM-9X apparently has a 90 deg off boresight capability.
Philip wrote:The MIG-35 with 3-D TVC and an AESA radar is a superior aircraft to even the highly upgraded and capable MIG-29K. In effect it is a smaller and should be cheaper version of the larger Flanker. A key factor will be what BVR missiles are mated with the radar to give the aircraft the key BVR advantage.As for strike roles,the Russians have a variety of missiles and ordnance that will suit the IAF,especially as comonality with ordnance on the SU-30MKIs is a bonus.
Baldev wrote:for BVR not to mention
80km range fire and forget IR R27
110 km range fire and forget passive homing R27
110km range R77
for short distance 40km range R74 which outclasses all other short range IR missiles![]()
36T IR seeker on R27 locks on its target from 8NM
rajeshks wrote:Baldev wrote:for BVR not to mention
80km range fire and forget IR R27
110 km range fire and forget passive homing R27
110km range R77
for short distance 40km range R74 which outclasses all other short range IR missiles![]()
36T IR seeker on R27 locks on its target from 8NM
R27 is getting old. Is it a good idea to buy more R27 missiles?
rajeshks wrote:The main worry is Mig35 will inherit both strengths and weakness of larger Flanker, say RCS & weapons. Also will it give us any advantage incase of a conflict with china?
koti wrote:rajeshks wrote:The main worry is Mig35 will inherit both strengths and weakness of larger Flanker, say RCS & weapons. Also will it give us any advantage incase of a conflict with china?
As for the advantage.... In terms of numbers- Yes
In terms of quality- It has always been and Yes.
In terms of international support in case of a hostility - It doesn't matter at all. And Yes.
IAF is in no way inferior to PLAAF in terms of sophistication of equipment. The only disadvantage it has is with the numbers.
With the staggering difference in price for the aircraft, none justify their cost against a Mig-35.
And again, none of our adversaries have any thing comparable to APG-79 or such.
rajeshks wrote:But PLAAF knows the strengths and weakness of R73, R27 & R77. They might know how to jam R77 active seeker, how to break the radar lock etc etc.
Russian missile design house Vympel unveiled two previously classified air-to-air missiles (AAMs) at the show, the K-37 long-range active-radar-guided AAM and the K-74 infra-red-guided short-range missile.
The K-74 is a development of Vympel's R-73 (AA-11 Archer), with the main difference being an improved infra-red (IR)-seeker. Both have the same basic airframe.
The K-74 seeker has a maximum off-bore-sight angle of 60¹, compared to 40¹ for the basic R-73. The design bureau adds that, as a consequence of using the improved Arsenal design bureau IR seeker, maximum engagement range is improved by around 30%.
Along with an improved seeker design for the K-74 (the K designator denotes that it has yet to enter service with the Russian air force), Vympel says that it looked at alternative thrust-vector designs.
Three thrust-vector configurations were considered: the twin inceptors fitted to the basic R-73, an all-moving nozzle, and four independent inceptors.
While the four-inceptor design proved to be the lightest, it was also the least robust, and the all-moving nozzle suffered from hot-gas leakage through the spherical seal. Vympel opted to continue with the approach initially used on the R-73.
Work on the K-74 is understood to have begun in the mid-1980s. Vympel is also offering an upgrade which would take the K-74's improved IR seeker and marry it to an air-force inventory of R-73 airframes.
Vympel also displayed an R-73 with a laser fuze, and says that this variant is already in service with the Russian air force.
While the K-74 is likely eventually to enter the air force inventory, the future of Vympel's other debut weapon is in greater doubt.
The K-37 is the successor to the R-33 (AA-9 Amos) and was intended to provide the primary AAM armament of the upgraded Mikoyan MiG-31M Foxhound B. It is also likely to have been intended as the main armament of the intended successor to the MiG-31M, Mikoyan's Project 701. The MiG-31M, however, has effectively been cancelled.
Vympel and MAPO MIG are looking at retrofitting the K-37 to the variants of MiG-31 now in the Russian air-defence forces inventory. The design bureau says that no approach to the defence ministry will be made until after the planned integration of the air-defence forces with the air force has taken place.
The K-37 differs from the R-33 in having an active-radar seeker, rather than a semi-active one. The K-37 is also described by Vympel as a statically unstable aerodynamic design - the R-33 was stable.
Opting for a statically unstable design required a considerably more sophisticated flight-control system, but it means that the missile is considerably more manoeuvrable than the R-33.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/19 ... siles.html
rajeshks wrote:But PLAAF knows the strengths and weakness of R73, R27 & R77. They might know how to jam R77 active seeker, how to break the radar lock etc etc.
Baldev wrote:
missiles never gets old as long as its got good seeker and guidance don't forget AIM7 with upgrade still in production
koti wrote:.
I would welcome more technical explanation from anyone though.
sumshyam wrote:I thought every think has a shelf life....and also when we talk of upgrade ...I think it simply means that very thing is loosing foot with time..i.e. to get old...isn't that.....my friend..??
Baldev wrote:what is the technical proof that its loosing foot
johnny_m wrote:Something posted in the MRCA thread in keypublishing forums. Looks rather good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-_OWMDN64M
johnny_m wrote:Something posted in the MRCA thread in keypublishing forums. Looks rather good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-_OWMDN64M
koti wrote:rajeshks wrote:But PLAAF knows the strengths and weakness of R73, R27 & R77. They might know how to jam R77 active seeker, how to break the radar lock etc etc.
It is not that significant IMO.
In that case Pakis and through them PLAAF, IranAF, Syria etc should have be at a great advantage against Israeli AIM's.
I would welcome more technical explanation from anyone though.
better leave thinking with just logic and start thinking technically and even first year engg. student is mature enough to think technicallysumshyam wrote:Baldev wrote:what is the technical proof that its loosing foot
There is no need to have a technical proof..just logical....new technologies comes from the graveyards of old ones...it is like...you eat when you are hungry...!!!
and I am just a b.tech student....not yet mature enough to prove or disprove anything technically...but can you..??
Rahul M wrote:baldev, don't think anything comes close to the python-5 at the moment.
btw, the AIM-9X apparently has a 90 deg off boresight capability.
Baldev wrote:
no missile ever gets old with upgrades whether its AIM9/7 or R27 and this makes some logic.
koti wrote:rajeshks wrote:But PLAAF knows the strengths and weakness of R73, R27 & R77. They might know how to jam R77 active seeker, how to break the radar lock etc etc.
It is not that significant IMO.
In that case Pakis and through them PLAAF, IranAF, Syria etc should have be at a great advantage against Israeli AIM's.
I would welcome more technical explanation from anyone though.
nothing technical is available for free....sumshyam wrote:Baldev wrote:
no missile ever gets old with upgrades whether its AIM9/7 or R27 and this makes some logic.
My friend...Just read the two below...I think they will covey you my massage that every thing do have a life...!!!
http://www.deagel.com/news/Royal-Navys-Seawolf-Missiles-Life-Cycle-Extended-Through-at-Least-2017_n000004629.aspx
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA329324
As far as thinking technically concerns...I would like to say that don't leave in hypothetical paradise. What we have is just some news...nothing technical is available for free....!!!
Thinking technically is quite good...but believe me....even if given a hand on anything...we are talking of...we will not be able to understand all those.
Even HAL agrees to it....I think that is MOD do not go for 100% of ToT.....just because they can't consume all the technologies with their present state of understanding and also of infrastructure.
Regards.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests