Snow MonkeyI think Dassault were in a position to charge a high price on the M2K upgrade. Who else made M2K’s? I also see that a billion extra on one contract where there is no alternative to buying from the OEM can be used to reduce the price on another contract where there is an alternative.
What M2K upgrade has been done for 1 billion less (or proportionate per plane) than the price Dassault/Thales/HAL agreed to? How you are you so sure that the ´fair´ price is 1 billion less? I´m not advocating for the upgrade necessarily being the best approach, but I don´t see why the price is some ´cheat´. In collaboration with HAL, Dassault was able to lower the price signifigantly. Some things just happen to be expensive… That can be a reason not to buy them, but that doesn´t change that they really are just expensive.
Snow MonkeyWhat are the criteria for usage then?
Would India with-hold full usage in a war with just Pakistan, holding out against China?
Would the US or NATO hold out until the lower-modes start failing to work? Or a degree of seriousness of war is passed?
Snow MonkeyI wouldn’t underestimate the sensitivity of those Chinese listening posts up in the mountains, nor ignore the idea of a satellite picking up signals. An overhead American spy satellite in low earth orbit back in the 70’s could easily pick up the Soviet – platoon level – hand held r126 FM radios. If they can pick up a signal that is normally limited to one or two klicks then imagine what they can do with signals of much higher frequencies and power.
So logically NOBODY is testing their latest-gen radar systems, then?
I would assume that FCR have somewhat more directionality than infantry issued radios.
Snow MonkeyI`m not really interested in debating the issue further with JSR, et al, although I would say that asking why India didn`t partner with Antonov for MTA is a joke because: `Antonov` can`t buy into the development program like the Russian MoD can, much less buy the equivalent production share which makes the program economic. Antonov also doesn`t actually have the full range of sub-system capability, i.e. would either need to arrange financing to cover Russian participating in sub-systems or the whole program would be much higher risk/development time.
One point that I think IS excluded in this debate, which mostly centers around Russia`s own needs, is that I think the vast majority of export customers are NOT going to buy any large tankers like Il-96. For those customers, a transport-tanker akin to A400M is probably ideal, and An-70 fills that exact niche (and better than Il-476). I would guess that India (POSSIBLY China?) is the only customer who would potentially acquire something like a Il-96 AWACS and tanker (which can also carry pallet cargo). For Russia itself, an An-70 tanker-transport would also be a useful adjunct to an Il-96 tanker fleet, by being able to be based at more diverse bases closer to operating theaters, as well as being more able to re-fuel helicopters (props can fly slower, i.e. at helicopter speed).
Anyhow, I guess it can just be said that is was regrettable how An-70 was dropped and whoever at Ilyushin decided that Il-476 was their best bet to take advantage of the situation. You can see what happened at Antonov, they ended up pimping themselves out to the Chinese, basically to the detriment of their long-term competitive position, to make just enough money to exist, but not to fund their most promising new projects like An-70. Faced with that situation, I can`t not believe that there did exist different windows of opportunity where they would have agreed to sell the entire An-70 project rights to Ilyushin, perhaps leaving both sides as being able to produce and market the An-70, but allowing the Russians to set-up their own 100% Russian production line with future Ukrainian co-operation or co-production being optional. Given that the effect on Chinese aerospace was equally detrimental to Russia, they really should have tried harder to find out what Antonov`s price for the An-70 project was.
Snow MonkeyI love Jo´s new sig image 🙂
Snow MonkeyWhat’s that with the story that NATO aircraft have intercepted a Scud missile?
Yeah, I was a bit confused on the details of that.
I would normally ASSUME it was shot down by one of the frigates or whatnot in the area, and aircraft were sent to the launch area to destroy the actual launchers… The reporting could be read as aircraft shooting down the missile, but that seems highly unlikely to me, even if countries like the US are looking at such capabilities.
Snow MonkeyI thought you said there wasn’t anything new in the Il-476?
/facepalm
Where did he ever say that? Really? His whole point is that Il-476 is most comparable to C-130J.
New wing structures with same old aerodynamics, new FCS, glass ****-pit, etc make it a whole lot more work compard to Il-76MD (which he has consistently recognized the benefit of).
The idea that short-field capacity is needed for AWACS, tankers, etc, is absurd…
Not to mention that re: tanking, An-70 would be better in that role (being able to use many more dirty air-fields closer to whatever theater is in question). Russia spends mountains of cash funding a nuclear deterrant, the whole point of which is to guarantee against a situation where all it´s conventional assets are supressed or defeated, or against nuclear first strike itself. If Russia is really planning to fight total war after such debilitating strikes, I think the budget for underground cities needs to be raised as well. Basic reality is that Russia has a huge territory, and there is really no scenario besides the likely war scenarios and the extremely unlikely total war scenario, where it´s AWACS and tanking assets would need such a heavy degree if insurance re: air-base strikes. Not to mention that most of those fleets would themselves be destroyed sitting in their hangers (regardless of landing capabilities) under such attacks.
The An-225 fleet is maxed out, but I agree that it isn´t a MoD issue, if anything MoD can lease flight hours like other customers when needed.
I think following up on Trident´s point, when introducing what is essentially a new platform (476) even if it has some commonality, you should want/need it to have longevity. 15-20 years down the line, is 476 the platform that further money should be spent on? From the looks of things, UAC´s future plans for wide-body airliners (i.e. same class as -96) look more like Superjet, i.e. full of Western components… Leveraging the existing Il-96 infrastructure seems the solidest approach for the next 20-30 years.
Much of the so-called ´captive market´, namely Venezuela and Iran that were mentioned, are in fact already buying from China, so dredging up a franken-76 with better fatigue cycles just can´t compete against the same-era legacy designs that China is selling.
Given that Russia IS inducting An-70, you can just look at it mereley as a waste of money… But there are just so many areas where it does affect other things… Not having a competitive air-tanker for exports… Not having a competitive AWACS platform for export… Throwing away investment in Il-96 when that could at least have been salvaged for the least pain vs. building new 476 infrastructure. For many export customers, an An-70 tanker-transport probably would be a good prospect, but with resources diverted to 476, An-70 is strung out.
Snow MonkeyThe `Transitional National Council` has already `embarassingly` (they were supposed to keep it secret apparently) admitted that they have been participating in drawing up plans to have UAE forces `occupy/pacify` Tripoli (and other areas) once they have essentially defeated the Qadafi-loyalist forces. I`m not sure if Bahrain will be contributing troops.
So was that RAF strike on a boat filled with Qadafi troops leaving the refinery battle essentially made when they were retreating to Tripoli?
Snow MonkeyWhat do numbers of planes have to do with sorty per plane per day numbers?
Being in port for replenishment when it was sent out on short notice very likely does have alot to do with lower numbers.
It would also be interesting to see the numbers for SUCCESSFUL strike missions…
Being able to launch on shorter notice vs. France/Italy/Greece-based fighters
seems like they could be more certain of having targets to hit.
Snow MonkeyAny word on a new (non-cylindrical) external engine cover on the rear-ward portion?
I suppose that would only happen with the ´final´ engine configuration…???
I wonder when the intake / blocker configuration will be revealed in more detail…
Snow MonkeyI would be more ´pee’d’ as a passenger that they delayed the flight by an hour to clean or whatever.
Snow MonkeyI never called them obsolete ? which is once again a relative term. Even platforms from the 70s can be upgraded to current standards and can still be very useful. One could not argue for example that the Eurocanards as new as they are have any marked superiority over the latest Eagles or Flankers (there may be a slight superiority but none like a generational gap).
One of the arguments was that the Western birds have lower life time costs, well then why was the Gripen ignored ? It touted to have the lowest of them all with single engine. Unlike others, I believe it would have supplemented rather than supplanted the LCA.
May be its all about ToT and latest technology being offered as part of the deal, thats the only logical explanation which can be drawn from this. Again question marks are there on HAL/India’s capability of making use of the transfered technology in a timely basis. DCNS/MDL Scorpene fiasco is a perfect example of this.
MMRCA is planned to be used for around 40 years, which implies heavy mid-life upgrades.
Both Eurofighter and Rafale can be expected to have top-notch MLU´s funded by their producers.
This cannot be said for Eagles or Flankers, much less MiG-29/35.
ToT should also be kept in mind vis-a-vis the areas where the EC´s are advanced.
Gripen didn´t meet the performance needs and for that reason wasn´t kept in the tender.
These theories of inducting used/cheap/upgraded Mirage 2000´s and MiG-29´s under the theory that Tejas Mk.II and PAK-FA will maintain IAF strength when they are inducted is a HIGH RISK procurement strategy, because it assumes those 2 programs will continue without hiccups, and will have full capability when inducted. If IAF wants to ENSURE that they will have a force structure on par with what they aim for, ´overlaps´ like this are exactl useful for making sure that a hiccup in one platform doesn´t hinder their entire force structure.
Beyond the realization that IAF does indeed want a long-term-viable ´new medium´ multi-role fighter that only Rafale and Eurofighter satisfied, I believe that Tech Transfer is indeed the driving factor here, and why these other proposals don´t match what IAF is trying to achieve. Of course, I think Tech Transfer could have been equally met by the cheaper Gripen NG, and any lacking of ´strength´ made up for with additional purchases of Super MKI´s, for lower cost and quicker integration into force structure. If one assumes that IAF did consider that approach, I can only hazard that they were more impressed by the long-term upgrade outlook for Rafale/Eurofighter than for Gripen NG and Sukhoi 30 combined, which I think is a reasonable assessment… Although Su-35´s commonality with PAK-FA seems to hold prospect for back-porting developments to Super-MKI, again, I suspect IAF feels there are benefits from ToT from ´independent´ sources, i.e. Russia and Western… Which I also feel is reasonable, not the least by ´double leveraging´ the dual ToT to increase local participation/ToT in future JVs with future partners (i.e. rather than just having the portion of capacity they gained from ToT from Country X in future collaborations with that country, they have that ToT and other ToT from Country Y to bring to the table)
My penny is still on Rafale winning this.
Snow MonkeyBasically, if they order any ECD in, say september, they could probably start getting their first ones before the end of the year (unless they ask for an equipment that’s not integrated yet, of course).
Like an AESA radar on Eurofighter? Of course, everything except the radar can be built, and that is installed nearly last anyways, but ´immediate´ diversion of production line is less of a sure thing with EF. Rafale production from ´now´ is more or less in-line with MMRCA. Both are plumbed for conformal tanks, so that isn´t a problem for either of them, the tanks can be installed last moment if necessary.
Snow MonkeyI found this interesting/wierd… Why is Ilyushin buying CS100´s to lease out? That is equivalent to Superjet.
I can see CS300 at this point, since the larger Superjet isn´t in production or even with announced dates (to my knowledge),
but it seems strange to allocate capitol to Bombardier production…
At least if they´re not getting something in return, e.g. service network access. Anybody know more than me!? 😀
Snow MonkeySo those previously acknowledged RCS hotspots like the IRST and that sensor behind the cockpit are here to stay? Looks like no faceting intended…
I wouldn´t interpret that model as implying that, any more than interpreting it as meaning non-round nozzles will never be introduced. If final designs for new gear don´t exist yet, I wouldn´t expect air-show models to reflect the phantom gear. Much less that Sukhoi is so insecure that it would feel it necessary to telegraph all of it´s latest designs to all entities world-wide. If Sukhoi is selling it´s product to somebody, they will know what they are buying. For the general public, it would be confusing/complicating the message to be flying one thing and showing off models of another thing. The flying demonstrators are impressive enough to 99% of the audience, and if you are sophisticated enough to notice those other details, you can probably understand that they are in development. Of course, I have no idea what the final IRST and MAWS will look like. The current provisioning seems adequate for a variety of designs.
Sign In
