Sameer,
Pak Thunder is exactly right. The issue here is not one of Indian niaivete its one of the IN having to accept what theyre given by their poltical leadership.
Given the time wasted on acquiring a replacement for Vikrant, all the early 90’s negotiations with Bazan and DCN etc, Gorshkov politically became an important project for the continued regional superpower status of the IN and for the prestige of India in general. A great deal of time and effort was expended on the contract definition and negotiation. Political expediency would not have been served by the GoI pulling out of the deal at any late stage as it would have left the IN back at square one nearly a decade and a half after the first studies were undertaken for the replacement of Vikrant.
In that context the fact that Gorshkov would give the IN some form of aviation capability, by this time to replace Viraat AS WELL as Vikrant, could easily have been viewed as more significant than specific capabilities and operational efficiencies of the vessel itself. Simply put it was not necessary for Gorshkov to be a good carrier more that it just needs to be an operational carrier.
Viewed in that light how disruptive would it have been to publically release the fact that the carrier was in a poor materiel condition?. The very fact that so much of the carrier needs replacement 70-80% is indicative of the real state of it anyway.
sometimes I wonder that India should’ve picked up the Yak-141 production plans. It may have costed more but they’d have a modern supersonic aircraft to both replace their Harriers as well as giving more flexibility in the type of ships they can purchase
>>>as for Lancer and Sniper.. to me, they are more like projects that introduce the integration of western technology into their aircraft, nothing more. Although they improve cockpit ergonomics and allow the use of some weapons, they don’t really increase the over all capabilities of the aircrafts themselves.
What is then the difference between those Lancers and IAF Bison?
Lancer = Elbit upgrade (Israel), Israeli MFD (2 on A version), ability to use Israeli short range AAMs
Bison = MiG upgrade (russian), adds BVR capability, also a bit more extensive
theres probably others, but i cant remember off the top of my head, and to be blunt, i consider it to be a waste of time to go check up for u. :rolleyes:
also, i never said vietnam was copying china, just pointing out the uncanny pattern of purchases the two countries have made over the last decade. the rest was just ur assumptions. :rolleyes:
Flip
vietnam seems to be mirrowing china’s military aviation purchases quite exactly.
flop
– china buys Su27Sk, not too long after, vietnam buys same ac.
– china buys Su27UB trainers, not long after vietnam follows suit.
– china buys Su30MKK, soon vietnam follows suit.
– china buys Su30MK2, vietnam is about to, or already have bought the same ac.
Is it just me to did the Romanian’s not really think ahead when they did both the Sniper and Lancer programs? The Sniper upgrade didn’t last long, and the Lancers are already talked about being put to pasture.
What’s the deal within Romania they days? Can anyone shed some light on all this.
I hope they do get some Gripens, as I’m hoping to the thing to have some great export success (doing better than both the Typhoon and Rafale at the moment).
don’t hold your breath bud, i just cut and pasted this from another forum, but didn’t see any information pertaining to this from the Gripen official web site.. so lets wait and see but it is interesting news!
as for Lancer and Sniper.. to me, they are more like projects that introduce the integration of western technology into their aircraft, nothing more. Although they improve cockpit ergonomics and allow the use of some weapons, they don’t really increase the over all capabilities of the aircrafts themselves. Plus the MiG-29 itself is being withdrawn by many air forces anyways, it’s not the most reliable, maintainable, and cheapest of aircraft to operate.
lol, once again Mr hamburger dazzles us with his maturity and depth of argument. :rolleyes:
aside from the cheap shots, what other point have u made? :rolleyes:
if u think u got a point that can stand up to scrutiny, then lets hear it. because if u think that trying to keeping things vague so u cant be proven wrong is going to work, then u really should get out more. 😎
please, you should really stop changing the subject about me and try to prove your claim that you keep trying to avoid.
So how is Vietnam mimicing Chinese arms procurement other than the Su-3X? :rolleyes:
can’t do it can you.
What – to exercise your droit de seignior with the local virgins, then?
Flood
i doubt it is possible to find one there 😮
yeah i got it. just another person with too much time to waste. :rolleyes:
if u got a valid point to make, make it. trying to be ‘subtil’ when there is no point to be make only means u are looking for an excuse to grind an axe. :rolleyes:
no axe to grind except for the fact that you’re avoiding your own ignorance and lack of logic in your statements, but that’s hardly surprising eh 😉
Especially since you couldn’t counter my arguements..
so mr poo poo, what else has Vietnam bought that mimics Chinese acquisition hmmm? 😎 by your logic, Indonesia is also mimicing Chinese acquisition too
thanks Arturo and Vortex for the sensible answers
well its possible to make it cheap, it used stock parts from F-16s where possible (most aircraft seem to :s) but its just the range and fuel capacity, also survivability, dont expect this to fly with both wings if either one gets a hole through it courtesy of farmer jones and his shot gun.
true that but how many light point defense aircraft have high survivability and range in the first place? certainly not the Gripen, J-7 variants, LCA, T/A-50, etc
is there a point u’d like to make or is there a post count u have to reach every day? :rolleyes:
look up sarcasm at http://www.dictionary.com got it poochy?
I guess someone had earlier said abt the decayed Hull, and put to doubt the several rounds of Indian Naval delegation visit that cleared the Gorshkov hull!
BTW the contract did not add that the guns wud be removed during the handover!. It just mentioned that it wud be cleaned up from inside.
c’mon , thats still is not a reason to get rolling from the point of fall. Get up and move ahead, I consider that as fair and in tune with guyts with a backbone.
can u give me the litrature abt the service book of the Gorshy ??? ….. abt the maintaiance levels etc etc ….
neither did the Indian Navy doubted except for the dollar fundeed Indian mediawho gets most of their stuffs from their western daddies.
An earlier report posted says, its a progressing a bit ahead of time. Hope thats for making it enter service at the specified date.
any vessel of its size will come along with its operational cost and thats nothing peculiar or isolated ones.
I’m an Indian ……. simple English plzzzzz …..
Jonesy is right, the Indian gov’t was very unwise to purchase an inactive problematic ship that costs heaps to operate and a very likely low service life.
They should’ve invested more money on their own ship, ask Bazan to build something, etc
Is IL-76 made in Russia? In future yes. So that figure is accurate.
Tashkent is in Uzbekistan mr monkey boy.

Here is a globe..
buy one! :dev2:
Source of your News?
Oh give Srbin a break, no one asks the sources for your assumped, speculative, flakey information.. cough J-10 price, cough radar abilities, cough. He’s just doing the samething as you 😀
i said i didnt follow vietnam’s military developments that closely. but even a casual glace reviels some interesting patterns of purchases.
there are generally two main reasons for military modernisation, and these are to reduce costs or to increase combat capacity.
clearly adding new, much more capable and expensive (both to buy and to use) types, while upgrading older ac (hence planning to keep them on and not retire them) is not a cost saving measure.
every military ac type that has ever entered service has been upgraded over its service life. there are two main types of upgrades: a) life extention upgrades, and b) combat capabilities upgrades.
there is a general rule that determines what the AF in question is doing depending of what kind of upgrade they are undergoing.
an life estension upgrades usually means that the said AF sees little or no increase in its threat environment (like austraila with its F18s), meaning the existing types can soilder on for a little bit longer. hence there is no need to waste money on new, more capable types.
a combat capabilities upgrade is almost always forced upon AF in order to meet the changing (increasing) strengths of precieved adversaries so that it can offset the opponent’s own increases in capability and maintain the military balance that was there before.
so, vietnam’s military modernisation is not a cost saving measure on any count. meaning there is only one good reason for the modernisation – to meet the increases in military capacity of one or more precieved threats (unless, of course, u count showing off as a good reason).
why dont u take another look? :diablo:
ASEAN is no EU, many member states have conflicts of interest with one or more of its fellow members (which is often over disputed territory). is it just a coincidence that as soon as one starts buying advanced russian jets, everyone else that can afford it is following suit? (but buying difference versons, ruling out the possibility that this is a co-operdinated move to try and form some kind of joint military force like the european rappid reasction force)
yes that’s why Vietnam is ordering J-10s, Type-98’s, and Yuan class submarines.. :rolleyes:
For me Germany does not even need a new fighter. 72 Makos is all Germany needs for defence. Enough for advanced training and air plocing roles.
don’t put all of your hopes in vaporware :diablo: