I had hoped to avoid this topic in a time of mourning, but I believe that seahawk was referring to the widespread narrative amongst the Indian media and public that, whenever there is a crash or accident involving a Russian-made aircraft, is quick to cast aspersions on the safety of Russian aircraft by referring to “MiG coffins” and so forth. Given this context, it is certainly legitimate to point out that this latest accident involves a modern western aircraft and to implicitly suggest, therefore, that this prevailing narrative might need some revision.

The bulk of the IAF fleet has been Russian for a long stretch, so the monikers were bound to stick to a Russian aircraft. Its hardly the only aircraft to have been called such (B-26, F-104).

Also, while the MiG-21 got stuck with a (perhaps unfair) rap, it took the attention off the more genuinely unsafe aircraft; MiG-23 & MiG-27.

the Gripen E, including R&D and production costs and adjusted inflation, is very similar to the previous versions: about US $90 million per aircraft in 2012 dollars.

Given that its not a clean sheet design, the R&D costs should probably not be factored in, unless the value of the input from preceding variants can be determined.

Largest and, most comprehensive tactical and cac excercise for Israeli Airforce was Anatolian Eagle, conducted in Turkey, in collabration with TuAF. Israel doesn’t have enough land to conduct excercises of that magnitude.

Red Flag?

Perhaps because Rafale could not operate safely in all parts of Libya? Does not change the fact that Rafale operated in large parts of Libya while the US and UK were sending hundreds of cruise missiles before entering Libya, does it?

And that is where the utility of the F-35 emerges. If the obsolete Libyan air defences could impose restrictions on Rafale operations, the situation can hardly be better against a more professional, better trained, better equipped adversary. The F-35 wouldn’t have a free run of it either, but it certainly wouldn’t require as a high a margin of safety.

A lot of posters on that forum think the T-90 is a “Tincan” (my favorite BHF term) because it…get ready…weighs less than the Arjun.

They use it as a perjorative term yes. An exaggeration certainly but not linked to the weight per se. There is a perception (not limited to BRF) that western style heavies offer superior protection vis-a-vis their Russian equivalents. How true it is, is a different debate.

Yeah, as anyone not from Bharat Rakshak can attest (like real sites, like Tank.net) those trials were baloney.

I’ve been throught the entire debate on Tanknet but found no first person information about the trials at all (in contrast info about NATO & Russian developments keeps filtering through). That said, had the reports about the trial results been ‘baloney’, we’d most certainly have heard the army dispute the claims.

There is a reason the Arjun only impresses Indians and no one else.

Aside from a few strident critics, most folks seem generally neutral towards the Arjun. Its not unlike the T-90 in that regard.

I agree that the MOD almost certainly do not plan to procure more Typhoon. However, if it transpires that F-35B costs $10,000 per hour more to fly than Typhoon then every squadron of F-35B (say 20 frames) will cost $10,000 x 20 x 6,000 more than Typhoon over a service life of 6,000 hours = $1.2 billion. It may be that the harsh reality of defence spending limits will make it necessary to choose to operate more of the less expensive type and less of the more expensive type.

$1.2 billion over 30 years (approx) is $40 mil/yr. Relative to the $60 billion a year budget, its hardly unaffordable. And that the money will be more than recouped through the F-35 program workshare (which will likely shrink if F-35 orders don’t come through from the MoD).

For how many hours of its 6,000 hour life will an RAF fighter-bomber be used to penetrate sophisticated air defences? Not many. If that is required the RAF will have some F-35B aircraft it can use. Alternatively it can use Typhoon with standoff munitions if running the guantlet of enemy air defences is considered too risky.

For how many hours of its 6000 hour life will a fighter-bomber engage in combat at all? That doesn’t mean the aircraft’s capability ought to be downgraded. In this case, the F-35 is the safer bet for the next three decades, covering air defence, air superiority, interception in addition to the roles that it will be unsurpassed at – SEAD/DEAD, EW and deep strike. Plus being bankrolled primarily by the US military over a huge build order, its upgrade/support will probably be a lot cheaper too.

No need to say more, we know that 2 T-80/90 tanks have armor ERA and APS system the best in the world (RHA their parameters just behind the M1 Abrams, Challenger and Leopard 2A6).

Unless you’re familiar with the armor specs for the Merkava 4, K2, Arjun Mk2, Type 99 etc, your statement has only your confidence going for it.

Its an interesting topic though, especially if we introduce to the topic, air deployed weapons such as the Brimstone, Maverick, AASM or SDB-II who’s effectiveness gets taken for granted.