Nick_76I wouldnt say that! To have a stealthy (bar metric wave) etc is still useful.
Of course, it would be much cheaper to use low flying choppers even for SEAD work in the TBA, so there is a point to what you are saying. But for a strategic campaign, the F-117 is very useful.
Nick_76One word, rather two statements of caution
The timeline has been substantially compressed- from a 14 yr program with 10 deliveries yearly to a 10 year one. This will have impacted the investment necessary to ramp up production substantially, compared to a more gradual increase
The CAG report is a year old at the minimum, since that is how the system operates, plus it could relate to an earlier period which the audit covers
Hence, the integration of equipment is not an issue and is a sideshow
The “meat” so as to say, is the program cost.
Nick_76Yes, probably cost, incidentally Singapore chose the AESA.
For Koreas needs considering their probable opfor -NK and perhaps China, the V(1) is clearly enough.
The V(3) is amazing though- they somehow shaved ~ 100 kgs off from the earlier ones!
No need for ballast now.
Nick_76Bringiton- any more details about the APG 63 (V)1’s performance?
Ditto for ALR 36M,
Cheers!
Nick_76The only fanatic here is you. Take a look at the mirror and on the past statements. Oh, and PLA watchers don’t look on the MKK too highly. The plane is just a step towards other things.
Aahhhhhhh…. And hence your entire rigmarole here.
Proven wrong? You only produced a picture circa April 2006. That’s years after I asked for certain evidence of delivery. Eventually everything does get recieved, but the fact is, back in 2003-2004, there was none.
And you know this for sure. Given that you live in IAF bases. Earth to Saturn: Nobody here has to show you anything. Please get over yourself
Lol. I am not in the PLAAF procurement but everyone can see what the PLAAF is procuring or not. Cut your BS—the PLAAF is no longer procuring Su-30s and every recent evidence points to this.
The first is well known. The second term applies exactly to your antics.
Lol. This is funny from someone who inaccurately described a basic BVR engagement and has no clue about basic armstrade and its rules.
LOL indeed. A not so exact way of saying: ” I dont know, but it sure p!sses me off when someone says something not so complimentary about the MKK, so I will launch ad hominem attacks asap, picking up some silly excuse to do so”. Wonderful
Lol. Look at who is attacking and who is unable to answer the questions and issues posted.
Look indeed!
And yet you persist on being obnoxious yourself.
Oh ok…so not buying into your spiel is being obnoxious. Wonderful .
Wake us up when you actually cultivate some first hand sources of your own instead of this usual internet war nonsense insisting that you are right, you have to be right, and how, how can we not believe you! Wonderful!
Seems to me you are the one with a lot of ridiculous arguments how BVR is fought, about triplane and canard issues, about RCS etc,.
It would seem like that to you, indeed. With a dozen engagements in Flankers under your wing and countless internet battles won
“I surrender”- what can one do against such …such….such…scintillating posts, such BVR abiity!
Proposals and options don’t make reality, which you already seem to be hedging on. This is the year 2006, not 1996. Four more years toward 2010. Options and proposals takes years and years to fulfill. Somehow, extreme makeovers of 30 year old platforms post 2010 do not seem to excite.
Wonderful- you must be speaking of the MKK
Cause given the exact terms given in my posts in English, it would be rather hard to misunderstand them and misrepresent them & set up a strawman to demolish, but you have done so.
The MKIs are quite new, and given that there people like Fiszer, Fedorov etc all on record stating whats being done entirely to keep the aircraft upto date and further improve them…I’d rather take informed opinion by experts over “we think”, “arms trade analysis by me”, “I do know a lot” yada yada yada yada..
Listen to your own advice.
As expected & how predictable
Nick_76And you go on drawing first blood calling MKK fanatics or making jabs on people who are actually making progress rather than blowing air.
Sorry- but your statements & behaviour speak for themselves as to the validity of the above observation
The statement was about the fanatics who raise up irrelevant bilge over a mere factual comparison of the types- you proceeded to do exactly that
In other words, you perpetuated the stereotype, having played a role in creating it.
Even now, the fact that you are still around, thirsting for a fight, indicates the validity of the statement & no amount of expletives can change that POV
What can change it is your own continued behaviour on this board, but I doubt whether you will be able to.
You know what? It’s so funny. You have to rely on a lot of foreign agreements just to get things off the ground and yet unable to produce some real beef. Perhaps your real beef is advancements like China’s KLJ radars, when you have trouble on your own. Understand this, since you don’t own follow the armstrade, China is indeed equipping their own planes with their own radars. and this is indicated by the lack of visible foreign orders—and yes the Russians would make it public if China did procure radars, not to mention the radars already being offered to the Pakistani government and other foreign buyers with export fighters. As for the Kh-31, China indeed does have a copy, proven in photographs and defense expo displays for their domestic planes, along with imported Kh-31s for their MKKs. The concern and political blocks executed by the US government against Israel upgrading the Harpies China has bought is tied to this YJ-91 project.
Thank you for all that irrelevant speculation and useless hyperbole. The statement about the KH-31 was in reference to your behaviour on the KH-31 thread wrt Indian Flankers, and you were proven wrong, but not before you went through this whole rigmarole of posturing and name calling, as is usual with you on this board and many others
As regards the rest of yada yada & whatever speculation you come up with , you are not in PLAAF procurement for your words to be the GHoly Grail.
Clean up your act or get used to being ignored, because that is the one way most people deal with you, as you persist with more attacks
Your ‘move on, move on” tactics indicate inability to reason. You have not shown a reasonable scenario with regards to your ‘equivalent fighters’, and you were quite unhappy when I politely pointed to you out that that is not the way the game is played. Frankly, you need to learn your own lesson.
Even now, in an amazing display of passive -agrressive behaviour, you continue to persist at an issue where I am least interested in your armchair marshal opinions or claims
Yet you loudly insist that you are right and that they must be debated and sanctified! Ridiculous!
Chna hasn’t ordered more Su-30s for good reason, and is no longer planning to do so in the near future. This activity is indeed documentable. Ask the Russians. Go check with Jane’s. Check SIPRI.
As for various radas being proposed for MiG-35, it’s not the question whether MiG approves the radars or not. Since it is proposed, being proposed does not mean it has already been approved. Maybe you need to read the Dictionary to find out what “proposed” and what “approved” really means. Proposals are dime a dozen. In the end, only a tiny fraction ever makes it to the finish line. Perhaps this last sentence is a major revelation for you.
I continue to be shocked, your dishonesty knows no bounds. Earlier on- I had mentioned exactly what was the case and what the Russians were proposing a variety of options and that it was upto the IAF to approve. entirely because they had to in an era of competition and now of course, we have you to tell us about it. .
Nick_76Pit,
Please check your PM.
Nick_76Detection Range Formula: [New RCS/Old RCS]^.25 * original detection range= new detection range
So nick u needed The RCS 2 devided by Rcs 1 assuming that the RCS 1 is the original RCS..
Yes. When I said RCS 2, it was the original RCS
regards
Nick_76Look who is BSing here.
OOps. Forgot it was your “prerogative” as you constantly display on this fora and others, with your non stop prattling and internet warrior persona EVEN with those least interested in listening to you.
Please get a life.
The reason why the Russians offer certain “models” is because their own government won’t finance them and so they’re looking for some other development money.
Rolling on the ground here, o’ internet warrior. Another strawman of your own imagination to demolish!
And somehow the Frankenstein approach makes thing better?
If thats what the IAF wants, thats what they do. Now I know it makes no sense to China, since it cant buy most of that stuff anyways on account of politics, but hard truths..
Should I write the avionics fit of the upgrades?
They do this for a living and find it suitable
Take their word over yours!
MiG-27 Upgrade( HAL) (thanks to B Harry)
Core Avionics Computer- DARE, India’
Sigma-95 -RLG from SAGEM
TEMPEST JAMMER, TARANG RWR- DARE
El-Op 967 HUD
Sextant Avionics- MFD
Improved air conditioning and Environmental system- HAL
IFF 1410- HAL, India
INCOM 1210- HAL
Display Map Generator- Elbit
Litening Laser Display and Designation Pod
etc
The IAF is clearly comfortable with procurement and integration of subsystems from different vendors
Really?
=============================
RUSSIA THREATENS TO RETAIN BrahMos SOURCE CODE
By Bulbul Singh10 Oct 05. Russia has threatened that it will not give away the source code which will enable the supersonic Cruise missile BrahMos to be mounted on foreign made platforms, including the recently contracted French Scorpene or the Multirole Medium Range Combat Aircraft (MMRCA)which India is buying from the global market.
Sources in the Indian defense ministry say, Moscow has made it known to the Indian defense planners that there is no guarantee that it will allow India to mount the BrahMos cruise missile on third country platforms until the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)dispute is settled.
Sources in the Indian defense ministry however say it is part of Moscow’s pressure in the run up to the MMRCA procurement program of the Indian government.
etc etc =
Did it happen? No.
What DID happen?
The IPR deal.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1566477,00050003.htm
India, Russia sign three accords
United News of India
Moscow, December 6, 2005
India and Russia on Tuesday signed three major agreements for intensifying cooperation in different fields, including intellectual property rights in defence sector, development and use of a global navigation satellite system and joint research in solar physics.
The agreements were signed after extensive talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Green Drawing Room of the Grand Kremlin Palace.
The three agreements are — the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on Defence Agreement, Technology Safeguards Agreement regarding Global Navigational Satellite System (GLONASS) and an accord on solar physics.
The IPR pact provides for mutual copyright protection in military and technical cooperation. The GLONASS is a long-term project which aims to create an alternative to the Global Positioning System (GPS) of the US.
The agreement on joint research in solar physics signed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and Russian Federal Space Agency envisages research in solar-terrestrial connections under the Coronas-Photon satellite project of Russia. The spacecraft is scheduled for launch in 2007.
Plus the offer by Fydorov and Co for the ELTA
Spin that as you wish.
They are willing to integrate Europeans PGMs to their radars, but not the other way around.
The point will be, will the Europeans oblige?
Nice try there . But the link given previously has the Russians on record agrreing to ELTA.
But i see you conveniently left out a nice loophole for yourself- ELTA is not European you will say.
Sigh
Officials from UK-based SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems disclosed that the
company’s X-band Vixen 500E airborne active phased-array fire-control radar,
competing against IAI/ELTA’s EL/M-2052 AESA radar, is being proposed for both
the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft and the MiG-35, while the Seaspray
7000E 360-degree AESA radar is being proposed for IN’s to-be-upgraded 20
AgustaWestland Sea King Mk42Bs as well as for the IN’s to-be-acquired maritime
surveillance/ASW aircraft, for which Embraer’s P-99A and Dassault’s Falcon
900MPA are on offer.
Force India (http://www.forceindia.net ) Jan , 2006
And of course, they would do this without RAC MiGs knowledge or acquiscence
What a laugh. Not only is the project half baked, it has not even begun to bake yet. It is in an experimental technology proving stage yet. This is going to take several years and a lot of bucks before it is even done. This is what in arms trade is called bait. This is like saying you will fork over the money to finish something that is not, money that could have been used for domestic developments.
Like all the KLJ, SLH, blah blah nonsense you keep peddling on the Chinese thread?
This is what so ironic– your own inability to practise what you preach
You have been proven wrong before – insthe KH-31 issue where you made similarly half baked claims and then resorted to vicious personalizations early on? Yet you persist with this egotistical behaviour
Move on. It is entirely your inability to converse without resorting to ad hominem attacks that ensures that one is least interested in even attempting the same with you
Yet you persist
Huh? Where did you come up with this?
Given your statements about radars and missiles, I would certainly say you are no fighter pilot at all either. In fact, I don’t even think you have the slightest idea how even the basic things work. You want to repeat your statements again?
Given your qualifications in this matter- the total lack of- it does seem that you have got your ego in a twist.
When somebody tells you on your face that he does not feel like discussing with you , thanks to your prattling and constant internet warrior persona, and obnoxious behavioural style that you demonstrate constantly, even so you persist
You have been told thrice to move on. But you persist in sticking around insisting on some ego fuelled hormonal battle.
You were asked politely twice. Yet this behaviour, hence the corresponding reply
Pathetic
Isnt this really what you are infamous for? On multiple fora? Acting like this?
Please grow up
What part of “agree to disagree and move on” dont you understand?
Now tell me for the third time, how your radar and missile tactics of “equivalent fighters” post really work?
Cant you read plain english? Should I type it slowly for you, internet warrior?
Stuff your theories- aint interested in talking with you. In plain English- you are talking to yourself here.
Ah yes. It’s still in negotiation, and somehow you treat it like it’s operational already.
More nonsense from you- but then given how your ego fuels your actions, misrepresenting others opinions comes naturally to you even when the reverse has been repeatedly stated.
Disgusting. This despite : “Nowhere did I say that it was either inducted or firmed, but the fact is that its under negotiatuion, something that cannot be said of the other Flankers. Yet.”
Furthermore:
http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=03_10_2005_OM_01
Ref:Indian AF Su-30MKIs Nearly Ready
by Michal Fiszer
Mar. 10, 2005“The Batch 3 standard will not quite be the “ultimate,” since a future modernization is planned. The N011M Bars radars are to receive new transmitter components that will increase their range to 180 km, and new gimbals for the antenna mount to increase the field of view to about 90-100 degrees to both sides. New software will enable a Doppler-sharpening mode and the capability to engage up to eight air targets simultaneously. The aircraft are also to carry the heavy PJ-10 Brahmos-A anti-ship missiles, developed by NPO Mashinostroyenya (Reutovo, Russia) and DRDO (Delhi, India). This missile has a range of up to 300 km, but because it weighs 2,250 kg, the aircraft will be able to carry only one.
Lol, this has been confirmed by Chinese sources and by international armstrade. The MKK has not been procured since 2003. Go check with the Russians. Go check with all sources.
Here we go- the usual delusional prattle
Next you will be talking of your “analysis”
Sigh!
Yes, I do know much about China’s procurement, ORBAT, and a lot of stuff. Not all, but enough. Seems to me you are naive about armstrade. The fact is, arms sales have to be registered with the UN and made public according to international arms treaty and UN requirements. You will know if something is sold or not. Seems to me, you don’t even know how basic things work in international armstrade.
The word DELUSIONAL certainly applies to you as you prattle on with your own delusional bombast
Your hubris is sickening as is your attitude.
Act like an adult for once and ditch your internet warrior cr@p.
There are actual authors and analysts here and they conduct themselves with far more graciousness than the boorish behaviour you instantly put out
If you still have not understood- understand this, I am not interested in discussing anything with you
MOVE ON
Request to admins:Kindly rein in this nonsensical aggressive behaviour
Nick_76Definitely.. But since model kits are available at least you got much to start with… Build a kit, test its RCS and you will immediately know how far you got.. Again, it is not about to achieve better results than F-22, it is about spare much time with evaluation of various designs that will have proven unsuccessful in the end. Why pay if Northrop Grumman can do it for you?
Not just the external shape but all the manafacturing expertise that goes into it for the required level of RCS reduction.
Nick_76If the Russians say no, they will not give you the source codes and the electrical data needed to integrate their PGMs to Selex or ELTA. And even if they did, the integration and testing process can take as much as a year, adding years to the process. Just because fire control systems have “open architecture” does not mean integration is instant. Anyone who thinks like that has major bullgas in his brain. Every PGM has proprietary hardware specific code intended to operate and authorize them, similar to device drivers in computers.
My my touchy touchy & how predictable!
Did anyone make the strawman blather you are so busily intent on demolishing?
Hardly !
But here you are- with all your Bullgas and similar gas!
The point was simple- Russia no longer has the liberty to pass of highly downgraded models in a competitive export environment for a country which is NOT its neighbour.
And there are a dozen procurement examples for India itself.
Now you may hem and haw in anger, but the truth is the truth!
And how do I know this?
Because unfortunately or fortunately the IAF is very public about its mixing and matching and the Russians are rather keen to oblige, since it helps their overall export effort!
So much for that strawman.
But if it makes you feel better to think the reverse, kindly do so.
Meanwhile, let us look in the context that statement was made, that is: if an equivalent technology is unavailable from the Russian side, either due to monkeying around or whether current levels are too low, the original manufacturers are all too eager to involve others, to make up for this perceived disadvantage:
Let us look at an example-
http://www.the-week.com/25sep04/currentevents_article1.htm
Indian pilots at the air show were impressed with the plane and its new technology, but “it all depends on what we ask for in terms of avionics, weaponry and of course service support,” said an IAF test pilot. Conceded Fyodorov, “IAF has very stiff requirements. We are willing to integrate any system, as the user wants it.” MiG officials expect India to ask for Israeli Elta radars, display components from France and weaponry of Russian origin. “We have not frozen the technology specifications,” said Fyodorov.
Fydorov of course, being the head of Irkut who led the MKI program.
And also, RAC MiG is pushing Phazatron to come out with its own AESA
“The MiG-35 multirole combat airplane which it is planned to offer for the Indian fighter tender, will have a radar with an active phased antenna array (AFAR).
“Right now the Fazotron-NIIR corporation is intensifying efforts on the AFAR creation for these airplanes,” a source in the defense industrial complex reported to Interfax-AVN. He noted that for participation in the tender, it is necessary to assemble and test a experimental example of an AFAR in good time. It earlier had been reported that India plans to purchase 126 fighters at a total cost of nearly 9 billion dollars for its air force.Source: 25.11.05, Avia.RU”
And if that is technology denial..
Let us go back to your RCS figures. By the way, you need to reduce to 1.8m2 from 15m2 RCS just to get even a 25% range reduction. That is how ficky RCS reduction is. 4 or 5m2 RCS isn’t going to give you 30% range reduction from 15m2.
(RCS1/RCS2)^.25 * RCS2’s Original range= new range, gave me the figures I posted before
But no need to reply- thanks very much.
And where is your reasoning? You apparently don’t know how RWRs work do you? Much less from your statements, how BVR should work.
Given that you are no fighter pilot, much less a designer, I will pass on your munificence and generosity of spirit, as well as your bombast.
Politeness apparently does not work on you- nor does a cold shoulder, nor does a hint to “move on” !
The KS designation is used by the Russians to denote being experimental. Must be a fanciful leap to get something far from being debugged or thoroughly tested, with an unassured future, to be integrated already. We call this reasoning, counting the chickens before the eggs were laid.
In Indian reports, it has been designated as the R-172, the KS- was used entirely because of its common nomenclature and because a member earlier on in this thread preferred the KS. The above is cited in JMR (March 2004 & May 2004)
Nowhere did I say that it was either inducted or firmed, but the fact is that its under negotiatuion, something that cannot be said of the other Flankers. Yet.
The irony of it all is highly amusing. Given that Bekirbayev is on record about the IAFs negotiations (source VPK.ru)and there are secondary sources (Edef)- I would rather take them as what they claim to be true, rather than your ire at their occurrence.
It is but a fact that the MKI program is not stopping at the Mk3 and that other improvements will be included, including the Brahmos- A
China has dropped the MKK and all purchases for it, to devote all resources to all inhouse projects like the J-10, J-11B, JH-7A and FC-1. This way they can make sure that all of China’s domestic PGMs and missiles can be compatible with their planes without involving Russian politics.
Sure if you say so!
BTW since you are not with the PLAAF, you are welcome to your own theories and assumptions, and I’ll pass on them.
Kindly move on. It is but evident that the MKK is peerless & that China shall rule the world and you know everything there is to know about Chinas procurement, more than the PLAAF itself. Happy?
Cheers!
Nick_76Wise @ss! :p
I was asking for details for those same planes!
Nick_76Was wondering about the need for an IRST, the Litening II should do nicely, but is probably too expensive to buy in number (220 for the LCA fleet) or fly around with, everyday
However, a Long range LRF would need to be fixed alongside, with the IRST for ranging, otherwise little point!
Nick_76Basically against a country with gaps in its AD system its ok.
The Su-32 uses Terrain masking and its jamming system bounces signals off the ground, forgot the exact technical description (terrain bouncing?) to disguise the plane
But problem is that every farmer and his kith and kin will be firing MANPADS at you to all sorts of nasty stuff
And a pilot would definitely want to be up in the 30,000 feet envelope and have time to run from these nasty fellows..!
Nick_76😎
Now who would have thunk that
BTW, any details on the radar, range, TWS, modes etc
Sign In
