MiG-21 Bison is definitely the most potent upgrade available. Compared to Elbit Lancer, it offers a big advantage in terms of BVR capability (read R-27 Alamo and R-77 Adder family). Other than that, Lancer C with ELTA EL/M-2032 radar is a respectable bird but AFAIK, it carries no BVR missiles which is a bit of a shame.

The usefulness of the BVR capability depends on what environment you are operating your MiG-21 in. For the Indians it makes sense because they have Su30s, AEW&C, an extensive ground radar network, data-links etc… It might also work out for the Vietnamese since they are a Flanker operator. I read Vietnam bought some S-300 batteries so I am assuming they have kept their ground radar network up to date as well. For smaller air forces the Bison’s BVR option isn’t really all that valuable without AEW&C assets, a good ground radar network and of course because of the MiG-21’s short legs which the Bison upgrade does nothing to alleviate. I seem to remember that the Bison (BVR) vs. LanceR/F-7 (WVR only) issue has been (vigorously) discussed before.

It is a wide misunderstanding, that the prime task of fighter is to fight other fighters.

True, the most damaging aircraft on the battlefield is probably the reconnaissance aircraft, then the bomber/striker and finally the fighter and they should be attacked in that order of priority. The erroneous idea that fighters should before all else engage other fighters is often illustrated in the Vietnam war debate. The NV often get slammed for evading the USAF/USN escorts and going after the strikers which were supposedly the “easy targets”. The truth is that NV MiGs were outnumbered and the NVAF wasn’t interested in wasting them chasing glory by going after US fighters. If they could hit US strikers and recon aircraft without engaging the escorts that’s what they would do and they would do it in a way that minimised their casualties. It is hard to fault that basic strategy.

The PPC cores are already used by Sukhoi on Flankers variants. And they are COTS.

Cheers 🙂

Ok, I didn’t know that. In that case the Bush administration had an even better reason to veto Flanker sales to Venezuela and presumably Fulcrum sales to Sudan. 😀

I don’t think there is a single fighter or military aircraft in general out there that doesn’t use some sort of US designed CPU. Even the aircraft that the Chinese and Russians sold to Sudan (IIRC in defiance of an arms embargo) to use in Darfur probably contain American CPUs or other types of chips that are American made, designed or contain American IP. Even if the PPC chips are manufactured in a non US factory by a non US company the IP is still American. The only country I can remember off hand that has put any kind of serious money into developing a completely US independent local source of processors and other equally advanced chips is China. I suppose Japan and Taiwan and the EU countries have the technological know how to develop their own high performance CPU designs as well. It would just be expensive and rather pointless unless it was expected that the US would completely cut of supplies which seems unlikely unless the EU and US have a catastrophic disagreement. I suppose China doesn’t see it that way.

how about say the Tornado ADV series?
lots of program goals, that made this variant appear way after its usefulness date.

UK probably should’ve gone for the F-14 at this time.. gave it an actual long range interception ability against bombers in time, unlike the ADV which needed to wait until the F-3 variant but still had obsolete missiles.

That’s not over-engineering that’s what you get when you try to make one aircraft do everything. It’s either going to be mediocre at everything or even if it performs well at some of it’s roles it is going to suck at some of the other roles you press it into. This is a common problem with multi role aircraft. But then as I understand it the Tornado ADV was designed to be a long range missile truck for bomber elimination operating in conjunction with AWACS aircraft and long range ground radar. Was it meant to be a grade A dogfighter as well?

how about European helicopters?
I remembered Flexy saying something to the effect that Russian helicopters were cheaper and could carry the same load for a role that for the most part didn’t need over sophistication (not talking about attack helicopters here).

That is probably a better case for being over-engineering, but it also holds true for American choppers, not just the European ones. Of course the west builds aircraft to last, the Soviets typically didn’t (Although their aircraft often tended to last anyway). Another thing to consider is that many Russian helicopter types like the Mi-24 and Mi-8/17 are quite old designs. Not that this makes them less useful but the production facilities are amortised, their avionics are often less sophisticated and in Russia labour is cheaper than in the US/EU so they are bound to be cheaper.

I often find people saying that Euro helicopters, transports, and certain fixed wing combat aircrafts are over engineered.

but I could not find out what exactly is over engineered.

do you guys agree with this? and if so what aspects are over engineered?

Over engineered is IMHO when you pour more of an engineering effort into a piece of equipment than is necessary for it to perform it’s function. A famous and often cited example is that of the T-34 vs. Panther tank (Sorry if this is OT but it illustrates the concept well). The Panther was a fine tank, technologically sophisticated, very well engineered, and made to a high standard of quality. The T-34 on the other hand was also well designed and second only to the Panther in terms of technological sophistication but it was very roughly made and never engineered beyond what was necessary. The Russians only put effort into engineering and quality where it really mattered. Why bother? They reasoned. The thing would last only weeks in combat anyway. Better to make lots of them. Mind you this still did not affect reliability or service life. During the 1990s T-34s were still being used in the Yugoslav civil war. The tanks looked ugly as hell but they still worked. Basically there is a point when pouring more and more engineering effort into a piece of equipment starts yielding less and less real world benefits. The Russians during WWII mastered the art of not going beyond that point while the Germans didn’t. The gas turbine engine of the M1 Abrams tank is IMHO another example of over-engineering. It’s a nice feature but the Leo II has proven it is just as possible to build a great tank with a boring old diesel engine and the gas turbine can more easily become a logistical liability than a diesel.

Which part of “Military Aviation” does this thread cover?

I think it covers the “useless discussions we have in the mess between missions” part.

which is fine as far as India is concerned, because its stand is that what it does with its weapons are its choice, once the weapons have been sold to it. You either sell arms and then the user uses it as he sees fit or you dont sell it in the first place. You cannot for indefinite periods try to use it as a method for arm-twisting and coercion, which is what the US does.

If you shell out 250+ quid for an MP3 player you can play whatever bloody well you bloody well want on it… Right?? It’s not as if the device manufacturer can to force you to play only church music, bible recitations and rants by right wing evangelists or force you to listen only to the collective writings of Lenin, Marx and Trotsky is it?? In an ideal world the same should be true if you buy a bunch of jet fighters at several tens of millions of dollars each. You should be able to use those jets to defend your self, especially if you paid for them completely out of your own pocket and didn’t use some military handout program courtesy of the US tax payer. The manufacturer should resupply you as long as you don’t plan to use them to commit genocide or launch a predatory war. If however you acquire your equipment through a military handout program it is more natural that strings are attatched. Unfortunately the principle of it’s-paid-for-it-in-full-and-i’ll-do-what-I-want-with-it doesn’t scale well from MP3 players to fighter planes. At least not when you are dealing with the Europeans and the USA. It isn’t hard to see why China and Russia appeal more to countries seeking to stock up on modern military equipment since public opinion in China or Russia doesn’t usually seem influence their governments diplomatic decision making abut arms sales. If India want’s true independence in these matters it won’t have it until it can develop something able to compete with the F-22/EF Typhoon/Rafale or at least the various Sukhoi, MiG and latest Chengdu fighters all on it’s own.

Best that way. The age of chivalry is dead. For good cause…

You can crack all the jokes you want. Just don’t try to pull the F-15s combat record, of sucessfully kicking the sh!t out of inferior opponets, out of your satchel. And then use it to try and make the case that the F-15 would just as easily win a conflict with an enemy that is equal in technology, numbers, pilot quality, tactics and things like C4ISR/AWACS/EW… etc. And infantile ‘:diablo:’ symbols won’t make that point for you guys either.