Greenday1Actually when all this originally started I had posted condolences for the Arab civilians killed, but I do NOT have any remorse for Hezbollah or Hamas members who’ve been killed because they are terrorists, not soldiers like the IDF forces or the Lebanese Army.
The same reasons you have are the same reasons that Lebonese mothers who have lost their children to Isreali “precision” bombs wont mourn “terrorist” IDF soldiers.
To be honest, I dont think the sympathies of yoru kind will ever be missed by people you have gone through so much pain.
The nearest thiing for you may have been when you were not served extra large fries at your McDonalds…….
Greenday1If IN is not satisfied with Sea dragon it does not mean that is going to accept P-3C (just like IAF will not accept standard F-16block 52) thats why it is looking at P-8. and operationalitising problems does not equal to lack of technical ability.
and in no way shows direct comparision between the two.
Any chance of keeping this thread on PN topics? There is an IN thread already.
Cheers
Greenday1French stance on Lebanon compared to UK/US, may help them in this regard.
Greenday1Yeah, thats right! I am undemocratic, because I disagree with you? I have problems with your views! I am now undemocratic!? Listen to youself?
Puberty is going to be such a pleasent experiance for you…..
I know it was the opinion of the Church, Dan Haultz is Isreali CinC, not a Monk…..
Greenday1In the year 2000 the dispute between Lebanon and Israel was solved by the UN and an international border marked. All activities from both sides were monitored by UNFIL. Hezbollah is not the Lebanese army or what crossed right now the Litani to do what?!
What does you mean “THAT” Israel crossed that border literally?!
Israel is not responsible, when the Lebanese was unwilling to secure its southern border despite urgent demands from the UN.
When Lebanon fullfill the obligations from the UN, I see no longer GPS-guieded missile hitting Israel.
When the Lebanese government thinks otherwise it is aware about the consequences to its country and the Lebanese people.
I dont know if you realise this, but almost everyone of your posts on this subject are qouting the exact Isreali government line. Even lots of Israelis dont agree with your posts. Even lots of Israeli soldiers would object. You are either totally blind to teh suffering of innocent people or you seem to believe everything you are spoon fed.
What next, Dan Haultz claims earth is flat, then you will post 12th Century scientific theory to back him up?
Someone said it here earlier.
I would call you a name, but that would be an insult to idiots worldwide!
Greenday1Before you quote UN Borders, you may wanna look at territorirs occupied and resolutions violated by Israel. Dont paint one side as innocent. Thats almost impossible in this conflict.
Greenday1Again that is integration issues , IAF can go in for Mica , derby or even meteor or simply the R-77 which is a formidable weapon ( even by western accounts) …The IAF has no problem with this as russians have allready allowed them to integrate western weaponry and if the ALTA AESA is selected then it would be even easier furthermore if the russians say no they can always dump the mig-35 and go in for the Rafale or F-18E/F . It is all a question of what platform IAF wants to go in for , as russians are showing ever increasing flexibility to weapons integration , The IAF can go in for the Mig-25 with ELTA 2052 and use meteor for all we know , more will be known in that timeframe ( IAF isnt getting deliveries tommorow and it will be some years before a fully ready MRCA flies let alone is inducted) . The C5 is being offered with the E/F and the SH so india really has a choice . Over the long term the a2a weapon shouldnt be a limiting factor IMO as russia is bound to come up with R-77 ramjet or newer missiles for the PAKFA , europe with the meteor , and US with JDRADM , it is selection of the airframe and a2g ordinance and a2g capability that is harder to get pound for pound then getting a top of the line missile to such a capable manuevring aircraft rather then relyiing on a missile to keep a rather sluggish obese aircraft maintain an edge.
Its not a case of if Russians CAN integrate Meteor. They may not be able to as I really doubt Europe/US will let them. Integrating Isreali avionics is one thing, but Europes premier air to air missile may be another matter.
I dont think the US has cleared either AMRAAM or AEASA for India yet.
Yes manufactures may offer it, but government clearence is another matter.
Greenday1The current proposed Mig-35 will most likely be a better more rounded aircraft then any F-16 currently flying ( even the E/F) as not only would it be more in tune to IAF setup it would also not compromise on manuevrability and A2a combat ( like the viper with CFT’s and bad wing loading) . The only drawback is weaponry ofcourse with nothing currently in operation that is even remotely capable as JDAM , SDB and other GPS goodies aswell as other weaponry such as JASSM etc etc however if india wishes they can get French and other european stuff in there ( including meteor,MiCA-IR etc etc etc) ..
I dont think the MIG-35 will have anything to match the AMRAAM C5
They should go for Rafale, even if price is high, they can buy small numbers and purchase more later. Will come with MICA,and perhaps Meteor. Russia may not be able to integrate western BVR Missile.
Greenday1I dont think UAE will be selling its M2k-5s anytime soon. They just spent alot of money upgrading them and paying the French to develop a air launched cruise missile for them. Why bother with all that if they are not able to operate. There are a few foreigner already flying Mirages for the UAE.
India wont be able to buy extra M2Ks. The Peruvians and Eqyptians may well not want to sell them, and now Brazil can be added to the list of countries that may compete to purchase more M2K surplus airframes. Best to stick with teh Russians.
Greenday1Very relevent considering the discussion going on. Although I dont think PAF has 21 Fighter squadrons. More like 17-18, so its actually comparing IAFs fighter sqaudrons to all the squadrons in the PAF.
IAF losing edge in numbers over Pak
Man Aman Singh Chhina
Chandigarh, August 17, 2006
The scores are narrowing down in the sky. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has always enjoyed an edge in numbers over its principal adversary — the Pakistan Air Force. However, it seems to be on a downward spiral with the depleting number of combat squadrons.
The number gap between the two forces is being reduced primarily because of the phasing-out of ageing aircraft and delay in the induction new ones in the IAF.
The dwindling number of aircraft is serious enough for the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence to advise the government to look into it and maintain “an authorised aircraft count”.
Senior air force officials say the IAF would be left with only 29 combat squadrons at the end of tenth plan in 2007, barely eight or nine squadrons more than Pakistan’s current strength.
The question that they are asking: Will this be good enough to gain air superiority during a war with Pakistan besides providing support to the ground forces?
At present, Pakistan, which is not only in the inner ring but has far lesser assets to defend, has a total of 21 combat squadrons. China, of course has a larger air force with about 3,000 combat and support aircraft.The committee has found that even with the planned induction of aircraft during 2005-2017, there would be “serious deficiencies” in the combat squadron strength against the authorised strength at the end of tenth, 11th and 12th plan periods.
Out of the 39.5 projected squadrons by the IAF, it has now only 37 active combat squadrons, short by nearly three squadrons. However, what’s pertinent is that by end of the 12th Plan, the shortage will be almost one-third of the projected strength.
While, a proposal to buy 126 multiple role combat aircraft was cleared by the government in 2002, it took nearly three years for the Ministry to send requests for proposals to Russia (for MiG-29M/M2), Sweden (for JAS-39C Gripen), France (for Mirage 2000-5 Mk2) and USA (for F-16). Aircraft shortage becomes all the more pronounced, as the surveillance capability is also deficient. The Standing Committee has commented adversely on the delay in acquiring low-level radars for all the three services, including IAF. The 126 aircraft, which the IAF is planning to acquire, primarily caters to its strike force depletion that constitutes MIG-23 and the MIG-27 aircraft. The Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), which the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) is working on, will replace mainly the MIG-21.
Speaking to HT on the issue of acquisition of new aircraft, a senior serving air force officer, who wished to remain unnamed, said even though there was considerable pressure from United States to buy F-16s, the IAF could do well to refrain from adding any new aircraft to its existing cocktail of squadrons.
Lack of timely decision-making as well as paucity of finance is the reason why the IAF finds itself in the present situation, says Air Marshal D.S. Basra (retd), a former Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Southern Air Command. “It is all simple and straightforward. We’re all confused as to at what level we want to maintain our air force,” he adds.
As far as acquiring new aircraft for IAF is concerned, Air Marshal MM Singh (retd), former Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, says IAF would be better off buying more MIG-29s or Mirage 2000 instead of F-16s. “SU-30 and MIG-29 can match F-16 if not prove their superiority over it,” he says.
Greenday1Victor
Your right, in the present surface fleet inventory, there is nothing to match India’s superiority. This should seen be rectified by purchase of F-22 Frigate, Greek ships and possible induction of former USS Fletcher. Indias surface fleet is indeed formidable.
PN will fight in the air and under the sea, and as stated, its in these arenas the advantge is being gained in terms of technology. In numbers, PN cant, and probably never will match IN.
Greenday1Agreed, with above. Not only do we constantly have ongoing arguments about what the PN might acquire to what the IN has presently, it always degenerates with the losing party claiming US always better than Russian/Israeli/Indian etc systems.
Even looking at phalanx ciws we can see the IN has several layers of defense before it even gets to a ciws. Dehli’s having Kashmir 9M38M1 SAMs, Baraks and then finally 30mm AK-6304 as the ciws. And can we say Kashtan anyone? Thats with built in missiles and guns?
Isn’t there a modern version of the phalanx being the baseline 2C and the 1B which pakistan is getting is older? Wikipedia has a nice story of an iraqi silkworm having to be destroyed by a british sea dart missile, because the phalanx on one US ship targeted the flares on another, missing the missle.
In my opininon, the PN was outclassed before, is totally outclassed now and will be far outclassed in the future with IN acquisitions. The only thing PN got going for it is those 3 Agostas…but again 3 subs a fleet they don’t make.
Marlin is the only thing PN has a small element of doubt on. The rest of the equipment talked about is already in service.
PN wont stand still while IN aqquires future equipment. Far from being outlasssed. Out gunned yes, not outclassed!
Greenday1Lets wait and see. In the past we had reports of the IAF preparing bases for these planes and claiming it was a done deal, for the Qataris to turn round and laugh at the price offered. May be the same here again.
Greenday1Agosta 90B is better than Kilo vanilla. Against the Kilo upgraded, the superiority of the Agosta 90B is at least debatable and not an outright given. The only place where the A-90B is clearly ahead is in AIP and only one boat has that and it has just launched. With a fleet wide perspective, the number of upgraded Kilos and U-209s are clearly better than the grand total of three A-90Bs and a handful of obsolescent earlier subs.
P-3C, in terms of electronics is overall better than the Tu-144s but against the Il-38SDs, the differences are at least debatable and superiority of the P-3C is not a given. In terms of size and serviceability of the fleet, the P-3Cs are in a better position.
Harpoon II is better than the Sea Eagle. But what about the Kh-35? Klub-N? Klub-S? Brahmos?
Any supposed superiority that the PN might have over the IN in localized aspects are transient and debatable at best. Taking a fleet wide perspective (after all it will be fleets that will be fighting, a Harpoon is not going to be dogfighting a Sea Eagle) will reveal that the IN has the ability to take the initiative while the PN will be a reactionary force.
BTW, did you figure out if the Hanit has the Phalanx or not?
Victor
This was my point. 10 P-3Cs, 3 Agostas 90B and 6 Marlins (we will heare about the deal very soon) will not be a push over. Of course PN will be reactionary, as I stated earlier, its doctrine is sea denial. By definition reactionary.
I dont know much about the Klub missiles, but seems to be more a cruise missile to me. Of course PN are also atrting to operationalise Barbur.
The main point I was making is that 10-15 years ago, you would be right to claim PN would have been a pushover. No one would have argued with you.
Today that certainly does not hold true.
Its nice to have a sane post at last!
Greenday1OK, point taken, wont respond to guys who smoke a bit too much.
Cheers
Sign In
