quadbikeI see your point and i am sure the IAF would love to have the X-47 or neuron but i think at this stage they are fishing, they have sat around and asked for a wide margin of items. What actually gets offered up and what can be afforded will be different.
i read the list but obviously saw it in a different light
Yes they are obviously fishing, then again IN sent RFI for a naval fighter which would only be needed in the 2020s. May be IAF is only looking at the capability in the same time frame, forget the X-47, chances are Dassault and Europeans in general would do business especially if its a big order.
quadbikeIt is reliable. Good deal for SAAB.
quadbikeRead the bit which says internal weapons carriage.
Page 3, Part 3. Payloads – Internal weapons bay.
quadbikeIf you read the RFI it is not MQ-9 alternative they want. They want a stealthy UCAV something like nEUROn or X47.
quadbikeWho will sell Stealthy UCAVs to India ?
IAF Floats UCAV Procurement Bid
The Indian Air Force has published a request for information (RFI) for an unspecified number of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). The IAF says it’s looking for a modern high-endurance single/twin engine stealthy UCAV, with a satellite data link and an internal weapons payload, in other words just like AURA, India’s indigenous UCAV programme. Trying to figure who they could’ve sent the RFI to.Full text of RFI with perimeter specs:
quadbikeSounding rocket developed at VITU
Students of the VIT University, Vellore, have developed Rohini-200 (RH200), a sounding rocket, in collaboration with the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
The sounding rocket — an instrument-carrying rocket designed to take measurements and perform experiments during its sub-orbital flight — will be launched from the Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS), Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram, on July 7.
“This will be the first sounding rocket in India that carries a payload developed solely by students,” states a VIT release.
Ramakrishnan, former Director (Projects), VSSC mooted this idea, and a team headed by mechanical engineering students Dev Sharma and Sunayan Kumar, and comprising Manish Kumar Narnoli and Gautam Alok (Mechanical Engineering), Himanshu Misra (Electrical and Electronics Engineering), Chandresh Mittal (EEE), Ankit Sharma (Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering), and Nitesh Kumar (Electronics and Communication Engineering) and their mentor Geetha Manivasagam, Professor of Mechanical Engineering developed the rocket.
VIT University has fully funded the project and also plans for the second phase, which will include fabrication of the entire rocket with advanced payloads.
The team fabricated the payload and other components for the sounding rocket, which were continuously reviewed by B.V.A. Rao, Advisor to the Chancellor of VIT University, T. Rao, Director, Academic Research, VIT, Rashmi Ranjan Das of VIT, Panciker, Scientist, VSSC and Ratnakar Rao, Project Director (Sounding Rocket, VSSC). The launch of the sounding rocket developed by VIT students would be the 52nd launch of a sounding rocket from TERLS, the release said.
quadbikeTwo Navy submarines collide at Mumbai jetty
Nearly 160 sailors and officers on board two Indian Navy attack submarines had a lucky escape when their vessels collided at a Mumbai [ Images ] harbour jetty while one of them was attempting parallel berthing with the other.
There was no injury to any Navy personnel or major damage to the vessels during the incident that occurred 10 days ago, with Navy officers at the headquarters in New Delhi [ Images ] describing the incident as minor.
“It is a minor incident that took place 10 days ago. A submarine was attempting a parallel berthing alongside another, which is a routine practice, at the Navy jetty in the Mumbai harbour,” said a Navy officer.
The Navy has ordered a board of inquiry into the mishap involving the two vessels — INS Sindukesari and Sindhuratna — in which they suffered minor damages.
One of the two submarines involved in the mishap had recently returned after a refit in Russia [ Images ]. Since there was no damage to any equipment or weapon system, the Navy said a minor repair to the submarine would be carried out locally.
But officers who did not want to be identified said the rudder of one of the vessels was damaged, requiring a minor repair. Though officially the Navy refused to respond to queries on the incident, officers said these types of minor incidents do take place regularly when attempting parallel berthing.
quadbikeAnd the MiG-29K flew in 1989? Why must every discussion always end in a pojntless contest on which fraction makes the best fighter.
The MiG 29A or C are the versions relevant to the discussion.
No he was claiming that the current MIG 29 radars can only claim parity with APG 73 and that Zhuk ME did not exist. Clearly reading of some old book.
quadbikeI doubt there will ever be a Block 70+ F 16. The F 16 IN offered to the IAF for MRCA is basically a Block 60 with a different EW suite. UAE is more likely to go for F 35 than upgrading their 60s to 70+ standards.
The only scenario in which there will be an advanced F 16 ie better than Block 60 is it winning the MRCA and then having an MLU down the line for the IAF. May be India will have a lot more money by then and replace them with F 35s as well !
quadbikeActually no. The IN MIG 29Ks are already operational with the ZHUK ME radar.
Its Wiki but it has source to its links.
1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K
2, http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Galleries/AirArm/BlackPanthers/
3, On IAF MIG 29A UPG – http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/11/iafs-mig-29upg-upgrade-package-detailed.html
There are more links if you want. Stop living in the 90s. !
quadbike^^^
Wonderful post exactly the point I was making. Peace time operations and more flight hours are just as important.
quadbikeAgreed FBW brings Fulcrums fully into 4th gen but then there’s still the matter of avionics, it needs a zhuk based radar set not these rebuilt 70s sapphires it uses. But that idea was cancelled back with the old 9-15 so all they’re going to get is phazetron rebuilds of the sapphire sets from the MiG-23, bringing the topaz basically up to 90s US/NATO standards finally but still a generation behind the current F-16 radar for example.
There is already a Zhuk radar on offer the Zhuk ME in INs 29KS and ZHuk M/2 in the MIG 29As after upgradation. Both sets are comparable to APG 68 v(9) in performance.
quadbikeCheck the example of teer, where he shows that a fully loaded Rafale could have a RCS of 5m2 and the MKI with similar load up to 22m2. This is a huge difference and be it a fighter radar, or AWACS, both will detect the MKI far earlier than the Rafale, or other MMRCAs. You can’t reduce the RCS of the MKI to similar figures, the size alone will be a limiting factor here and although it might be less a problem in A2A, where it can counter this with its own long range radar, in strike missions in enemy airspace it is a clear disadvantage (especially in our neighborhood)!
Fair enough !
The Rafale carries no anti radiation missile yet, it strikes the SAMs with GPMs instead of destroying the radars, which is a different strategy in SEAD and as exercises like ATLC, or Red Flag showed, its doing it very effectively. Better detection of ground targets with normal Spectra EWS than dedicated SEAD fighters, excellent survivability in the strike role, because of its avionics.
If we talk about A2G weapons, the MKI has good heavy A2G weapons, but it lacks capabilties in some fields too. KAB PGMs for example are only available in 500Kg, or 1500Kg class, in the lower classes it uses dumb bombs only. It also has no cruise missile yet and even when Brahmos arrives, only 1 can be carried, because it is too big and heavy.
Most MMRCA instead offers a variety of lighter A2G weapons, as well as the capability to carry more cruise missiles (even the normal Gripen can carry up to 2 Taurus, or Scalp if I’m not wrong).
The MKI did decently in Red Flag as well. As for Rafale doing well without ARM, it is a clear disadvantage because unlike the F 22/F 35 it does not have shaped stealth to almost guarantee it will get into PGM range unchallenged by Air defences. It could find it hard to negate S 300/400s or their Chinese equals.
Yes MKI has its disadvantages, then again I am not pitching particularly for the MKI here. Basically I am for a single engined fighter and Gripen comes with standoff capability as well, but both Taurus and SCALP will be range limited to comply with MTCR whilst F 16 already has lower ranged standoff weapons.
You are focusing to much on the twin engines, but twin engine in heavy class is not equal to twin engine in medium class. All MMRCAs should be clearly cheaper to operate than the MKI.
I do believe that we should focus to improve MKI, to keep it as out main air superiority figher (Bars AESA, RCS reduction, more compsites to reduce weight and the S117 engines) till Pak Fa / FGFA arrives, but we need to focus on the strike role of IAF too. Neither the upgraded M2Ks, Jaguar, nor the MKI will be as good as Rafale, or F18SH and
would be good additions on the lower end.
I calculate class on the basis of payload capability and Rafale is therefore a heavy fighter. Yes Rafale should still be cheaper to operate than the MKI but does it still justify its higher procurement cost.
At the moment the F 16 can do all jobs that Rafale can do, it has lesser range and payload capability but then you can buy nearly two F 16s for the price. The Gripen on the other hand is not as proven but should offer the cheapest lifecycle cost and won’t be as expensive to procure either.
So they are not looking for the cheapest option as a stop gap only (which rules out the Mig 35 completely), but aims on a long term acquistion that can pay back a higher unit costs through cheaper life-cycle cost, or other benefits.
They are looking for both and estimating how much they would be spending during the lifetime of the MRCA. To borrow Austin’s argument from an earlier thread (he did supporting MIG 35), the MIG, Gripen and F 16 should still be significantly cheaper over all even if Rafale has best lifecycle cost (unlikely against Gripen) because of the huge difference in procurement costs.
quadbikeIts Lockheed which offered. If F 35 is selected the choice will depend on two things.
a, Will the IN IAC 2 have EMALS.
OR in case if IAC 2 is STOBAR
b, Can the F 35 C take off with as big a payload as the B from a STOBAR carrier
quadbikeSpace cooperation with India vitally important, says US
Recognising the emergence of new spacefaring nations like India, President Barack Obama focuses on international cooperation on issues ranging from controlling space junk to national-security projects in his new national space policy.
In a marked departure from his predecessor George Bush’s unilateral approach, the new policy seeks to significantly expand space cooperation with other countries ‘to the greatest extent practicable’ in designing, executing and sharing data from future programmes.
Focusing on international issues such as arms control in space, the policy unlike Bush expresses the administration’s willingness to ‘consider’ arms control agreements in space.
In rolling out the new approach, Peter Marquez, a senior National Security Council official, said ‘cooperation with India is vitally important’ and some discussions already have broached cooperation in civilian as well as national-security arenas.
The US greatly values India’s emergence as a global player in space and research and aims to deepen its cooperation with India in the field of space, a White House official said noting has a ‘very space friendly’ programme.
In March 2010, a US space agency NASA radar experiment aboard Chandrayaan-1, India’s first lunar spacecraft launched by the Indian Space Research Organisation in October 2008, found thick deposits of water-ice near the Moon’s North Pole.
Noting that priorities have changed because the US is no longer ‘racing against an adversary’ such as the former Soviet Union, Obama stressed that ‘one of our central goals is to promote peaceful cooperation and collaboration’ as a way to prevent conflicts in space.
‘All nations have the right to use and explore space,’ according to the policy document, but the US ‘calls on all nations to work together to adopt approaches’ to reduce risks and responsibly share the benefits.
Obama’s policy also carries a warning that Washington will use ‘a variety of measures’ to deter or respond to attacks on US space systems or those of US allies ‘consistent with the inherent right of self defence.’
Developed after a year of deliberations among US officials and consultation with allies, the latest principles represent ‘a bold departure from previous space policies’ under Bush, according to Barry Pavel, another senior NSC official.
The increased emphasis on international approaches to a range of space-related issues reflects growth in the number of countries relying on satellites in space for communications, navigation, disaster-relief coordination, as well as national security.
Sign In
