JangBoGoJangbogo,
Without offence intended I think you don’t really know what you speaking about.
The rafale doesn’t suffer any lack of trust to weight ratio : 1) it already proved to be vastly superior in dogfight against all the competition which tells a lot on it trust/response engine performance and aerodynamics 2) it can carry more weapons than it weight and actually more than the rest of the competition. 3) It demonstrated super-cruise capability with 1 supersonic drop tank and 4 AAM in operational condition (and that was with a rafale M, the heaviest rafale in the hand of Lcl Prazuck from the french navy). 5) All reports/test flight say otherwise. Just read Petter Collins flight test on flight global or shiv Aroov flight on the rafale (the last actually felt that the rafale was the most powerful aircraft he flown among the mmrca contender).
Radar, your point of view is over simplistic. Having talk to several rafale pilots, this is not a matter of concern as long that you have sufficient range to support your weapons in their envelop. Rafale relies heaviliy on passive detection and third party targeting to elaborate surprising tactics. This tactic already proved to be successful in the UAE against the bigger radar section typhoon.
Last but not least I would like to point out that Pepe rezende (member of the brazilian defence committee) was actually right on many points regarding the MMRCA competition. Now look again at the details he gave on the performance of the rafale in the competition in Brazil (stealth, EW etc). If this is indeed true no wonder the rafale ended top in the MMRCA competition.
Also remember that the two aircraft that failed in the test at Leh are the SH and… the Mig-35…Which is according to you (and I think this is wrong) has a better TW ratio.
No offence take friend. I get you points and I don’t even dispute it. i’ve read those posted by french poster in the MMRCA thread. I said it is just my personal opinion based on the open data. So it should hardly matter to the establishment guys.
The Leh experience is what is puzzling me, particularly the MiG-35 related. It is mainly because MiG-29s are the ones deployed in Leh and IAF for sure would have been in touch with the RAC-MiG for any matter related during its operational life in Leh. And if any manufactuere would have known the area better it would have been the MiG. if I’m not wrong the LCA starter is derived from the MiG-29s which was modified for high-altitude during its operational deployment years ago.
The Brazilian member does mention about the payload carried (2 drop-tanks, 4 x AAMs, 1,900kg payload). That may total about approximately 4,500-5,000kg payload if I’m not wrong (2 x1,000kg droptanks, 200 x4AAM, only approx numbers).
Let us take 5,000Kg as the total payload and consider few facts.
1) MiG-29k is cleared for STOBAR operation with 5,500Kg payload operating from just 198m runway. Even though from land-operation the MiG-29k can take-off with 6,500Kg using longer strip.
2) If I’m not wrong Rafale is incapable of doing it due to lack of thrust. I could be wrong.
JangBoGoA rafale which is a damn good dogfighter ,
No doubt Rafale is a good dogfighter. It was also the reason why in the above post I clubbed the MiG-35 & Rafale in the no1 spot in A-A.
and we saw it tracking the F-22 in its OSF.
http://russiadefence.englishboard.ne…a-rafale-pilot
So no reason to disbelieve when the Russians earlier said that the MiG-35 will be able to deal with the “5th Gen a/c”. Its only the hard-core American fanboys who are still living in world of Godly American wares who claim of the “invisible & invincibe” American F-22 . Others like Brits, French & Russians know what they need to deal with the “5th gen stealth”.
has the Mica and meteor Option , damn good performance subsonic and supersonic , Has an AESA, HMS etc etc …
And the individual performance when operating its own sensors (radar basically) is where Rafale will find difficulty. Beacuse of its small nose cose. Rafale will have to live with its small Radar for any forseable future. MiG-35 nose is larger and hence a larger dia can be placed. As for the missiles. the 35 does have good stuffs including the anti-radiation Kh-31PMK (200km) which can be of pretty good use on AWACS & fighter as well.
But since we are likely to see AWACS support, individual radar will not be of much game-changer and will more so depend on the passive tracking, missiles and eventually dogfighting.
If indeed the Mig-29UPG are capable of consistantly “wiping the floor” of the french beuties then the IAF is just waisting the 10-20 billlion dollars it wishes to spend … heck even the Mig-35 would have been an overkill , just ask the Russians to build stock mig-29’s from old specs and upgrade them and send them across , for a 1/3 of the cost of aquisition of AESA equiped Rafales from france…
I’m talking about MiG-29K. Indian Navy does not have MiG-29UPG, they have the MiG-29K which comes from the unified family of new MiG-29s of which MiG-35 (new built) is/will be a part.
If you really feel that Rafale is superior to MiG-29, can you please post any encounters of Rafale & MiG-29s? We have seen Rafale beating the EF-200 Typhoon & even F-22 but have not yet heard of the same with MiG-29. There are pictures of Yemeni MiG-29 with Rafale, but don’t know if there was DACT or any other combat performed or the results. But Yemeni pilots cannot be equated with the IAF pilots, particularly MiG-29 pilots, who I personally believe as the finiest in Asia. They train only for one thing – Air Superiority. If they are doing 180hours/year, it is purely for air-superiority.
It is the reason why I said I’m looking forward to see an engagement between Indian Air Force Rafale & Indian Navys MiG-29K. Because that would mean high quality pilots going against each other in two of the best dog fighters in the world!
As for wiping the floor, M2K when it was inducted in the 80s ruled the Indian skies (indeed wiped the floor with other a/c), untill the MiG-29s came into the secne and changed the secne upside down! There was an article on that in Indian defence magazine. If anyone got it plz post.
JangBoGoRafales choice does surprise me though I expected it to be one among the 3-a/c contest in the final stage between MiG-35, Rafale & Typhoon with L1 finally getting through or a split between L1 & L2 (MiG-35 & Rafale). And yes dissapointed to see that MiG-35 could not clear it….but surprising to see the engine power being one of the reasons mentioned. This is surprising as the two most underpowered a/c in the contest was the F-18E/F & Rafale.
Moreover, it should hardly be surprising as it was the Sukhoi & UAC boss who have been promoting the MiG-35 in the Indian tender. So it would be simple to expect what his dedication would be for his opponent RAC-MiG. Sukhoi have been hard to liquidate its opponents and become the monopoly in the military a/c in Russia. Probably the Sukhoi guys now have managed to create a strong case to argue that now every project should be handled by the Sukhoi. 😡
Some likely facts
1) There could also be other factors to the Rafale becoming the no1 in selection and that could be the IAF selection/evaluation committee. If it was filled with the M2K guys, then make no doubt it was them who tilted it in its favour. Else on engine & Radar, Rafale would be the last.
2) Like in the mid-90s (M2K deal for additional 10 units, insider leak) there probably was a leak from the MoD (!!!) regarding the shortlising/probable shortlist of the contestants. It was probably the single reason why we saw the French with full confidence, arrogance & greed that they demanded a staggering a $2.2billioin for the upgrade for the M2K and wanted it to club it with the Rafale deal. After connecting the dots, to me it looks like the French had an absolute idea about who the other contestant could be and they pretty well knew they were/could be the L1 (considering Typhoon is higher priced). So probably they showed the guts to demand the $2.2 billion considering two factors
1) they were the L1 &
2) MiG-35 will not be an obstacle (L1) to their price demands.
3) Also, the MMRCA tender also looked like some stupids play and I feel bad (frankly) for the Lockheed & more so Gripen consortium. It is because, from the onset it was clear that single-engined a/c did not have a chance and still the idiots who formulated the tender made a fool of the F-16 & Gripen guys, making them waste their precious budget (more so the Gripen).
4) Now that the shortlist is over, will Lockheed (f-16), Boeing (f-18) guys be sending bills to the fat guy (more weight = more fuel 😀 :p) from Livefist and other media persons who have been having the ride of their dreams over the years.:D ……. and if we are lucky enough, we’ll in the distant future see who all the Lockheed & Boeing guys paid in the background to see their products being promoted in the Indian media (& even in the forums) :p
Some of the mentioned things for the shortlist does surprises me and I’ve put my view below. In my view, considering the data from the open sources the individual parameter for the contestants would have looked like this.
Engine/power (determining the performance,
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1730659&postcount=693)
1) Typhoon
2) MiG-35
3) Rafale
A-A combat
1) MiG-35 (one of the reasons why Rafale/Typhoon etc have been avoiding MiG-29s during Exercise with IAF)
& Rafale (have beaten the Typhoon http://russiadefence.englishboard.net/t930-interview-with-a-rafale-pilot)
2) Typhoon
Strike role (considering the weapons/available, Russia offered the most long-ranged ones.)
1) F-18E/F
2) Rafale
3) MiG-35 (Kh-series of SEAD, anti-radar etc,)
Radar
1) F-18E/F (operational & matured,larger than Rafale)
2) MiG-35 (in full-fledged testing, larger than Rafale)
3) Typhoon (probably way behind the Russians in development, larger than Rafale)
Value for Money (Cost/Unit & capability)
1) MiG-35
2) Rafale
3) F-18E/F
Operational Capability (air-worthiness & combat capable during time of crisis – The Independent Choice :D)
1) MiG-35
2) Rafale
And now that it is between Rafale & Typhoon…….my heart goes out with Rafale. At least the French people will kick the Psycho out of office in the next election and India will not have to worry about the Psycho ganging up with Yanks to stop the spares & block the aircrafts like the Brits did earlier, in the time of crisis.
All the Best to Rafale. Go Frenchie Go, beat the crap out of Eurofighter. 😀
JangBoGoPersonally I think a factor in favor of Rafale is if the Indians DON’T buy it the French may offer it to the Pakistanis. OTOH the Eurofighter consortium is unlikely to sell to Pakistan.
No problem, it will then get down to who have the better pilots & tactics. Moreover, along the Western front, MiG-29s represent the “iron curtain” that any probable PAF Rafale might need to breach and MIG-29UPGs can pretty well be able to hold themselves against any Rafale.
(I’m waiting to see the IN MiG-29K going up against the IAF Rafales in the future and I won’t be surprised if the “Russian beasts” wipe the floor with the “French Beauties” like they did back in the 80s.)
In addition to that its better to have one entity controlling the a/c rather than having 4-different heads that head in every different direction possible. Also, the Frenchies won’t block any spares like the Brits. Its also better to have something to fight with…
JangBoGoNot enough details for anyone else to have a view could be politically motivated report.
I think former chairman is trying to escape from his neglect?? From the article posted by rayrubik it mentions that an issue with shroud did come up in the earlier flight as well but which was not much detrimental to the GSLV.
So who has to be held countable for not giving proper thought to the issue and not having a remedial solution? The former Chairman Who lead the team or someone else?
JangBoGofrom the link…
http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/detailsnew.asp?id=apr2211/at046
Nair, who headed the Failure Analysis Committee, said the 12-member panel submitted its report to ISRO two weeks back.
According to ISRO, the failed component, called shroud, was made of composites and is part of the Russian cryogenic engine. It got deformed due to the flight load.
A connection like the shroud is more prone to deformation on external load if the shrouds are not fitted properly/loose fit. Even errors like 2-3mm off the required fit will cause the head to sustain lesser flight loads (than expected) and eventually fail. I hope ISRO was foolproof when they had to re-integrate the head unit when they earlier had to remove it to plug the leak from the upper most stage.
Informed sources told IANS that even in the GSLV-F04 rocket launched in 2007, one of the connectors got snapped due to weak shroud. “The fault was there from the first GSLV that flew with the Russian cryogenic engine in 2001. The weakness in the shroud caught ISRO on December 25 last year,” a source told IANS.
So there probably was a lapse from the ISRO. Who is to blame for ignoring or not paying attention for this. Former Chairman Madhavan Nair? 😮
some points to be noted….
Experts told IANS that the first 15 km of a rocket’s flight was very crucial as it is subjected to heavy atmospheric loads. It is more so when the rocket is escaping the earth’s gravitational pull at 330 metres per second.
The flow of air along the rocket will be turbulent at the transonic speed – when the rocket crosses the speed of sound. At that point the air will attach to the rocket at some places and detach at some spots in a haphazard manner.
If there was any margin in the fit, then it would have affected the shroud for sure!
The Russians had earlier pointed their fingers at the rocket’s bigger heat shield (4 metre) as the proximate cause for high atmospheric load on the rocket that broke it. The 2010 GSLV’s heat shield measured 4 metres in diameter as against 3.4 metre in most earlier GSLV rockets.
If ISRO had earlier noted the shroud deformation & weakness when the 3.4m heat shield was used earlier, then they should have done more work when a larger 4.0m heat shild was being used. To me it looks like there was a lapse from the big bosses from the ISRO side. What else could explain this?
Refuting that GSLV is facing a 2,000 kg jinx, RV Perumal, a retired ISRO rocket scientist, told IANS: “The increase in the weight of the satellite is only a fraction of the rocket’s total weight (418 tonne). It is well within the scatter mass of the rocket. Hence the satellite weight is not the reason for the rocket’s instability.”
I can’t understand this. Does anyone?
Is this actually a quote from ISRO official? I find it silly….mainly because, when the rocket burns up its fuel in the initial stage, the total mass does go down. But in the lower section of the body. The mass of the upper-stage is likely to remain the same.
Anyone care to explain how burning up of the first-stage and lowering of the total mass will cancel out the affect of atmospheric load on the heavier payload and a larger 4-meter dia heat shield?
JangBoGoI was only replying to your second paragraph, regarding the speed limitation.
The possible performance limitation you describe above is a totally separate issue. You obviously confused the two.
Ok, got it. I misread the top speed.
JangBoGo^^^ I don’t think it is. Anyway these are the latest news items if you missed them.
December 31, 2010 ISRO press release(official but dated)
Jan 31, 2011 ISRO Awaits Data On GSLV Failure
February 22, 2011 Russian, Indian scientists differ on cause
Thanks buddy 🙂
JangBoGoAs I mentioned, the 90 km range Fort will probably be replaced by a mix of the 250 km Krepost (Naval S-400) and the longer range version of the 9M96 (120 km) missile in a navalized Vityaz complex. The modernized ships will have more modern missiles (21st century tech vs 80’s tech), longer range (250 km and 120 km vs 90 km) and more missiles (4 x 9M96 occupy the same volume as 1 Fort). Air defense will be superior, not inferior.
Agree 100% and mostly want to be optimistic about the “upgrade”. If the Battle cruisers are not getting upgrades like these, then its better not to upgrade. .
It would also have been good if they re-built the flight deck and hanger for upto 4 helos.
JangBoGoGranat and Klub are not comparable TR.
For land-attack the Granat would be great, but what about reasonable ranged anti-shipping?
Hence why I asked about Klub on Akula.
Klub questions can be rested because Indian Navy’s Akula class will be having them as the main weapons as Brahmos wont fit in the tube. This may also mean Russian Navy Akulas may also be using them in the future, if not already.
JangBoGoOnly one I could finc on 22160 (from Euronaval 2010 exhibition)
http://spkb.air.spb.ru/news/news/2010/11/12/evronaval/1.jpg
Thank you Wan,
I was not able to find a single pic of the new Korsar frigate that is complete. The only pic I got was the one posted.
I also had some basic questions which did not came with my last post.
1) the VLS looks like 32-cell in 4x containers of 8-each. But is there any more to the SB side (?). I can’t see it properly.
2) Is it just me or just an illusion of the A-190E turret being installed on an elevated base? It looks like too much height and the crew is going to have a good fall if stepped out carelessly.
3) Does it have its exhaust just after the 2nd mast also?
4) any specific reason why RuN did not consider the Korsar class frigate even though they had better sonar dome/sonar than the Krivak class.
5) Is it probably because the SDB have more hold in the establishment than the ZDB?
And lastly, to me it looks like ZDB are more practical in their approach and little more innovative than their counterparts at SDB. See for instance the Gepard class that got transformed to what we are seeing now. It was a well thought out transformation w/o going in for a costly and time consuming new design. (A new design anyway would have drawn significant design approach from the old designs. Pr.11356 Vs Pr.22350) The same can be seen in the new Korsar class though they could have done little more to concentrate the radars on the masts onto the fore section. They did have such a config in their earlier model installed with Moskit. (below picture). The flight deck if shifted backward will give good space for shifting the hanger rear wards which will help in freeing up space for more missile silos in front of it.
Comparing it to the designs from SDB sometimes drives me nuts when considering that RuN have limited funds and these guys are playing with both funds and time. I really can’t understand what the need was there for them to come up with an entirely new design like the 22350 when the full potential of the Krivak class has not yet been exhausted. With this I mean
1) just clean up the middle deck of the sensors and concentrating it to the foresection with a new main mast would allow them to install the freed-up area with almost 24x Urans.
2) They could also have lengthened the hull by 4-6 meters and could have got enough room infront of the hanger for 32-48 Shtil-I missiles.
JangBoGoAbout 22160: (from http://www.oborona.ru/769/772/index.shtml?id=7259)
Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV)
Designed to control the exclusive economic zones, border guards, environmental monitoring and rescue operations in the 200-mile coastal zone.
Standard displacement – 1300 tons, length – 94 meters, width – 14 m
CODAG power plant, 25000 kW
30-knots full speed,
patrol speed – 16 knots, with range 6000 miles.
Endurance – 60 days.The introduction of automation makes it possible to maintain the ship by a crew of 80 people.
Armament:
one 57-mm automatic gun mount A-220M
two turret launchers Gibka for Igla
two anti-saboteur DP-65 grenade launchers, targeting with Pallada sonar system
two 14.5-mm machine guns.Electronic countermeasures: TK-25E with passive decoys system PK-10.
Ship has advanced navigation and communication equipment.
In the aft – deck and hangar for helicopter Ka-27PS or similar foreign-made machine.In other words, a patrol ship of the project 22160 is not much inferior, and a number of characteristics superior to the French OPV Hermes.
Thankyou for your find.
The specs are indeed very good and what I like the most is their endurace of 60 days & 6000miles. The top speed of 30knots also looks impressive. Ships like these are what Indian Navy & Coast Gaurd need for operating out of the Andaman & Nicobar islands. Indonesian Navy will also find it very useful as they have an immense island area to be covered. what escapes me is why Russians are not promoting it and they themselves have orderd some silly looking 22460 class of coast-gaurd ships?
JangBoGoDoes anyone have good picture of the Ka-226 that was send to India for trials for the LOH competition?
JangBoGoI always thought that the Indian army got the French made TI sights to work reliably eventually – something about improving the air-conditioning to the electronics and optics. The IN did make a follow up order for the Catherine TI sights later anyway…
Yes, since the CTI was meant only for cold climate it was not suitale for the Indian desert. They overcome this problem by cooling the system with a/c. It is said that the compartment itself does not have a/c and it is limited to only the electronics. If this is true it will mean the crew of 3 will have to sweat it out inside the hull. But I don’t know if its actually true because, the Russians did have a/c for the T-90s and the tanks that came for trials was equipped with a/c, apu, ads. The Algerian bought the T-90 as a complete package and they did not the remove the standard package of a/c from their tanks. As I understand, the IA due to the civilian MoD that dictate (on what to buy and what not) had to do-away with the a/c, ads so as to get atleast a tank that can match upto to the Pakistani inventory. This was the reason why they had to go back and make supplimentary deals for the a/c later-on.
one factor that had to be remembered is that the bid pocket for the Defence forces opened up only after 2001 and before that the services were practically begging for keeping their wares operational. The IA tanks were almost mothballed due to lack of oil as Indian Army did not even have the necessary pocket to buy fuel. This was due to the fact that after the collapse of SU, cheap oil from Russia & Iraq dropped and the Value of Indian Rupee was made to nose-dive for the sake of liberalization from Rs8/$ in the late80s to Rs23/$ in the early 90s – this meant the purchasing power of the Indian defence services (& Indian public in general) dropped significantly!
JangBoGonice to know the Ka-52’s **** pit is not sky blue
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/ThreatTrainingFacility/Aircraft/HindCockpit.jpg
you got it wrong, it is the same green-blue color. Maybe the flash has made it look different.
Sign In
