Not sure if this was posted before, but did anybody noticed a hole below the tail fin? Looks like some kind of air intake too me, what do you guys think?

Doesn’t look like the air comes out at the back, so it must be related to the engine right? Cooling maybe?

Absolute beauty. I still prefer the forward swept wing.

Can anyone tell me why berkut was not selected (technical parameters vis the current model).

Rafael will display the Spike NLOS – ATGM for helicopters, LCV and naval vessels at Def expo 2010

In addition, Rafael will display its Air and Missile Defense Systems
• Spyder SR/MR – Short and medium range air defense system
• Iron Dome – Defense against short range artillery rockets
• Barak – Naval air defense missile system

Eurofighter Typhoon trumps F-15 :dev2:

The 111 Squadron of the Spanish Air Force as well as the 493rd Squadron of the U.S. Air Force were deployed for training in Gando Air Base, Gran Canaria. The Spanish Squadron attended the training with a total of six Eurofighter Typhoons. The U.S. Air Force deployed F-15s.

In an interview on the exercise, Major Juan Balesta, the 41-year old Commander of the 111 Squadron stressed that a two-ship formation of Eurofighters involved in a dogfight simulation “against” the F-15s enjoyed full control of the engagement. The Typhoons managed to smash a formation of eight F-15s which had the role of the attacker with the first Eurofighter jet managing to “shoot down” four F-15 fighter jets. The second Eurofighter managed to disable three F-15 jets. Eventually the pilots were using the Eurofighter Typhoon to full capacity and taking advantage of its enormous capabilities. Trump that.

Gentleman, you can now begin name calling.

Why don’t the Europeans just walk away if they do not like it. They won’t because there is nothing that is comparable to the F 35 in their stables capability wise.

You don’t know? Eurofighter beat F-22 everytime it met. lets us see when F-35 comes along 😉

IMO, they just want the shell + engine and cram it with own electronics.

A plane is sold on its merit? Isn’t it more of politics?

Zero

A mass nuclear attack is extacly what Pakistan antcipates. I dont doubt in the future countermeasures may be devloped, but then counter measures to the countermeasures will be developed, such is the history of warfare.

I agree, Pakistan will face annhiliation in a Nuclear war. I would nevr even debate that, but the point if detterence is that even if India survives, here may not be much left worth surviving for.

As for what the world will allow, tragically for both nations if may be too late.

My end point to this debate, is there is no safe full proof defence in place against a Pakistani mass missile attack.

Actually, New Delhi does not anticipate mass attack. hence, they are developing defenses according to that. 4 missiles per target is not mass. It is a common scenario if it comes to that.

Anyway, thanks for the debate.

There is no strategic partnership between Russia and India. It was purely based on having export customer for products so Russians could develop something. If Russia was strategic it would have invested in India not sold to India. 🙂

Those days they did not. Now look at FGFA, MTA, Akulas, Brahmos etc. Slowly the relation ship is changing.

Here something that explains more of destable area called Asia.

>>>For the past 63 years, South Asia has remained in a state of tension. The eight countries that make up this geopolitically sensitive region do not share a friendly and harmonious relationship with each other. This is despite their efforts to come on a single platform of Saarc to develop a major economic and political bloc. All smaller countries were enthusiastic about this model of cooperation to succeed in gaining progress and getting rid of pervasive poverty. But in the end it just collapsed.

Show me areas which don’t remain in the state of tension. There are tensions of various degrees.

All these countries have a closely interwoven history and common ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious heritage but still they failed. It happened because all the contiguous states on India’s periphery are fearful of its hegemonic designs and its policy to dominate and dictate.

On the contrary, the entire south Asia remains stable inspite of so much difference.

In case of India and Pakistan, given the historical divide between Hindus and Muslims, it is understandable that a certain amount of acrimony and distrust would impact their relationship. Instead of accepting Pakistan’s emergence in 1947 as a reality and resolving bilateral disputes in a spirit of understanding, India adopted a belligerent course. The resulting discord and three wars have plagued their relationship to this day, both countries diverting huge and precious financial resources to defence and development of nuclear weapons.

Even if Indo-Pakistan relationship is set aside for a moment as one of peculiar nature and even if Pakistan is presumed to be responsible for all the wicked behaviour, the question arises why do other countries of the region find it so difficult to forge a closer relationship with India? Why is it that India has failed to evoke trust and confidence among its neighbours to make any worthwhile collaboration impossible, including Saarc? Isn’t it time for hostilities to give way to a congenial environment among South Asian neighbours too?

Historical divide between Hindus and Muslims? Actually, Hindus and Muslims live very well in India. This sounds as if India has conquered every one and kept them under toes like Tibet has been. SAARC failure is due to India? Anything verifiable?

The fact is that for regional alliances, political or economic, to succeed it is imperative for all stakeholders to treat each other as equals, irrespective of their size or strength. This comes with respecting each other’s sovereignty, willingness to set aside political differences and showing a degree of flexibility to promote a common cause. In case of South Asia, this has not happened. India has disputes with almost every neighbour, which has strained their relationships for years at end.

Only India has because India has common boundary with all SAARC nations. others don’t have. There is no example where other SAARC states have common boundaries and live peacefully.

In Sri Lanka, India overtly and covertly supported the insurgency against the state by LTTE, a nationalist Tamil group in the northern Jaffna region of this small island country, which kept it politically and economically destabilised for decades. In the end, India paid a price for interference when its prime minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was assassinated by a Tamil activist for having betrayed the movement.

He conveniently forgets Indian troops helped Sri lanka by suppressing the maoist take over. LTTE was definitely Indian backed. At the same time, Sri Lanka also was doing everything anti Indian. Sri Lanka even helped Pakistan to connect to East pakistan in 1971 (right after India supressed the maoist in Sri Lanaka).

With Bangladesh it is locked in an unresolved dispute over Farakka barrage that deprives Bangladesh of its water share. Despite the gratitude Bangladesh owes to India for having militarily dismembered Pakistan in 1971 to midwife its birth, relations between the two have often sunk to the rock bottom on a host of issues, including border dispute.

Relations have been engineered by Islamist disrupters. Farakka dispute is just one? is the problem just one sided? Bangladesh has nothing to contribute?

The tiny mountain state of Nepal has complained of persistent Indian dictation and interference in its internal affairs. That India employs economic blockades and manipulates transit facilities to this poor landlocked country for arm twisting is no secret.

We are in the middle of maoist take over in Nepal. One economic blocade, e mentions. What about huge Indian investments in Nepal, the equipment for their armed forces etc?

Although not a part of South Asia, China’s relations with India for decades have remained frosty, at best. They went to war in 1962 over a border dispute. Competing for regional leadership, it does not hesitate to antagonise China by hoisting Dalai Lama off and on to keep the issue of Tibet alive. Lately, having aligned itself with America to contain China, India is bargaining for a tense Sino-Indian relationship in the years to come.

China’s relations with all its neighbors is frosty. Antagonise china? China is something superior? So India should melt away when China comes? And this legitimizes the Chinese occupation of the peaceful monks. India should have left he monks, so that they could have been butchered by Chinese. he write all this for the sake of proving his point?

With Pakistan, India maintains the worst of relations mainly because of Pakistan’s political and military standing and its ability to reject Indian domination. Outstanding disputes including Kashmir, water distribution, dams that India constructs in violation Indus Water Treaty and border issues have remained unresolved.

What about Pakistan’s running over of Afghanistan with taliban? Just because India is a democracy, Pakistanis are allowed to say all that. let pakistan try those tricks with Iran and see what Iranians will do to them.

By joining the American bandwagon in Afghanistan and positioning its troops in the name of infrastructure development, India created enough concerns for Pakistan. But by its collusion with CIA and Mossad to take out Pakistan’s nuclear assets through subversion in Fata, the NWFP and other areas using the militants of Tehrik-i-Taliban, India is slamming shut the door on the peace process that Pakistan has been persistently trying to keep open ever since 1947. With a history of constant endeavours to balkanise Pakistan, Indian military build up in Afghanistan is seen by Pakistan’s military as an effort to put it in a nutcracker.

That growing Indian influence in Afghanistan is a destabilising factor in the region, is acknowledged even by Gen McChrystal in his recent review of the war in Afghanistan. The make and types of sophisticated weapons, communications equipment and satellite pictures of troop movements recovered from the militants provide undeniable evidence about Indian involvement.

Mr. Ehsanullah Aryanzai, advisor to the Afghan regime has said that India is using Afghan soil to conduct anti-Pakistan activities. The executive editor of ‘News Indian Express’ has acknowledged the evidence of Indian activities in Balochistan in the issue of July 31, 2009. And evidence was recently handed over by Pakistani prime minister to his Indian counterpart.

yes, building roads, parliament building, aid, military training it definitely causes headache to Pakistan. This writer makes us believe that if India helps Afghanistan, Pakistani interest gets hurt. he gives away the fact, Pakistan does has interest in Afghanistan which India does not allow to fructify. This is an open admission that Pakistan meddles in Afghanistan.

The Indian psyche that breeds arrogance and expansionism is clear from the words of Pundit Nehru, India’s first prime minister, who said ‘India must dominate or perish’. Perish it will not. So dominate it must. To Hindu extremists, all others on this land are aliens who do not belong there and this includes Muslims and Christians. This justifies the commonly witnessed ethnic cleansing of non-Hindus and leads to the ultimate dream of the creation of Vrihata Bharat — a Greater India.

To ensure that this fatherland is reunited under Hindu rule, India pursues designs of expanding its boundaries to eventually include Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, and Bhutan and create the huge Indian empire.

It would be very naive not to see the direction towards which India is headed. Far from becoming the sole ruler of the entire Indian Ocean, India is destabilising South Asia and working its way towards its own disintegration. This is not only because it is surrounding itself with angry and insecure neighbours, but also due to its troubles at home.

He quotes some nationalistic element in India. He ignores rest of India which is galloping towards growth and prosperity.