FedaykinIndia doesn’t need one today but in another 10 years for sure. Seem like a long time off but its just around the corner for a fighter. As it takes years from the time aircraft are ordered to construction to in service date! So, in my opinion India is running out of time fast…………
Well what do you expect the Indian navy to do?
1) Buy F-35? – Unlikely that they would have any to induct for at least ten years.
2) Buy naval PAK-FA/derivative? – A twinkle in Sukhoi’s eye as it stands. Certainly will be available until well into the next decade.
3) Develop a stealthy carrier fighter themselves? – They haven’t even got Naval Tejas in service yet.
India is in the process of modernising their carrier force, Mig-29 was available off the shelf and was affordable. Even if they decided to push now for a stealthy alternative it won’t see service for a t least a decade or more with the Indian navy. The Mig-29 is more then adequate regionally for the next ten to fifteen years giving time to make a decision on what next generation type they want and how to configure their carriers to operate it. Lets not forget the carriers and their configuration, Vikramaditya and Vikrant are configured to operate Mig-29 with STOBAR operations. More then likely F-35B could operate off them as if but F-35C might be too heavy for the arrestor gear if they were looking at STOBAR operations with that type.
Frankly there are too many variables to be berating the Indian navy for making the decision to operate STOBAR Mig-29 which are more then adequate for their needs.
FedaykinThis video explains all:
FedaykinYou mean I put Peters nose out of joint! 🙂
Flip whata-mistaka-to-makea!
FedaykinThe biggest problem with the notion of F-22 for Australia was always that we couldn’t afford it.
The biggest problem was it wasn’t for sale at any price as mandated by Congressional law. Even Japan who effectively offered more money then the US DOD was paying for what would of been a downgraded F-22 were politely refused.
FedaykinI realise you are splitting hairs here but nuclear battery’s or to give there more accurate name “Radioisotope thermoelectric generator” are nothing new and have been used on the moon by the Americans during the Apollo program for their “Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP)” from 1969. The “Mars Curiosity ROVER” used one in 2011 when it landed on Mars.
Look I’m sure when it it reported in the Chinese press and discussed on your local blogosphere it is blown into a huge unique achievment but in reality it is China just catching up with what others have done decades ago. Show me some radical new development based on Chinese R&D before you start the trash talk about technology that everybody else has mastered long ago.
FedaykinGoldust, no the UK couldn’t independently land a Rover on the Moon at the moment. The UK could build the Rover as a number of companies specialise in that technology in the UK and have been doing it far longer then China has. If the UK did want to do it independently then we could certainly do it with suitable investment, the UK has a full understanding of launcher technology and built working rockets that could launch a payload decades ago. We decided instead to invest in the European Space Agency and piggy back our technology on other peoples launchers including yours. The decision to not have a domestic launcher capability bares no relation to having the ability to do it if we set our minds (and money to it). I am impressed that China will be doing as such but it doesn’t make me jealous as it is an area that the UK has prior established experience.
Look I understand that you want to show that China has joined the Western world with advanced technology programs, I am not going to go around saying that China has overtaken the West in aerospace and advanced technology in general without any evidence of the case.
Crowing over the fact that China will land a probe on the Moon when it represents something others achieved long ago and the UK could do if it so wanted to invest money that way is Childish.
FedaykinOf course there will still be the issue of the Sorpe dam. The one that the film quietly down plays!
FedaykinA compromise solution was put forward in the end over the Source code issue, an international integration centre in America that will handle rush jobs for system integration. I actually honestly understand why in a commercial sense America might not want key source code revealed even to allies. There was certainly a lot of posturing by both sides, we were never going to cancel considering the amount of R&D and manufacturing in respect of the F-35 that the UK participates in.
Recently the Norwegians got their way over the integration of when of their missiles on the F-35 so America is hardly blocking integration of foreign weapons if it helps keep the program cohesive. The reality is the vast majority of customers will have a very US centric weapons package so the odd different national weapon is no big deal. As for avionics, F-35 is a quantum leap so I don’t actually see a great need to integrate different national systems. Even Israel is not getting the usual heavy integration of local kit. To be honest I prefer our examples being as close as possible to US production blocks to keep costs down.
FedaykinI did back tracking for my own entertainment. Carlo joined the forum on the 2nd of January 2012, made exactly 52 posts and made his last contribution on the 2nd of February 2012. Hi profile name was Horde and he made no friends according to the stats.
I must admit I did put his nose out of joint, I reponded to one of his first posts not realising that he was Carlo Kopp by pointing out that the stuff on the APA website has to be taken with a pinch of salt…that upset him a bit 😉
Taken from his profile, his occupation section made me chuckle considering he has made that title up for himself:
Basic Information
About Horde
Biography:
Aerospace/Flight Test/Engineering Intuit who loves life, fine foods & wines, music & dance and those with whom I share such fare. Have no time for those who practice the B-Word. They are the biggest threat to us all.
Location:
Adelaide – best kept secret in all of Australia.
Interests:
Windsurfing, Fishing, Tennis, the four letter word (Golf), Music, Innovative Design, and Poker & other strategem activities.
Occupation:
Co-Founder, Head of T&E and Associate Editor, Air Power Australia (http://www.ausairpower.net) ; IV&V/T&E Principal Consultant
FedaykinOh he certainly isn’t being paid by Lockheed Martin, actually they regard him as a pain as well.
As Thobbes says he is a bit overly enthusiastic on the subject of F-22.
FedaykinI need to go to bed.
Strange man.
FedaykinJ-10B jets piloted by Chinese pilots would smash F-16E jets by piloted by UAE pilots, and this is not only because J-10B is more advanced than F-16E.
Nice slightly racist trash talk but of not much use. The UAE participated in Red-Flag 2011 with their F-16 Block 60, everything I have read on that visit states they were capable and professional. Considering you can’t even decide if it has a PESA or AESA radar again you can’t categorically state the J-10B is more advanced. It is potentially advanced but until we learn more it is purely speculation. On the other hand what is installed in the Block 60 is public domain, the systems installed are cutting edge in respect of the US aerospace industry. Actually I have heard the Block 60 described as an F-16 with the electronic guts or an F-35.
FedaykinJ-10B is around Mach 2, armed with PL-12. We know it’s a deadly plane
J-10B can fly up to Mach-2, that is nice. How is that exciting or radical? America and France were making combat jets doing that in the 1950’s! It’s armed with the PL-12, great! What is its performance in comparison to the AMRAAM or MICA? Oh yes we don’t know. We do know that America and France have been producing Active Radar Air to Air missiles longer then China.
J-10B has at least PESA, most likely AESA.
So you don’t even know if its a PESA or an AESA. In other words you have no clue about its performance vs anything else.
It has digital quadruplex FBW far more advanced than the ones on Taiwan’s F-16 and Mirage 2000.
What are the technical details of that FBW system, oh yeah you don’t even know what type of radar it has.
We know J-10B has Tier 1 avionics amongst the very best in the world.
Well it has avionics, we and even more importantly have no idea of their performance or qualities.
So to sum up, for all the nationalistic chest thumping you haven’t got anything to back up your assertions.
FedaykinHello JamesDean, welcome to the forum.
To give the benefit of the doubt I will assume that you are not entirely familiar with the forum dynamic when it comes to Carlo Kopp and his website. In general most people here will agree that the site has useful factual information and analysis when it comes to Radars and Ground Based Air Defence Systems. I would even go so far as saying that on those subjects it is a perfect starting point for the layman. When it comes to the F-22, F-35 and F-111 it is a bit more complex. Frankly he is regarded as a bit odd and I would say has more critics then supporters on the forum.
I vaguely remember he did actually register an account on this forum but got rather short shrift. Then again I think it was around the same time his site released some rather silly articles poo pooing the Typhoon (including a baffling article suggesting Typhoon should be retired in favour of F-16) and suggesting the UK should pay for a CATOBAR variant of the F-22. He keeps on flogging ideas like tanker variant 747 for Australia and a Super F-111. His hypocrisy in respect of the Super Hornet is legendary, Boeing gave him a ride in it after which he wrote a glowing report about how good it was. When Australia purchased it as an F-111 replacement he back-pedalled and launched article after article (he calls them NOTAMS) saying how bad it was and anybody pointing out that this was the reverse if his glowing post flight appraisal were accused of scurrilous stirring! It should be pointed out that he owned a company that was offering an F-111 upgrade…I leave you to draw your own conclusion from that.
To be fair at least he isn’t crazy like Mike “Sparky” Sparks but he has burned a few bridges.
FedaykinFirst of all DSI is a an aerodynamic solution to a problem, there is nothing magical about it. It offers advantages and disadvantage, whilst it simplifies construction of the airframe it narrows the speed range of the aircraft. They tested it on the F-16 and decided to not move forward with it whilst the Mirage 2000-5 is designed to perform a Mach-2 high altitude intercept. A variable shock cone is a preferred solution to a fixed inlet which is all DSI is. China mastering DSI is commendable but nothing particularly radical or beyond the abilities of Western aerospace manufacturers. Lockheed Martin did its DSI research in the 90’s.
Are you saying that France a first tier Western nation with a cutting edge aerospace industry couldn’t put a Wide Angled HUD on the Mirage 2000 if they wanted Goldust? There is one on the Rafale and Dassault offers it as an upgrade component for the Mirage-2000. Wide Angle Holographic HUD have been fitted to American and European fighter jets for many years and it is hardly seen as a cutting edge technology. Both France and America have moved onto full projection HMD so really I don’t understand why you are so keen to point out that China can now make something that was done in the West many years ago. The F-16 has had a Wide Angle Holographic HUD since the 90’s based on development work in the 80’s.
We know nothing about the avionics on the J-10B or their performance, we know what avionics are fitted to the Block-60. It is in the public domain and we know that those systems represent the cutting edge of what the US has to offer. The US has been producing state of the art avionics for far longer then China, until we know what is exactly installed on the J-10B and there general operating profile we can’t say if it is superior or inferior. Frankly I would put my money on the F-16 Block 60 having a significant edge over the J-10B at the moment.
Look trash talk can be fun Goldust but you are being nonsensical.
As for Syria, I am going to indroduce you to a new word:
Realpolitik
Sign In
