Yahoo, stop embarrassing yourself…

Nonsense. The Soviet space program was far more indigenous than the American one. Almost the entire Peenemünde rocket development team under Werner von Braun fled West, surrendered to the Americans and were eventually employed by NASA. The Soviet space program was instigated and carried throughout it’s first decades (the Sputnik and Gagarin years) by Korolyov – a Russian, not a German.

are you sure about various accounts. I have read at http://www.cast.ru(cannot open the site now) where a Russian is clearly stating that Russia is to China is like Germany to Russia in 1930s.

Germany had it’s highest industrial output during WW2 in October 1944, after two years of the Allied bombing campaign. The industrial output only really started to suffer when Germany was getting occupied, the bombing campaign had very little effect on the industry. The bombing campaign’s effect lay far more in keeping the Luftwaffe occupied and destroying POL.

I have watched movie on Historychannel where they are clearly stating that Allied bombarment clearly slowed down new weopon development and deployment.

Uhhh… one month after the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union still existed if you didn’t know. British and American help only started to pour in after about six months. Can’t stop showing ignorance, can you?

It is questionable if germany put all the effort or portion of it and there was embargo due to previous conflict.

As it is shown, German losses on the Eastern Front were far higher than on the Western front. And of course the U-boats were engaging UK/US supply lines: submarines aren’t of much use in tankbattles the likes of Kursk, and i doubt that U96 would have saved Stalingrad for Hitler even if it fired a torpedo into the Red October tractor factory :rolleyes:

germany was on the offensive so casualities are expected but Soviet Union suffered more due to crude weopons.

A few other things about Yahoo’s percieved Russian inaptitude…
– An eight-bladed rotor on a helicopter (the Mi-26) after NASA had ‘proven’ that seven blades main rotor was the maximum number of blades possible.
– A gearbox able to put a counter-rotating prop on a 12.000hp engine. The US never managed to pull this off, in fact a number of projects got cancelled because such a gearbox could not be built (the B-35 for one).

there is also cost-benefit ration in West. So they may not attempt all the things if the resulf has more likely hood of failure.

not sure how relevent the M88/R33 comparison is seeing the time difference between their introduction.

as for the claim of russia not being ahead in any feild or not introducing any new technologies, well im sure a few other members will have quite a lot to say about that comment. i’ll just start you off on a few feilds where russia led, and in many of those feilds, they are still heads and shoulders ahead of everyone else dispite not progressing much for over a decade!

-no-one has yet feilded anything even remotely compareable to the supersonic AShMs the russian navy has in service, not to meantion the newer ones that are being developed with foreign funds.

-russia (or rather the USSR) was the first to feild a passive phase array radar on a fighter (mig31), although thats probably one of the very few areas where your comments about introducing crude products might have been relevent.

-the russians were years ahead of the west in terms of tank design, and pretty much wrote the book on it until the M1s came along and re-wrote the rules.

-and of course, the most famouse example of all, the USSR was the first to put a man made satelite in space, they were also the first to send a man into space and bring him back alive, and they sent the first probs to the moon and beamed back the first pictures of its surface. although the USSR later lost the moon race, recently released documents and the accounts of those involved showed that the USSR was in fact still ahead on the US in terms of space tech at the time, and the americans took a huge gamble while the russians played it safe. it could be argued that the spectacular american ‘victory’ could have just as easily turned into a spectacular failure, and there is no doubt in my mind that the russians would have been the first on the moon had the US taken the same level of care regarding the safety of its crew.

also, in many cases, russian weapons were less complicated (and less capable) then their western counterparts because the russians purposely designed them to be simple and easy to mass produce. this is logical extention of the philosophy that helped them defeat the germans in WWII, dispite the fact that german weapons tech was far in advance.

even the newer RD-133 does not match M-88 or F404 reliability. the higher thrust RD-133 non afterburning thrust is less by 2000lbs as compared to EJ, M88 or F414. non-aft os more important measure of comparing aircrafts.

not sure how former USSR was years ahead. there tanks didnot perform well in Arab israel, Afghanistan or chechnya conflict. Leopard one or M60 was not behind them.
Regarding space effort it was more leakage of german or western tech.
And USSR didnot defeated Germany. It was the US-UK airpower that destroyed German industrial complex because of which they couldnot reproduce weopons as Germany is small country any damage due to airpower can have significant effect. IF you remove US-UK from the equation. Germany would have occupied the whole of USSR with in a month. As it shown that USSR losses were far more despite the fact that German airpower was no where near to US calibre. Germany didnot even have aircraft carrier and most of there U boats were engaging US-UK supply lines.

well so far the FC1 dont have things like F-16D style square spine(for EW suite), night vision googles, IRST, FLIR pod, large nose for bigger Radar which includes SAR resolution, etc. so i dont think this should influence the cost yet. remeber that the FC1 is a ‘plug and play’ kinda machine, and you can make it very complicated (hence expansive), or keep it fairly basic. i suspect the $13m price tag is at the low end of the pricing spectrum.

also, i seem to recall reading somewhere that the PGs only cost around $2~3m. the $5m price might have resulted from the PAF putting all those western kit on them (grifo radar, martine baker ejection seats etc). again with the FC1, you dont have to put western kit on. chinese equipment will be much cheaper, but might not be quite as good.

when cost of $12.5m for Chinese version or $15m for western version every thing including R&D(testing in this case) are included in this. Read the Janes report of April.
IN case of pricing issue only $2.5M for RD-33 is the external dollar cost while the rest $10M is internal local money cost. On the other hand the whole $50M of Su-30MK2 is dollar cost. no local currency involved. And the other thing is that i wouldnot buy Radar or EW suite from Russia. First they sell down graded version and secondaly most of there technology is compromised to West. just look at the millions of top Russian immigrants to West or Israel.
There is no corporate culture(stock options) in Russian companies. Engineers and scientist are better off selling secrets to underworld rather than state contacts. US is not bothered by Russian weopons sells. I will trust French or Italian corporate world more because intellectual property is there whole business. Just look how the French has brilliantly rescued the Nissan Motor company.

F-16 Blk 60 is excellent machine for Strike role. Its Radar and EW suite (PowerPC G4 processor) are among the most advanced in the world. 9 Ton external weopon load with around 4.5 Ton fuel load gives new engines gives it better capability than Su-35 with all the new Radar, Avionics and EW advantages.

I agree to some extent but it’s a lot more expensive to buy than the Su-35 which has much longer range. IF the blk60 wants to reach as far as teh Su-35 it must carry external fuel tanks, even despite it’s CFTs it’s range is still not as long as of that of the Su-35. ALso the SU-35 has more hardpoints, not to mention how often would you load an F-16blk60 with 9 tons of weapons?

Though I do like the F-16blk60 better than Typhoon or Rafale or even F-18E/F(which sucks), and for the same reasons as UAE. Sure it’s older than Rafale or Typhoon, but it’s already fully developed, ie it’s weapons, avionics and etc, while Rafale and Typhoon are still at the early stages of full weapons integration

Have you read enough about F-16bLK 60?. It has an engine which produce 90% of thrust in non-aft burn phase as afterburn thurst of F-16A. It gives it upto 900 nautical mile radius for Air combat and around 500 nautical mile for Strike. Its Maximum take off weight is 22.5 Tons. But it is lighter than MIG-29 by atleast 2.5 Tons. Offcourse no body knows the combat radius of Su-35 in strike role when it if fully loaded.

**edited by WM ** we
showed them the door on F16, while Pak fawns and wags tail like the obedient dog….but still doesnt get even used F16.

the P3C is the leading ASW ac in the world bar none. I guess
some classified US systems would be replaced by alternates
to be chosen by india.

I haven’t seen such a colored post on US equipment to Pakistan. this post is
i think edited. the Plus sign was too big.
India cannot show the door to US thats for sure. US can block all India deals with Israel and Britain also do untold damage to economy by simplying cutting off oil supply in international waters. it is just US hasn’t applied the right kind of pressure for some cheap 2nd F-16.

F-16 Blk 60 is excellent machine for Strike role. Its Radar and EW suite (PowerPC G4 processor) are among the most advanced in the world. 9 Ton external weopon load with around 4.5 Ton fuel load gives new engines gives it better capability than Su-35 with all the new Radar, Avionics and EW advantages.

But you just told me that the total cost was 1.4!

.

You should read carefully my posts. here i am again posting it. It is from July issue of Overhaul and Maintainanece the sister publication of Aviation week. the most credible price you can find out.

MALAYSIA: A mid-2003 $RM5.4 billion ($1.42 billion) RMAF contract for 18 advanced two-seat multi-role Sukhoi Su-30MKMs is now known to include funding of 120 million ($143.56 million) for advanced digital mission

systems avionics from France’s Thales group. The RMAF’s Su-30MKMs will be similar to India’s Su-30MKIs now arriving from Russia’s Irkut group, with canards, thrust-vectored Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans and NIIP N-011M Bars radar. RMAF westernized mission systems avionics from Thales and SAGEM, however, will exclude Israeli Su-30MKI components in Su-30MKM and weapons package deliveries, due from 2006.

The RMAF will oversee integration of the aircraft and systems in Russia, which will be completed in partnership between Sukhoi and Thales. Equipped with modern European avionics, these aircraft will enhance the RMAF’s already substantial combat aircraft fleet, from delivery by 2007 to 2008, while strengthening Thales’ links with its Malaysian industrial partners. Thales claims that its systems will boost the capacity and operational performances of the SU 30MKMs, notably in the domains of avionics, navigation, identification and optronics, and enhance their capabilities for both day and night combat

$700M for MKI setup production costs alone. And this consultant does not believe that it will be cheaper locally.

India Plans License-Built Production of Su-30MKI.

By Forecast International: Foreign Military Markets, Asia & Pacific.
328 words
30 April 2002
Forecast International Press Releases
English

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Bangalore, India has announced that it will deliver the first of a planned 140 Su-30MKI multirole aircraft to the Indian Air Force in 2004. The manufacturing schedule for the license-built aircraft was released the last week of April 2002. All 140 aircraft are to be completed by 2017. The information released by HAL indicates that $700 million is being spent to create the infrastructure to produce the aircraft under license in India. Of the total $150 million is to be used for capital investment including the set up of machinery; and another $500 million is to be spent on tooling and other equipment. It is unclear whether the remaining $50 million has been earmarked for the program or for unattributed expenses.

Hindustan Aeronautics will also pay Russia a license fee of $286 million to build the aircraft in India rather than to purchase them off the shelf from Sukhoi. HAL is also to receive a 100 percent technology transfer for the project. According to HAL it will be able to build the aircraft in India for less than the cost of the direct procurement from Russia. Considering India’s track record for indigenous production of military equipment the likelihood that the program can be concluded cheaper than under direct sales from Russia seems optimistic at best. HAL has yet to deliver a single example of its Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) to the Indian Air Force. The locally produced Arjun tank program has been nothing short of a disaster. The program is years late, well over budget and there continue to be question about whether it can perform at the level of rival vehicles. In 1998 India ordered 50 Su-30 aircraft from Russia at a cost of $30 million per aircraft. To date some 18 have been delivered. All 50 are to be completed by 2003.