The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
sanman wrote: ↑28 Sep 2024 00:08
Su-57 is not vaporware. We'd have to be able to evaluate Su-75 Checkmate and assess its suitability and viability before bringing it onboard.
No we do not. This is not a local sabzi mandi where you have touch everything before deciding "pau kilo" of that stuff. This is useless waste of time and national energy. F
We have to look at convergence (or at least non-divergence) of national interests. The Russians typically don't dangle stuff and then yank it away, like the Americans do.
Bhai saab, are you forgetting about the entire VIK carrier saga, the PAK-FA drama baazi?
Can you imagine if we'd tried to purchase an American CVN instead of the Gorshkov? We'd still be waiting for it today, after having seen it yanked away and re-dangled multiple times. And you'd be saying "don't worry, at least it's not Vaporware"
[/quote]
Theres no replacement to local efforts, else decade after decade you will roll out the same bikhari drama of "evaluashion". Russian hardware is gone, kaput, bye bye....the sooner babus like you realize its a waste of time and it's a million times better to focus on learning-testing-building-deploying local products the better we will be. Everything else is indeed vaporware.
Jay wrote: ↑02 Oct 2024 05:44
Theres no replacement to local efforts, else decade after decade you will roll out the same bikhari drama of "evaluashion". Russian hardware is gone, kaput, bye bye....the sooner babus like you realize its a waste of time and it's a million times better to focus on learning-testing-building-deploying local products the better we will be. Everything else is indeed vaporware.
We don't have an engine. We don't even make our own chips.
Generals will ensure we never develop an MIC. Never seen an officer corps so determined to ensure that its own country is never able to develop weapons of its own. This is traitorous behaviour
Jay wrote: ↑02 Oct 2024 05:44
Theres no replacement to local efforts, else decade after decade you will roll out the same bikhari drama of "evaluashion". Russian hardware is gone, kaput, bye bye....the sooner babus like you realize its a waste of time and it's a million times better to focus on learning-testing-building-deploying local products the better we will be. Everything else is indeed vaporware.
We don't have an engine. We don't even make our own chips.
And the solution is to lust after vaporware from sellers who are struggling to win a local conflict and who cannot even fullfill orders for their own fighting armies? wah bhai wah....badiya logic!
Jay wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 00:01
And the solution is to lust after vaporware from sellers who are struggling to win a local conflict and who cannot even fullfill orders for their own fighting armies? wah bhai wah....badiya logic!
Were you describing Russia or describing us?
But alright, even if we don't find Su-75 to be suitable, we should still study such platforms to see what we can learn.
Would you call it inferior to Rafale?
sanman wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 13:48
...
But alright, even if we don't find Su-75 to be suitable, we should still study such platforms to see what we can learn.
...
Jay wrote: ↑03 Oct 2024 00:01
And the solution is to lust after vaporware from sellers who are struggling to win a local conflict and who cannot even fullfill orders for their own fighting armies? wah bhai wah....badiya logic!
Were you describing Russia or describing us?
But alright, even if we don't find Su-75 to be suitable, we should still study such platforms to see what we can learn.
Would you call it inferior to Rafale?
Inferior to Rafael or not can be decided only when the product is not vaporware. Forget su-75, Russia doesn't even use the su-57 in Ukraine although a stealth fighter is what you need to attach enemy positions.
Manish_P wrote: ↑04 Oct 2024 07:00
Might as well take one F35 while we are at it. Study that as well.
Good preparation for the exam. Study all subjects. Even those which are out of the syllabus.
Manish ji very funny. So India needs to learn about what Dr. Bevilaqua achieved in terms of aircraft, engine, etc. Bharat has its own skunkworks?
Bala sir, extending some of the thinking process here we ought to get one piece of each type - Gripen, Typhoon, F18, F35, F22,...
I would like to humbly suggest that it might be even better if we get one each of the J-10, J-11, J-20 ityaadi... much better to study what the enemy has got
Bharat has no skunks i think. We can have the Nevala-works.
The very definition of skunk works is basically unauthorized shadow research program, like what is usually called as shadow IT in body shopping world. Asking if we have skunk works is just sad…
Manish_P wrote: ↑05 Oct 2024 11:16
Bharat has no skunks i think. We can have the Nevala-works.
<pls. excuse my feeble efforts at a rant>
Manish_P ji understand your humor and I am completely with you about chasing other aircrafts in the world.
I just pointed out whether we in Bharat have the wherewithal for Deep Research and deep pockets for aircraft development. And also the requisite infra to support it. India is doing appropriate development based on its needs and capability, it will grow over time.
Pravula wrote:The very definition of skunk works is basically unauthorized shadow research program, like what is usually called as shadow IT in body shopping world. Asking if we have skunk works is just sad
I suggest you read up on Lockheed Martin's skunkworks. It is not "unauthorized shadow research program". On the contrary it is the best of R&D wherein a highly capable team is given a mission and they accomplish 80% of the requirements in a short period of time. Shadow IT does not come close to the above.
Also do read up on Dr. Bevilaqua, architect of F-35 fame.
https://x.com/Saturnax1/status/1846425568121966967 ---> Northern Fleet Project 949A Antey/Oscar II Class SSGN Orel (K-266) in the Project 7454-class floating dry dock PD-50. Note the cruciform vortex attenuators.
Please drag and drop these pictures into a new browser window for full size.
https://x.com/Volke__/status/1853538803715121571 ---> With Su-57 in China and more specifically the T-50-4 and T-50-7 in Zhuhai, me a humble tank guy is here to remind "experts" that it was known for years that T-50s were rough, and serial Su-57s had much better fit and finish.
https://x.com/Volke__/status/1853538807146287371 ---> We got an especially good look at how much better the fit and finish is on serial Su-57s during visit of Kim Jong Un at UAC. You can see how smooth Su-57 is compared to Su-35S in the background.
https://x.com/Volke__/status/1853538811000627613 ---> As the visit of the great leader had to be properly archived, we also got closeup pictures, that show more of the better fit and finish of the serial aircraft compared to the T-50 prototypes.
https://x.com/Volke__/status/1853538817053262030 ---> Frankly speaking, it's concerning that experts that should point out to people that what we see in Zhuhai are abused and run through prototypes, just go on and create some fake perception that the planes that are in China are the serial aircraft with bad fit and finish.
I am posting Part 10 of my blog series on the Ukraine war, as it cites the Kiel report, which is an update on Russian armments production during the war (compared to losses).
https://x.com/Varun55484761/status/1857004917270978668 ---> In a surprise interview with Russia 1 television, the head of Rosoboronexport, Alexander Mikheev, confirmed that the first contract for the export of the Su-57 has been signed. Although the buyer’s identity remains strictly confidential.
Rakesh wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 21:22https://x.com/Varun55484761/status/1857004917270978668 ---> In a surprise interview with Russia 1 television, the head of Rosoboronexport, Alexander Mikheev, confirmed that the first contract for the export of the Su-57 has been signed. Although the buyer’s identity remains strictly confidential.
Rakesh wrote: ↑14 Nov 2024 21:22https://x.com/Varun55484761/status/1857004917270978668 ---> In a surprise interview with Russia 1 television, the head of Rosoboronexport, Alexander Mikheev, confirmed that the first contract for the export of the Su-57 has been signed. Although the buyer’s identity remains strictly confidential.
Algeria iirc
Yes that is what the rumour mill is. Let's see if that is true.
https://x.com/Firezstarter1/status/1856265903601504765 ---> 7,800 km with 2 IFR is in the same ballpark as a Su-30MKI which achieves 8,000 km under the same conditions. What may make the Su-57 superior, is if it does so with it's 6 AAMs payload, apart from it's obviously better transonic, supersonic range performance.
Stealth being an important consideration in the design of Su-57; would necessitate internal weapons bay. This would lead to increase in fuselage volume and hence shape/form factor. Result, increase in drag due to fuselage and probably a lower platform L/D ratio (compared to Su-27 series), which would impact on performance including range. Su-57 fuselage ain't sleek or can generate some lift unlike Su-27 family or MiG-29 fighters. I would say that with the stealth constraints, they have maintained around same range performance as Su-30 is quite good. They have been able to achieve same range as Su-30 because Su-57 is designed to cruise in supersonic. And this is with AL-41F engine...once the newer AL-51 series arrives on the Su-57M series, for which Russians are targeting a 30% fuel efficiency increase, the range of Su-57M should increase.
Russian Offer to India for Tu-223M (my favourite aerial strike platform)
Tu-223M can carry 6 brahmos type missiles, compared to Tu-160 which can carry 15
(sounds great)
Tu-223M offers more range than our fighter-bomber aircraft
(a lot more range)
Tu-223M only makes sense for Indian naval defense, not for IAF / land attack role
(that's fine by me)
Bombers are more expensive and more difficult to maintain
(yes, but we have to graduate to more complex aerial platforms than fighters)
(also, Tu-223M is less complex or maintenance-heavy than Tu-160)
Cyrano wrote: ↑17 Nov 2024 23:45
Don't bombers need fighter escorts? What would be our escorts of choice? LCAs with refuelings?
Rafales and mki along with carrier borne fighters will be the only ones capable of providing any meaningful escort to these beasts. They really don't need escorts though, being supersonic with very long legs. Can go very long distances, fire long ranged missiles and get out very fast. Excellent for sanitizing ior space as needed. And of course very useful to unload insane tonnage once air defenses have been neutralized. Perfect shock n awe type and anti shipping platform. A could of squads won't hurt.
Tu-22M3 has long (reasonably) legs only when sub-sonic and/or midflight refueled. Brahmos (at least 4 of them) will have to be carried on external HP, preventing supersonic flight. 22M2 and 22M3 were designed for subsonic cruise and supersonic dash with single AS-4 (X-22) or AS-6 (KSR-5) ASM carried semi-recessed in bomb bay. With 2 AS-6 under the wings added, it was limited to subsonic flight.
May be this was discussed before, but in which scenario is a long range supersonic bomber really relevant for India's needs? We can cover all of Pak with our missiles and fighters. Targets in China are increasingly within range of our missiles. A bomber will be detected and intercept will be attempted by China and the distances to mainland China make it eminently possible and make it a risky gamble.
Somehow I feel investing the money in getting more N subs into our fleet and get sea denial capability not just in IOR but indo-China sea is a far better option.
Cyrano wrote: ↑18 Nov 2024 15:13
May be this was discussed before, but in which scenario is a long range supersonic bomber really relevant for India's needs? We can cover all of Pak with our missiles and fighters. Targets in China are increasingly within range of our missiles. A bomber will be detected and intercept will be attempted by China and the distances to mainland China make it eminently possible and make it a risky gamble.
Somehow I feel investing the money in getting more N subs into our fleet and get sea denial capability not just in IOR but indo-China sea is a far better option.
Or may be I'm missing something...
I do agree by and large.
At the same time, is it just china and pakistan ?.. I think there are potentially few more players we need to be alert. I also think we do need LR strategic bombers - to tame/contain these "potentials". Even just possessing them will send right signals to enemies and un-friendly countries beyond pakistan and china.
With some of these machines, chances of Trudeau, Erdogan and likes, fooling around is very much less.
Importantly, USA is unfriendly to India therefore will never-ever be in India's friend.
Strength respects strength. So we can become more stronger by having few of LR bombers - in the absence of few respectable-sized CBGs.
How does it matter even if the strike is non nooklear? The launches will be detected by NATO radars that can't tell what warheads are on the missiles, and they will launch their riposte/second strike assuming they are nook tipped coz they are coming from Russia.
Cyrano wrote: ↑02 Dec 2024 00:37
How does it matter even if the strike is non nooklear? The launches will be detected by NATO radars that can't tell what warheads are on the missiles, and they will launch their riposte/second strike assuming they are nook tipped coz they are coming from Russia.
At the very least, it would put any "No First Use" policy to the test.
How do you practice "No First Use" against an enemy who can cripple you without a "first use"?
I think we should assume that China would develop their own Oreshnik capability.
We should therefore be developing our own as well.
https://x.com/NewsIADN/status/1862795465214906527 ---> Old MIG-15 engines are being reused by Russian Forces to melt down snow from airfields and aircraft carriers by fitting them into heavy trucks.
