I think a force mix of SMTs, Su-30s & 35s will suite Libya nicely- the latter two serious adversaries for the entire Med. all the way down to Central Africa, all paid for with that delicious light/low sulphur crude.

I’ve been wondering about whether they really need a “low” end to complement the higher end Su-30MKA.

having another type, even if it is a lower end, would mean more money required to have spares, support, etc for another type that could be used to focus more on the maintenance, flight hours, etc of the Su-30MKA.

with the Yak-130 (and what seems to be one catered to Algeria’s specifications) coming in, we got one aircraft that will probably be cheaper to operate and also double as an aircraft to keep pilot hours up, upgraded Su-24s for ground attack.. and the existing MiG-29 fleet. Although I think the Su-24, Yak-130, and Su-30MKA is good enough as far as fixed wing combat aircraft assets are concerned.

heres some F-4s from Okinawa

We have a question out here ..
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=81006

thanks for redirecting me to this thread.

to be honest.. I thought it was pivot tube not pitot.. so when googling it I couldn’t find anything haha.

There would have to be some plumming for an IFR probe, but considering buddy-buddy refuellng is going to be done with a refuelling pod, that is not going to put on extra weight on the LCA. Besides, with the LCA already on the small (and heavy) side, i doubt it would make any use whatsoever as a buddy refueller. Unless the naval-LCA grows into something operational, where it would be a possible fuel picket loitering around the carrier (similar to the buddy-refuelling A4Ds on the CVLs). Many IFs in that scenario though.

Adding test-related gear as additional weight is fair enough for the development aircraft, but it won’t make any sense if this weight is somehow taken along in the official presentation of the aircraft’s specifics. On the other hand, leaving out the weight of the radar in those very same presentations makes even less sense. I know you’re clutching at straws left and right and doing all the creative thinking you’re capable of to come up with a reasonable (yet uncritical) explanation for the weight issues, but all you seem to do is dance around the obvious fact that there seems to be a serious weight issue with the Tejas. Whether that’s due to impossible demands set by the IAF, incompetence at ADA, or simply a poor noise-to-signal ration in all the LCA-banter, I don’t know.

All theory, no evidence whatsoever. I guess for the next weight increase, we need to subtract the weight of the tyres and ejection seat as well?

But the concern is a very viable one. An LCA which is small but not all that light will not be able to fulfill the requirements as they were stated for the original light combat aircraft. Fuzzy maths won’t change that.

Now what does this mean? Maximum AoA is 20deg, unless certain conditions are met? The maximum of 22deg has only been achieved under special circumstanses which don’t occur in ‘normal’ flights? I know you’re trying to give a positive spin to the whole program (which I have no problem with), but only a little critical reading of your posts actually puts the LCA in a more negative light.

Lavishly Consulted Aircraft?

I personally really like the looks of the LCA, and I really do feel that some of the systems they incorporate, materials, and over all goals of the airframe are much higher than say its rival the FC-1. But it really does feel that the biggest obstacle for the LCA is its small size that comes with many limits and perhaps, unrealistic demands out of the program. As a light fighter that is fast to produce and replace MiG-21 (or MiG-21 clones, variants, etc).. the FC-1 program has been more effective.

what can we expect to be in the inventory of the RuAF between 2015-2020?

we could see S-400 export.

dunno if its for wide export though. Kazakhstan’s relationship with Russia is like Korea/Japan/Australia and the US.. very very close.

Thats because since WWII japan hasnt cared about defence industry (much cheaper to buy from america).

yeah right, T-4, Mitsubishi F-1, P-X, C-X, Type 90, Type 10, Oyashio, etc..
things built in Japan that are much more expensive than their American equivalent, but are still being developed internally and purchased.

I don’t understand Japan’s reluctance in considering the purchasing of the Typhoon if America doesn’t want sell them the F-22A?
The USAF never considered the probability of an export version of the F-22A. All the avionics that make the F-22 such a “wonder weapon”, are the reason the USAF does not want any other country to have this technology.
What about a project between India and Japan with the Su-30MK having Indian and Japanese avionics??

Adrian

Japan and Flanker = impossible.

Despite being able to see the Flanker as the “main” aircraft in many Japanese aircraft video games, especially in the Ace Combat series, Japan and Russia have yet to officially end WW2, and there is a very major territorial dispute that’s actually worse than Japan/China over Senkaku, or Japan/Korea on Takeshima islands.

Russia controls the entire Kuril Islands, Japan claims the southern 4, but at the moment, doesn’t really recognize southern Sakhalin as Russian either. Every Japanese map shows the Kuril islands as being part of Japan, while southern Sakhalin as a no man’s land (usually painted in white).