Honestly? I don’t care one way or the other- it’s the internet.

And it doesn’t make you wonder about the people that use such generalized, broad statements? Even if it doesn’t touch me personally, I consider nationalist stereotyping quite the letdown and wonder about the person to propagate it.

The more I hear this line of “reasoning” the more ludicrous it sounds. You have a person in a position of power who, by her relationship to an individual, knows he’s a real piece of work, is a law-breaker (tasers his KID for christ’s sake) and (apparently) tries to get his a$$ out of a position that SHE is accountable for, and yet you feel she’d have had BETTER judgement had she just let it continue? Seriously? Had she done nothing about it we’d NOW be hearing how “she abused her power by letting a known child-abuser, drink-on-the-job-cop, etc. stay on the force while she was governor”. What universe does that make sense in? And all I can say is thank GOD the Euros can’t vote over here. They probably think the former son-in-law was abused horribly and should get grief counciling at the state’s expense FFS.

I think you are laying the Euro-bashing on a bit thick there. Do you like to be stereotyped by the happenstance of your birth location?

Heres where I must disagree- the MKI has little similarity in many key avionics with most of its predecessors.

The IAF requirements for a completely open architecture, incorporation of a lot of third party gear into core avionics modules & the facility to continue doing so, plus transfer of technology (documenting/ converting the reams of Russian technical literature into english, western stds) including manufacturing knowledge. Per recent news, the MKI has entered Phase 3 production at HAL for some key items ..by 2010, the MKIs will have substantial local content.

Plus the had to operationalize the TVC, develop the Bars..Practically all of this was done once the IAF committed to the program and began funding it & involved itself.

To give an idea, recently the RAAF was in hot water when their locally developed RWR was not found compatible with their Hornets. Here, the Indian side brought RWRs, the Israelis got jammers and so on and so forth, it was successfully integrated…and the upgrades are still rolling in.

A new pod to cue ARMs (local) got qualified, new Israeli pods to snoop 300-500 km into the PRC were procured, and there are apparently several other upgrade / modifications in the works, underway as well. The Indian side is now using the MKI as a testbed for the local Astra BVRAAM in development, they have a locally developed software rig to add further kit as well.

Again, not slagging the EF, but its fairly creditable for the MKI program to have achieved thus.

In fact, it was a RAF executive iirc who in 2001 commented that the MKI program was a remarkable success in terms of program management, despite the delays from original schedule. I have the quote somewhere in print..its but now, I think one can appreciate the scale of the effort, all the techno babble of “x” vs “y” and which plane has this better than that, apart.

In the meantime, Irkut have also delivered MKMs to the RMAF, with newer kit including navFLIR & now there are MKAs for Algeria as well.

All in all, I do think Irkut & its partners have done a very good job & they deserve the financial success. All this at a very competitive price which is substantially lesser than many of its peers!

But how much of that immediately relates to weapons integration? Flight testing, FCR, software, etc? How much of that work is at least based on what the Russian manufacturer already did, considering the Su-27 line in general?

I guess time will tell, dont get me wrong – I have no wish to insist that it “wont happen” or a vested interest in the same. Its just that with the constant budget battles for defence in many European countries, including the UK, I see the EF Tranche 3 program as being under threat.

In such a clime the arrival of the JSF could be a bit ominous. It may offer capabilities (to AF that plan to operate both) that would allow some degree of leeway in not keeping the EF going with expensive upgrades (unless for export).

I guess this also answers the other thread where somebody asked the effect of the Indian MRCA contest on the “winner”. Well it means enough money to keep their product competitive via a large export contract & the follow on lifecycle costs some of which will definitely flow back!

The thing is: T3 doesn’t only happen if all four members commit. It happens as soon as one of them commits. Britain’s and Spain’s diverging plans don’t mean much to T3 induction as long as Germany at least is committed, and they absolutely are. No way around it.

My problem with the Gripens is three fold,

one, its too small for the job the MRCA will have to shoulder, even with the NG, I am a bit wary of the range vs payload specs

Also, the issue of US content – the US has this habit of armtwisting others who use their IP and the end user may pay the price if it doesnt play nice with the US at times

Finally, its similar to what the LCA is now becoming, why buy 2 a/c of the same type.

If you are purely looking at the capabilities and then at the prices of the MRCA contenders, you have to wonder though why they don’t just go with more MKIs. Most of them are roughly at MKI performance levels, yet cost the same or more. Only the Gripen would somewhat slot in between LCA and MKI. (And the LCA program is a whole separate issue, regarding where it stands, how well it’s progressing and what kind of capabilities can be expected at which point in time.)

Nope just that. Fluffy as in bunny rabbits, pillows etc. Apparently there is no word in the German language thats equivalent?!

Actually there’s the colloquial word fluffig, which already looks pretty similar (and is built on the same structure fluff-y/ig, both using the same adjective-forming suffix in each respective language). Otherwise, there’s flauschig, which means exactly the same. 😉

Depends. A couple Hornets did it during Desert Storm.

What was the opposition they faced? What kind of engagement was it?

Also, I assume that with HMCS and HOBS no one, even in the most sophisticated airframe, wants to get into a WVR fight if he can avoid it, because those technologies kind of take the airframe out of the equation and a even a MiG-21’s chances of taking out a 4th or 5th gen opponent aren’t too bad. Desert Storm of course provides a slightly different picture and technological level, but then again the basis of discussion was F-35 vs 4.5th gen aircraft. 🙂

Hmm? :confused: How should they fly in real life?

While short range shots might fly a straight intercept course, long-range AMRAAM shots usually fly a ballistic/lofted flight profile as far as I know.

If you want to e-mail me a PDF file of your work, you can grab my e-mail address at my blog. I’d be interested in giving it a read, my favorite authors appear to be publishing all too infrequently and I’m always on the lookout for something good.

Sure. I’ll get a PDF of the latest revision done tomorrow and send it your way. 🙂

The next book I’ve got kicking around in my head actually contains military aviation, shady procurement deals and military-industrial espionage. I guess the time on here rubs off. 😀

Any truly capable strike fighter (loaded up with PGMs) is expected to defeat DCA on the way to the target without OCA babysitters. So, quick nose pointing and missile launch is a requirement.

Errr, I’m not sure. Sounds way too risky. Unless you are going up against seriously dated legacy fighters, I think it’d be either a) jettison stores and engage or b) abort flight–and that for BVR alone. A WVR fight is a risky proposition in any case and I don’t think either side will willingly get into one, especially not loaded with heavy stores.