There´s no radar blocker on the Typhoon, it uses S-shaped ducts to block the engine.

Do you know of any illustration that shows the duct shape? Because externally, both ducts look pretty linear(being joined together in a line with the engines) in a similar emplacement as on the F-16.:confused:

I don’t think so. In the past, some S-300 batteries were deployed with both Clam-Shell and Tin-Shield radars at a regiment level in addition to the battery level engagement radars. Later both radars were replaced by Chesse-Board (battery level) and Big Bird (regiment level).

In addition what can happen with a malfunction? If some radar broke, the data-fusion station will still be able to operate with data provided by the other two. That means redundancy and robustness. Off course the cost will be a few more trucks and operators but, I think, it is worthwhile.

And in contrast we have the Patriot and THAAD which make do with just one radar to handle everything.:D

Yeah, helps to cover all possibilities. If the Nebo-M is for battery level, what does the S-400 use at the regiment level?

Surprised the Vietnamese didn’t take the time to translate some of the labels on the switches. I know some air forces just go with the OEM language, but there are some that do the translation

US attempt at an Mi-24 rival, the S-67

Looks a tad too skinny for a transport role. I can’t imagine more than 5-6 troops fitting inside.

Why did Eurofighter present ideas for a naval Typhoon then? Who is the potential customer?

Perhaps there is some uncertainties around the N-tejas, and perhaps having a backup solution could be wise?

The IAF has only issured a Request for Information on fighters. This may or may not result in an actual tender.

Is there proof that F-22 (What is F/A-22?) can handle sustained 12 G turns in service?
The maximum designed load is 9gs.

Also, you are using a report sourced to Ria Novosti as a reliable backing for PAK-FA characteristics? Hmmmmmmm

It was an example. The Raptor’s official operating limits might be 9-10Gs but it’s capable of going upto 12. Hence the liquid-filled G-suits which are designed to increase pilots’ tolerances. This news has been known for quite a while.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8027.html

are you sure? its 21Kn for Al-222 vs RD-33’s 81Kn

Performance
Maximum power
(SLS, ISA, δin=1)
Thrust, kgf (flat-rated up to tamb=+30oC) 2,500
Specific fuel consumption, kg/kgf∙h 0.64
Maximum power
(H 5,000 m, M 0.6, ISA, δin=0,97)
Thrust, kgf 1,450
Cruise
(H 10,000 m, M 0.6, ISA, δin=0,97)
Thrust, kgf 300
Specific fuel consumption, kg/kgf∙h 0.875

Dimensions, mm 2237.7x860x1093.

My bad. I took the words in the last article at face value(‘In its primary 22,000-pound (10-tonne) version, this engine could replace Russia’s Klimov RD-93 on the FC-1 and its Pakistan air force version the JF-17 Thunder.’):o

After searching a little it appears the afterburning version of the AL-225 can produce upto 4200kgs of thrust. They could compete with an RD-93 only in pairs, so re-engining the JF-17 is far-fetched.

http://www.deagel.com/Fighter-Aircraft-Engines/AI-222-25_a001253001.aspx

You’re not going to see a naval Rafale in Indian Navy colours. Its already slated to be operating two types of aircraft in the MiG-29K and the N-Tejas. If a third type is to be acquired (for its second indigenous aircraft carrier) it will be fifth generation aircraft – a naval PAKFA if the timeline is promising or the F-35C.

The PAK-FA would likely be considered too large for Indian carrier ops. Even with a Kuznetsov-sized IAC-2 the number of aircraft that could be packed on board would be limited to 20 or so.

The IAF will probably go for another medium-class fighter. That leaves either the F-35 or a possible naval AMCA.

But all that is several years away anyhow. The 45 MiG-29Ks and 40 Naval LCAs are more than adequate for the Vikramaditya and IAC-1, and IAC-2 is unlikely to enter service before 2020.

The most realistic figures I found to compare rafale and typhoon flight costs per hour was :

-35 000€ for the rafale
-39 000£ for the typhoon

But there is such a variety of different figures which includes so different things that it is hard to find a good comparison.

I personally find it an exercise in futility to compare ‘lifecycle costs’ of different aircraft given there are so many different ways that figure can go in real life even for the same air force.

Does it consider exactly how much time the aircraft will be flown per year given various circumstances(In one year there is need for more training sorties and exercises, in another year India is at a wartime situation etc), when and what upgrades/repairs/overhauls it receives and how often, when and what new weapons it will get et al?

There is no ‘accurate’ figure you can come up with for operating or lifecycle costs, and even if you could, why would it be the same for India as it was for current users?:rolleyes: