dark light

Boom

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 877 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Hot Dog Indian AF News and Discussion Part 17 #2369667
    Boom
    Participant

    no, what’s sad is your inability to understand simple english. :p

    total requirement is for 400 which is split down the middle among a foreign acquisition and HAL.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2370029
    Boom
    Participant

    navy’s LUSH standard sea harriers have demonstrated this with the derby.

    in reply to: Hot Dog Indian AF News and Discussion Part 17 #2370164
    Boom
    Participant

    Some have suggested that IAF is interested in larger platforms for the Phalcon like the IL-76 compared the Gulfstreams etc on offer by Israel.

    So in case of us running out of IL-76 what platform would be ideal ?

    as i.e says, civilian airliners make the best AEW&C platform because these are the most efficient designs for plain flying. AEW and tankers for that matter do need the extra oomph that transport platforms provide and it makes for inefficient use, high fuel costs and maintenance requirements etc.

    IL-76 is a rather poor choice in that regard but makes sense in a way because IAF already operated transports and tankers on the same platform.

    As for the C-17 I was saying as they augment the airlift fleet, India may be able to use one of their IL-76 (send them to Israel) for conversion.

    that’s like using a tank for pizza delivery.

    in reply to: Hot Dog Indian AF News and Discussion Part 17 #2370239
    Boom
    Participant

    2 more Phalcons isn’t enough! They should’ve at the very least ordered 3..

    there may not be that many IL-76 platforms available.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2370988
    Boom
    Participant

    hottie has a twisted sense of humour which I like.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2371021
    Boom
    Participant

    Sintra, even if the SKD/CKD kits and later components are supplied at partnership rates (and not lower) Indian typhoids would cost lower because of much lower personnel costs.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2371025
    Boom
    Participant

    Teer, you have got mail.

    Wasted capability don’t you think ?

    absolutely. the cause was the financial crisis in India in late 80’s which put paid to any jaguar style agreement or even a direct buy. the fulcrum number got stuck for the same reasons. when the financial conditions stabilized and IAF wanted the mirage-2000-5, russia offered the su-30, which won out in the end. this was severely criticized at the time with headlines like “IAF buying a plane which does not exist”.
    when IAF again asked for mirages around 2000 the deal went nowhere and dassault closed the line.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2371056
    Boom
    Participant

    When the Mirage 2000s were first procured, an IAF person went on record stating that the infrastructure (he probably meant basing etc) could technically handle upto 100 Mirages, not just fifty.

    nitpicking, the number was 150.

    in reply to: Hot Dog Indian AF News and Discussion Part 17 #2371061
    Boom
    Participant

    Can’t India just build their own light helicopters? isn’t that what the Dhruv was designed for?

    dhruv weighs more than double the fennec, different category altogether.

    the LUH is for utility roles, as the name says. total requirement is for 400 which is split down the middle among a foreign acquisition and HAL.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2371251
    Boom
    Participant

    what this thread needs.

    http://blindgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/salt-shaker-2.jpg

    in reply to: Hot Dog Indian AF News and Discussion Part 17 #2371444
    Boom
    Participant

    http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1840/14146796.jpg
    aww, poor babies. what does the journalist think these helos are for ? transporting miss world contestants from their beaches at sea level ? :rolleyes:

    if anything, the conditions look really light to me, the siachen pioneers, which would be one of the units operating the light chopper are based at 10,000+ feet

    who writes this trash ?

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2371753
    Boom
    Participant

    for the last time, there is no evidence of any such break-up. PSG does not count.

    the heavy helo’s are NOT for CSAR, so says the IAF and nothing has happened to make us change that view. IAF would be stupid to use its small heavy lift fleet for CSAR when it has better alternatives and the heavy lifts are needed elsewhere.
    just FYI, none of the USAF CSAR units use the chinook, all fly the medium weight blackhawk variants.

    In the end the only reason the Chinook could win over the Mi 26T2 will be its versatility and capabilities including CSAR, for if its just Heavy Lift the Mi 26T2 should win hands down, which mark my words it won’t.

    this only shows your limited understanding.
    IAF’s tender is not a reality TV slugfest on who can lift the most but which would be the most useful for IAF’s specific needs. in particular moving items like light artillery in mountainous areas. by all accounts both chinook and halo are adequate for that job.
    the question then comes down to serviceability (something internet warriors like you can’t fathom) and then price.
    if the chinook wins it would be because IAF believes it will offer higher uptimes, not whether it can perform gymnastics on mountain tops.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2371804
    Boom
    Participant

    £120-125 million

    would make it as costly as the JSF. 😀
    over the full production run unit cost for both should be around $ 80-90 million.

    There you go dear quadbike, cite this credible source in your research.

    No bids were opened for American, Russian and Swedish jets, so how do these “Sources” know they were much cheaper. Go figure.
    Forums seem to be more accurate than these news papers. …LoL

    what do you know ? the reporter is published in TOIlet, so what he says must be true.
    ooooooo I am so impressed.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2371817
    Boom
    Participant

    dude, it doesn’t make sense. everyone (except you) knows what to believe if something is reported by prasun sengupta alone and no one else. the tender clearly stated that 15 heavy helo’s were needed and didn’t mention any break up. it cannot arbitrarily change the numbers without cancelling the older tender and issuing a new one. buying heavy lift choppers for CSAR makes even less sense, only an idiot like sengupta can come up with something like that.

    the tender statements are available in pdf form from the force’s websites, the language is very precise and what is not there is not true. these are not weekend chicken recipes that change on sengupta’s whims.

    in reply to: A-5s for Dedicated CAS #2371833
    Boom
    Participant

    even though the saggers aren’t particularly user friendly when a mass of tanks are charging your position because the missileer has to guide the missile manually.

    for the doubtful usefulness of classic tank charge there is the battle of asal uttar from 1965 war where a 100 tanks were lost, most of them american supplied pattons.

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 877 total)