When someone do such claims, he has to deliver the related data. At least that ones which are claimed already.
Strong words are no substitute for some data to discuss about. 😉

Dear Sens, I have already delivered the publically available data – its in the link above about what Bars is capable of. And the Irbis is superior to Bars. The rest is also well known, about what the MKI/MKM/MKA configurations use. No reason to suppose the Su-35 BM wont take advantage of the same as well. The best figures quoted for TWS for the EF are >180 km for a 5 sq Mtr target. And the E is supposed to be 1.5X that. That gives 300 km for the same. At 400 Km detection for a 3sq Mtr target, the BM can TWS a 5 Sq Mtr target at 360 Km. And the BM incorporates intensive RF reduction measures within its frontal +/-60 aspect angle as well. Plus carries its dedicated RF gear. So the logic of “EF has dedicated LO features and the Su 35 doesnt” wont work either. And the MiG35 program shows that a leading European electronics house is willing to give its best SPJ gear for the same. And dont they work on the EF program as well? You think that an export customer willing to pay for it wont get the latest NIPP imaging OLS scaled up for the Su-35, and the Elettronic EWS w/ customer furnished eqpt or specified systems like the Damocle, dedicated FLIR pylon, MWS etc? If so, you are living in an alternate world. For all of Schorsch’s claims about the Flanker being too large, what he simply forgets is that the airframe gives the entirely real world capability of constant upgrades, with even large volume systems being incorporated. OTOH, compact airframes like EF will require OEM handholding every step of the way, so much for upgradeability. Did you know the MKM incorporates R&S’s latest software defined radio, which R&S themselves talk about as being integral to a C3I network with AEW&C? Oops dont R&S supply the same for EF? Oh wait, MKI has the latest SA health monitoring system – oh the same system more or less as on the EF. So much for the “EF has best avionics nonetheless”. IAF has independence to inhouse upgrade the MKI as they see fit and upgrade the avionics, they have integrated own EW, MFDs, MC, ground systems and various other components plus are now planning own BVR AAM to be integrated on the same. You think an export customer wont integrate his own choice of AAM and MBDA will refuse integration of Mica/Meteor or whatever because its BM and not EF?

Second, all the EF is best, rah rah rah apart, the IAF for one definitely feels that the EF is not invincible based upon their limited experience with the type. You may argue, call them names, or whatever, but its their POV and they do this for a living.

Frankly speaking, this belief in that the EF is automatically superior to the Su-35 BM is nationalistic hyperbole. There is no evidence that it is so. Based upon what the MKI program has delivered, with which I am familiar, I would take the 35 BM seriously. You dont, its your choice & your tax money (at waste) for not keeping the EF apace. And the Tranche 3 joke currently shows the European partners are hard pressed to order it itself, let alone put in improvements. I for one am perfectly serious in noting that the Russians will introduce new AAMs & other systems over the next few years and will be watching the 35 development seriously. You guys mock it, think its a joke, your call.

Thanks. 🙂

Subramanya’s bluff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He82NBjJqf8

:confused::confused::eek:

Why dont you guys just settle it with a “I agree to disagree”?

Right now, I’d bet 90% of the fora doesnt know (or care) about the esoterica each of you is dredging up & discussing, while an otherwise interesting thread is suffering since the regular news on Russian Space & Missiles is getting lost in your back & forth.

FFS you guys are adults, quit this back and forth or go on in a dedicated thread “Who is the US ABM system intended to stop” etc and that’ll get relevant interested eyeballs.

Yeah Nick but Indian economic growth is not isolated from the rest of the global economy. Werent there reports a week or so back about Indian truck drivers on strike over high fuel prices?. Costs of fuel and rising costs of manpower, plus the single-user nature of much of the equipment in the Gorshkov is going to add up to a vessel that will be disproportionately expensive to operate alongside the IAC.

Naturally, when there is no alternative, the carrier will deploy and the IN is obviously capable of keeping elderly ships at sea. All that is being said here though is, when the IAC happens and 2 hulls get in the water, the difference between a modern, efficient, hull and Gorshkov is going to be very stark. My personal expectation is that with escalating costs the IN will be faced with a pragmatic choice and that Gorshkov may be an excellent candidate for ‘extended-readiness’ status!.

Jonesy, comparing Indian truck drivers, working in the disorganized private sector vs the Indian defence forces who submit a working budget every year and get paid upfront, is pointless. FYI, the current Indian defence budget isnt even 2% of its GDP, and India is able to maintain and deploy its current inventory which includes a substantial amount of legacy eqpt, and maintain intensive training schedules. Indian economic output is expected to remain at a constant level for a long time to come, as the economy becomes even more broadbased, and more importantly, the defence budget is bound to rise as finally, economic growth takes away the guns vs butter arguement which was used by countless bureaucrats to stifle modernisation. Please remember, India’s shipbuilding yards and labour are not exactly paragon’s of efficiency, but still the cost differential allows it to even out. Now its heading the other way, while labour costs do rise, the 6th Pay commission is giving a better deal to the IN, the rise of private shipyards and a burgeoning industrial sector mean that the IN can rely more on local ability for key activities than Russia alone. Another factor is that the IN has finally learnt its lesson and is insistent upon a proper maintenance support agreement from the Russian side for all its recent acquisitions. In this respect, ROE and India have a new local JV which will handle spares and inventory support for all three services. Its already been operational for a year now, and will pick up pace in the coming years.

That apart, the basic point which all of you seem to be missing is how important the Gorshkov is to the IN. That is why they are so desparate to induct it into service. Otherwise, Russia stating they’d take the carrier off India’s hands – why, that would be great, wouldnt it? Basically, the IN needs the Gorshkov as the IAC is a long ways off, and the Viraat right now is hanging off its eyeteeth. In repeated exercises, the Viraat has proven that its abilities need to keep pace with current tech. Hence the SHars getting the Derby/Elta upgrade. And what else? The Shar fleet is seeing the usual constant attrition that naval aviation sees, and replacements arent coming in. At this rate, by another five years, there will be no backups to the onboard duty Shars, causing serviceability and flightline issues as well. All in all, the IN needs the MiG-29K and Gorshkov badly. Which is why they are pushing for it still. They have shown the requisite amount of spine as well- whether off the cuff or in a well choreographed sequence, the IN Chief, recently spoke up about how the carrier was bought and paid for already, and if the Russians continued their merry ways, India should reevaluate its weapons purchases with Russia. The GOI cracked down on him later by saying it was the Govt which decided policy, but the message apparently went home. Soon thereafter there was an announcement that ROE would visit India to talk about “serious issues”.

Third, its all very well for all of us to bemoan the fact that this is not the ideal choice for the IN – old hull, refurbished kit, costly propulsion, unique supplies, unreliable suppliers etc etc and how the IN could have done a lot more, but you guys fail to account for the politics of it all and the IN’s limitations in pushing for large deals. Every weapons deal has politics around it, and India more so than most. There definitely is a huge pro Russia lobby in Indian procurement- both for historical/strategic/honest reasons as well as $$ which some Russian firms definitely pay. But even so, the Govt of the day shudders from bribery allegations, which makes deals with Russia very palatable. Why? Because they are done Govt to Govt, and irrespective of how much money actually changes hands on account of the deal getting through, on paper, its a Govt to Govt deal, so nobody made any money, and everything is above board. Same reason why the same arrangement is being worked out with the US. So when the Navy wanted a carrier, they had to sell that bill of goods to the good old Min of Defense which has to sell that huge bill to the Min of Finance.

Like USS says- first, its all about upfront costs. Lifetime costs can be fudged and usually are, its a given costs escalate, and apart from slaps on the wrist by Govt ombudsmen, nobody bothers. So when the MOD goes with such a proposal, out comes the hooks like- who else will push for this and what else can we tack on? So first, the low upfront costs (“free carrier, we only pay for refurbishment”), second the strategic angle (Akula lease, Tu-22’s on offer) and politics (MEA support because Russia is Indias strategic partner). Add the Indian Navys reccomendation, because they like all three Indian services want the fanciest kit, at the lowest possible prices, and you have how this deal came about. Along the way, many guys would have made money here and there, but NHQ was sitting pretty with the thought that hey, this happens & it will work out.

Please remember, this is not the only massively risky deal undertaken with Russia. There were many more, at a time, when Russian industry was tottering and they, for the most part have worked out. MiG-21 Bis modernisation, SU-30 MKI, T-90S, Smerch, Tunguska – in each case, there were the same (valid) objections – unreasonable upfront costs (ridiculously low), Russian hard sell which was later found out to be part BS, and finally much revised and longer gestation timelines as India got involved in revised project management and rectification. Now,for the most part all these have worked out. The Bisons came- but without TOT. The MKIs came and have been a total success. The Smerch- no TOT. The Tunguska- first batch dodgy, then rectified, now ok, follow on orders placed and delivered. T-90S- TOT issues again, cost issues, but being worked out. For the Navy, their Krivaks- Shtil issues, but was worked out, the Subs- upgrades done- so they thought – oh ok, the Gorshkov will too. Please remember in each of the above cases, the press and situation was as vituperative as in this deal. The difference is in this case, the Russians cocked up thoroughly with the price estimation which is what has made the situation escalate. A 10-20 % hike is one thing, but the current hike makes Naval planners see red. The GOI, make no mistake, will foot the bill, but expect some hardnosed international tendering from now on, not just single vendor RFPs to Russia. In essence Russia messed up bigtime over this order.

Finally- the Gorshkov wont be a berthed beauty. She will be run ragged and for quite some time. When the IAC comes, expect the intensity of Gorshkov ops to reduce but she will still be put to use extensively. Simply put the Navy will require her for a long time. India simply doesnt park its equipment by the quayside – we use every inch of obtainable life. The only case where I have seen a service deliberately underuse a piece of kit, over expensive operating costs, are the IAF Mi-26s. But then again, there has been little requirement for their specific capabilities most of the time. Even so, its a rarity. Even the oldest clunker, still clunks about. And is often upgraded to remain relevant. The IA recently- whilst purchasing umpteen T-90Ss, upgrading 600 odd T-72s, recently took a T-55 up the himalayas, for tank support evaluation. Its still not been withdrawn, and has seen a new FCS, the RO 105mm gun and what not. The one country that approaches and in fact exceeds India in its tendency to keep everything around (and couples them with upgrades in more number) is Israel. Its the way of things.

My 2(*many) Rupees

Even though the pGM do cost more then conventional weapons, there is a cost benefit in terms of ability to get the job done. The LGB and JDAMS are also part of the weapons mix but not the only ones. There will always be dumb bombs and CMs and stand-off munitions. But given that the H2, H4 and Raad and locally produced, they would be ordered in sufficient numbers. As to the exact numbers ordered, naturally we would never know.

The H2/H4 were likely provided in kit form for local assembly with assistance in integration. Havent seen any ramp up in Pak manufacturing key subsystems to indicate otherwise, would expect they remain substantially expensive and key items, not bulk ones issued to every squadron in number.

True. But the air launched CM also has the mobility advantage that a hidden land based CM doesn’t. The deployment profile of ALCM is vastly more flexible compared to land based ones. Hence most countries induct both.

My point was that PAF AFB – there are only a handful which are key anyway, will be constantly monitored, whereas monitoring truck based TELs is next to impossible currently.

I agree that in real combat, the 9g is not likely to be required or used and 8g should be plenty enough. But what i was surprised by is that the requirement has been reduced to 8g without anyone knowing about it. This is the first im hearing of this anyway.

Like I said, we dont know the context. The IAF G requirement in its ASR could vary for specific payloads and could have been 8G from the very beginning, and the ADA has been tasked to hit those in order of priority. Whereas in other specific payload configs & clearances, the LCA is expected to do 9G. And PS is concentrating on the former, it being more critical to the IAF if it is a specific high priority payload combo at specific speed/alt.

Unfortunately, the journo hasnt explored this aspect further and just moved onto the next question.

To get the idea of how much details matter, take the entire recent fracas over AoA. You have Janes reporting that the LCA can only do 17 deg vs desired 20, when the reality is that the more developed variant has achieved 20 as the ADA head points out, earlier PV/TDs have gone upto 21, and the aim is actually 22. So more information will clear the G issue up as well. Hasty conclusions will only be confusing, since the reporter hasnt detailed it more.