maurobaggioAFAIK, that generation IRST range is about same as human eye. If you see the target on IRST, you’ll likely see it by unaided eye as well. This is probably why he didn’t think IRST was useful. It might have been more useful in Soviet style GCI controlled tactics, but as he said, they didn’t fly the a/c that way.
Indeed I guess that you are correct about the performance from this first generation of IRST when you had been comparing with human eyes. But we should keep in mind that human eyes( whitout NGV) at night and especially in bad weather conditions has been practically useless in air-air combat.
However the IRST system had been introduced in the MiG 23 and MiG 25 and later in the: MiG 29 MiG 31 and Su 27 as a backup for the radar from those fighters in most of the cases in combat WVR( Within Visual Range).
The introduction of the IRST system were motivated by the Vietnam War , in that war the US had been using powerful ECM ( Eletronic Counter Measure)to supoort the night strikes against the North Vietnam, and this tactics to jamming the radars fighters as MiG 21 were quite useful.
Also introduction of a laser rangefinder with the IRST from MiG 29 and Su 27 has been intended to avoid that those fighters in dogfight combat with guns it could be blind if the radar were jammed by the adversaries .
Even the guns from this fighters to be effective has been needing the fire solution from its radar , so when using the laser rangefinder those fighters could be effective even the radars were jammed by the adversaries, after all against the high maneuverable fighters from 4° Generation even the AA 11 ( R 73) would have found out problems to deal alone with those targets.
maurobaggioThey just had to follow the brazilian example. The air force chooses the plane(Gripen) and Embraer(HAL) manufacture it as best it can. HAL should be an industrial branch of IAF like Embraer opted to be to FAB. When Mauricio Botelho was the president of Embraer he tried to force FAB to accept some of “its” products mainly at that time the Mirage 2000-5. Also a Emb-120 version to replace Emb-110 and the P-99 over the P-3 Orion. This created a lot of animosity amongst FAB high officers against Embraer because it was to the FAB to choose the aircrafts not Embraer. The current Embraer administration saw this as an error and tried do reaproach FAB with another attitude. It worked, KC-390 is the result of this new mentality.
Embraer has not show obedience to the Government of Brazil since it was privatized in 1994.
A few months ago the Embraer had been refused to receive a visit from the Vice President from Russia in its facilities, and despite the same were in the presence of authorities of the Government of Brazil.
Embraer has been only received contracts from the Government of Brazil.
If Embrarer has not been accepting to receive a simple visits from a Vice President of Russia, what were the realistic chances of Su 35E and MiG 35 could be chosen by Brazil in the competition of F / X program?
State-owned enterprises like HAL can have their problems, but the HAL at least is under control of the Government of India, while the Embraer has been running loose and may be it is the Embraer that is driving the Government of Brazil.
maurobaggioJust I have remembered that the AIM 120A has became operational in 1991, thus making comparisons between the MiG 29 equipped with the AA 10 Alamo (R 27) and the F 16 with the AIM 120 in the 80 does not make any sense, in case of war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in the 80 AIM 120 would not be in operation.
Tests had conducted in 2003 in the US with the MiG 29 and its missiles AA 10 and AA 11 had the purpose of evaluating those weapons due to its threat, but would be necessary to remember that this version 9:12 from MiG 29 as well as the AA 10 and AA 11 went into operation in 1983 in the Soviet Union, that is almost twenty years before those tests.
The pilot’s analysis has been addressed with a tactical purpose and not as well as historian analysis, after all if was a Russian pilot that had been participating in tests with an F 16A in its territory and compared the same with a MiG 29M equipped with the AA 12 (R 77) in 2003, his analysis would not be equivalent?
maurobaggioIn my opinion: no chance of Argentina buying a fighter that isnt in service in the mother nation in the first instance,
and secondly, it remain to be seen if China wants the J-31, especially in its current form
In fact Argentina would not be the first in South America that could made something like that, once the Brazil had been selected the Gripen E / F in its final list with Rafale F 3 and F/A 18 E/F Hornet before the Sweden did the same.
The Gripen E / F were selected by Brazil before the own Sweden has been decided to purchase the Gripen E/F, in fact Brazil had not been the first Gripen E/F customer due to delay of three years to Brazil’s president to decide on the matter. After all in those three years the contract has been changed from $ 4.5 billions from 2009 for $ 5.4 billions in reason of the elapsed time.
maurobaggioCertainly agree with this. There’s no reason for the Indian state to own manufacturing firms.
In fact there is no reason for this, and such good example from India could be the Embraer that has been developing the KC 390 .
If HAL were a private company like Embraer should be amost certainly that HAL today would have not been manufacturing the Su 30 MKI and certainly would not be participating in a 5th Generation project as the T 50.
After all if the HAL would be like Embraer, the HAL today would be a subsidiary from Dassault, once the Dassault has been among other owners from Embraer.
The US had been blocked the sale of the A 29 Super Tucano from Embraer to Venezuela, in this case even an advanced training aircraft were blocked by the United States, so the same could may be applied to the KC 390, after all the US companies has been always to comply with the US government without specific treaties.
maurobaggioExactly, why waste time and money developing an aircraft that already has an alternative on the market?
In fact, the MTA could be the first in the market, in this case the first on the market that US could not block the sale because the only option from engines and avionics will be as: ‘ Made in US’.
The KC 390 has been described as an excellent project, but follows the doctrine of the Cold War , once the Embraer company think that could be such mortal sin to develop a version of the KC 390 with systems that could not come from countries that has been controlling its stocks, that by coincidence should be France and US.
maurobaggioThe introduction of J-10 is better than Gripen for the UK. Bigger, less sophisticated targets if things ever get nasty.
Something tells me that the still highly supposed acquisition from J 10 by Argentina in the short term could open the possibility that in the medium term the Argentina would be a possible candidate to acquires the FC 31 (J 31).
After the Zhuhai 2014 I guess that has had little possibility that the J 31 program will be canceled, and if the J 31 would not purchased by China its quite possible than China will put heavy effort to export the FC 31.
The slight possibility that the FC 31 could be acquired by Argentina should be such great marketing tool for own FC 31 around the world.
Otherwise for those who have been believed that in South America will keep free from 5 ° generation fighters , once those should be to much advanced for the countries of this continent, the just slight possibility would be enough to cause nightmares.
maurobaggioActually there are too many fallacies on this thread which is made me confusing replay on which one or start with who!
However let me write something here and at least start with it, we didn’t had general in former Iraqi air force named (Ahmad Rushdi, real name Ahmad Sadik) this name or person does not exist at all, …
In fact there is many thing i would like to answer it or replay on it but hopefully in next time.
Welcome with your contribution.
Perhaps such reasonable reason why former pilots and others military personnel from Iraq Air Force has not been revealed their identities could be due about its own safety and their families, since even after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 there were a campaign to murder former pilots and others from Iraq Air Force.
That campaign had been supposedly assigned by such Iran secret service as revenge the war between Iran / Iraq in the 80s and it were described in the article above inside the quote.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/…1#.T4xLCLN1DkU
Here is a good reason why people like Tom Cooper and other ones ran/run into problems to find former IrAF people/pilots to report about their time in service in general and for 1980-88 especially.
I could never understand why Iran would have expected the Iraq were occupied by the US and UK to then could start its alleged campaign of revenge against former pilots and others from Iraqi Air Force, once this supposed Iran Secret Service should have been operating under a great threat that would be represented by the huge apparatus of intelligence and counter intelligence from US and UK that would have been set up in Iraq after its occupation.
About some reason could be mentioned that after the end of the Gulf War in 1991 the Iraq had been totally unable to threat the Iran, besides the Iraq were already in civil war, so after the US invasion of Iraq the alleged campaign from Iran against the former pilots from Iraq would be very more difficult than before the invasion in 2003.
However the fear certainly has been prevents many to reveal its facts about the Iran/Iraq War or even the Gulf War in 1991, otherwise at the best its formers military’s from Iraq could use fake names to protect their identities what unfortunately has been making impossible to authenticated its facts.
maurobaggioI think you miss the point. I said ‘retrofit’. There were large stocks of Skyflash, Aspide & Sparrow missiles. It might have been possible to upgrade them for considerably less than the cost of buying AIM-120, & such an upgrade might have been available earlier. Not an alternative to AIM-120, but a supplement.
The complexity and the cost of the head seeker with active homing radar from AIM 120 would be responsible for most of the cost of own missile, indeed that has not been usual to replace the head seeker from BVR missiles , since the others subsystems as warhead and the solid rocket engine also has had a useful life, and in the case if such missiles as the AIM 7 would have been continued in service would be necessary to replace those parts either.
In simple terms to keep an AIM 7M improved with the head seeker from AIM 120 this solution should be equivalent to manufacture almost a new missile.
Among several reasons about the replacement of AIM 7M (Skyflash, Aspide, Super 530D as eg.)
by AIM 120( or Mica) could be this last one BVR missile has been more maneuverable capability than the AIM 7 , once the threat of 4th generation fighters from Soviet Union (Su 27P/S, MiG 29) the performance of AIM 7M in the 80s would have been already considered not enough to deal with those new threats.
Beyond that would be only a matter of time before the new versions from AIM 120 had been increased the range to match with the last AIM 7M, which would have limited further the advantage of AIM 7M with head seeker from AIM 120. In the 80’s the priority should be to improve the maneuverability from BVR missiles than to increase its range.
maurobaggioViggen never got Active Skyflash, because Active Skyflash was never fielded. I don’t think it got as far as test firings. Viggen had to make do with the original semi-active Skyflash until AIM-120 became available.
A pity. If they’d developed it as a retrofit to existing Skyflash, Aspide & Sparrow missiles, there could have been a big market.
The Russians had been thought about this too, once in the 90’s it were proposed a version from R 27 equipped with active radar homing 9B-1103K that would be the same from R 77.
The advantage from R 27EA over the R 77 should be the long range, once R 27EA could reach almost 130 km ( 75 NMI) instead of 80 Km( 45 NMI) from R 77, otherwise the R 77 are much more maneuverability than R 27.
The AIM 120 has been also more maneuverable than : AIM 7 Sparrow, Skyflash and Aspide in BVR( Beyond Visual Range combat against other fighters. The missile maneuverability could be so important as the sophistication from its head seeker against fighters, that could be such answer about the fact that the AIM 120 has been replaced the: Sparrow, Skyflash and Aspide.
Despite of the improved performance from active radar homing seekers over SARH( Semi Active Radar Homing) the advantage of a some version from AIM 7 Sparrow with active radar would be small when it could be compared with the AIM 120, even with the extend range of AIM 7M Sparrow over the AIM 120A.
In combat fighter vs. fighter the range from BVR missiles should not be its main advantage, since in simple analysis fighters has a small RCS ( Radar Cross Section) that has been generally limiting the detection range from radar from fighters when equipped with BRV missiles.
The high RCS from targets as :AWACS, Transport, Air Refuel Tanker, ASW / AsuW could be useful from BVR missiles with long-range capabilities, but in this case the Russian has came to the conclusion that R 27ER / ET / EP would be enough to handle against these targets, in addition those versions from R 27 would be more cheaper than the R 27EA with active radar homing , while in the West such targets with high RCS has been not considered by strategists as a high threat, once the West would be equipped with Stealth fighters from 5th Generation.
In this case the Gripen E / F when it would have been equipped with the BVR missile like the Meteor would be a great resource in order to strike the enemy if the same would have been supporting the war with:AWACS, Transport, Air Refuel Tanker, ASW / AsuW as eg.
maurobaggioIt was influential via TOP GUN movie and millions of plastic models ?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234915[/ATTACH]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AIM-54_6_Pack_uncropped.jpg
Indeed the F 14 Tomcat had been described by the West press since the 70’s as the most advanced and powerful fighter in the world, which in fact were not an exaggeration.
Among the most striking aspects from F 14 Tomcat since the 70s should be its weapon system with air to air long-range missiles AIM 54 Phoenix with maximum range of nearly 200 km ( 100 NMI), along it were equipped with new active radar at this time, and as the AIM 54 were combined with the radar AWG 9 from F 14 Tomcat could allow the same up to engage four target simultaneously, then we should taken in mind about the impact of this capabilities in the 70’s.
Even with all the technological advance since the 70’s, the F/A 18E/F could not replace the capability from F 14D when it would have been equipped with the AIM 54D Phoenix, even the latest version of the air -air missile AIM 120D could not reach the same long range of the legacy AIM 54D.
The Top Gun movie has been disseminating the F 14 Tomcat since the 80’s around the world, but still in a secondary capability that were the close range combat or dogfight combat.
maurobaggioThe customer is always right, unless your product is irreplacable for the customer.
It seems that the new Indian government may just want to find a good excuse to kill the MMRCA, in order to save money for its domestic fighter projects, such as FGFA, MCA, Super-30, and LCA MK2 etc. For India, Rafale is simply not irreplacable.
I think the Government of India has not been need an excuse to cancel the MRCA program, or then could choose another competitor instead the Rafale F3.
However I also think the MRCA program could be a fast track from India to get most important key technology for all future programs from India as : FGFA, MCA, Super-30 and LCA MK2 as you have mentioned in your post.
I’m really curious to find out what it really means the 100% ToT agreement about the Rafale F3, once this could be the part of the Rafale F3 from Dassault to HAL, or it could be 100% ToT from Rafale F3 to India.
The interpretation about what has been meaning 100% ToT from each part could be one of the factors that has been extending the discussion of the agreement for three years, since in my opinion the Government of India would be interested in 100% ToT from all components of the Rafale F3, as well the Snecma M88 engines and the radar Thales RBE2 EFSA for example.
The reason would be very simple: India has been aims to manufacture engines with own design , as well as AESA radars for example.
The problem should be that Dassault has not been manufactured neither the Snecma M88 engines and Thales RBE2 AESA radars for example, thus in reason of that it does not have autonomy to take responsibility for 100% ToT of the Rafale F3 about these subsystems, as well as establishing the conditions under which those items could be manufactured in India, and not just only assembled in India.
The interpretation of that could means 100% ToT also could dramatically affect the cost of the entire program or even to make it unacceptable to France, since the Rafale F3 subsystems could not be included in the interpretation of 100% ToT from Dassault when it won the competition.
maurobaggioUnfortunately for Rafale fans (me included, even though you may think otherwise) dark thoughts are thinking this.
As regards the “blindingly obvious”, it may be so, but the clause is interpreted as it is by the GoI, and politically it seems to be written in stone. The RFP was agreed to by all participants, and if the EF had won this competition, it too would have faced the same interpretation.
The Americans has a saying: the customer is always right.
I do not think this saying has been applying to all poor customers like myself, but such customer as GoI that has been willing to buy 126 Rafale F3 by nearly US$ 20 billion has not been found out with the same ratio that could found out such poor customer as myself.
As wild guess about what could have been undermining the Dassault to close the contract with India could be that conditions has been changed since the proposal made during the competition to India, since by around 2010 it was certain that Rafale F3 would win the competition from Brazil , as the own President of the Brazil at the time had speech the Rafale F3 was the winner at the President of France.
The loss of almost certain contract from 36 Rafale F3 for almost US$ 8.4 billion in 2013 to Brazil was such unpleasant surprise from Dassault, as Dassault had lost the preference due to lack of political support from France to the nuclear deal with Iran that were proposed by Brazil and Turkey in 2010.
As speculation: there are not easy to deny that at least such possibility that the loss of a contract from Brazil almost could have affected the whole cost structure from Rafale F3 for India.
However now after the NSA scandal the US should added a new saying: do not let being caught spying the customer.
maurobaggioseems to me we heard that same sentence last year about the same period…
as said by swerve, the problem lies in the fact that India wants Dassault to be responsible for everything, while Dassault simple can’ty do that (as no company could). Last year, we had Dassautl complaining that HAL did not build infrastructures as required by Dassault and even refused Dassault engineers the right to inspect the facilities. How in such situation, could Dassault agree to sign to be responsible for what HAL does in the end?
In fact Dassault shall be responsible from HAL, once the Dassault will be in the leading position of the whole project, since that Dassault has been the owner of the technology.
In such complex process as 100% ToT from Rafale F3 that it will be to India the efficiency and effectiveness from Dassault should be the key from HAL success in the task to assemble the Rafale F3 on time and cost has been planned from the project.
If Dassault did not had the confidence in HAL, in first place it would not have made the proposal for 100% ToT to India with the Rafale F3, since the Government of India has been the owner from HAL. Otherwise if Dassault has not been the confidence in HAL then should be that Dassault would not have trusted in the Government of India either.
Because of the contradiction in the paragraph above the argued problem about the liability clause should something like a distraction, than the reality that has been delaying the signing of the contract, once it has nothing to do with HAL, in fact I guess that France and India could have leaked this problem of the liability clause from RFP only to distract the attention from the media and public over the main problem .
maurobaggioAbsolutely. And with the added advantage that with no capability to mount an invasion there is no risk of starting a conflict where actual people will die.
If I was (we’re?) rebuilding Argentinian air power on behalf of current regime with current priorities I would stick to faffing about and neglecting to buy anything. Cheap short term political capital and PR sleight of hand without any risk of getting into a fight.
It is quite interesting this your idea, but I guess that someone in the Government of Argentina and even in Brazil could have been already implemented this when the two countries signed an agreement in which the Argentina had been interested in 24 Gripen NG that could be assembled in Brazil.
After the Argentina has been proposed this deal that could reach US$ 3.600 billion for 24 Gripen NG , that in my opinion should have been raining other proposals for Argentina in reason of the refusal of the UK to allow the sale of the Gripen NG for the Argentina .
However since this episode the Argentine government has been apparently lost the high interest in to acquire some others fighters. Indeed the same had become very annoyed with the simple-minded speculation about the Su 24M Fencer from Russia, what in my opinion were very strong reaction from something as that were a simple speculation.
Argentina wants the impossible, because only the impossible as the Gripen NG would be good enough to Argentina.
Sign In
