there is no need to bring old news. Pak do this from time to time to remind the other side where to put cash in India-Pak conflict.

But when other side put cash, Pak go complain. Why Pak do this to remind what? *:p :rolleyes:

*Edited to meet Star49’s demanding syntactic standards.

Frankly, Israel would care two hoots about Pak.
Indian purchases make up some 30% of Israels annual defense exports. Unless Pak offers a credible alternative, which it is in no economic shape to do , Israel will continue to sell its best to India.

I still believe in point defense fighters, but not in the traditional sense. A purely defensive airforce however is something i’ve had a few thoughts about.

Here is what i would do.
-1- Disperse the aircraft, for ZELL operations out of barns and from other camouflaged positions.
-2- Use them as a second defence zone after long-range SAMs. After having fired your S300s, you launch your PDI’s for them to arrive in the confusion created by the SAMs.
-3- Launch ’em in numbers. Saturation defense – overwhelm the bad guys sensors.
-4- Make the aircraft totally net-centric, with information given to them from bistatic radars, AWACS, whatever you can think of. Sensors aboard the aircraft itself should primarily be an IR sight (passive!) with a relatively small radar secondary. Radar pulses of one aircraft’s radar will also be able to be used by the other aircraft to give a sort of airborne bistatic radar picture. It will do nice to confuse the bad guy’s ESM as well.
-5- Slash attack methods, no dogfighting. Two, possibly four, AAMs per fighter. To be used in the Soviet way: two missiles (one IR, one radar) per target.
-6- Radar-homing targets to be either active, and/or SARH on radar signals other than that of the launching aircraft. A pencil-beam designation ray from your AESA-equipped AWACs will do nicely.
-7- A number of austere airstrips for the interceptors to land. Servicing equipment won’t be needed at the airstrip itself (a nice bit of concrete will do), the fighters will be worked on at the squadron ‘depot’ before being put on alert in the ZELL shelter.

The aircraft i would love to see in this role is an upgraded F-104 with a ZELL boost pack, IR dome and the necessary network systems. Of course the J79 will remain, not only because it sounds really cool but even more so because it will suit the slash-attack role perfectly. With only a short range necessary, the airframe can stay devoid of draggy and heavy fuel tanks so the interceptor will have all the energy it needs to keep fighting on it’s own terms. Other suitable airframes would be the Mirage III, Lightning or Su-15, although you really don’t need the latter’s range or endurance. Every second your PDI is in the air NOT slashing intruding aircraft in the PDI’s envelope, is a second in which your PDI is a target for the enemy – so range is something you have no need for.

Problems would be that the whole idea of saturation defence will need a large number of pilots and the large network environment needed to operate them effectively. On the other hand, the fighters themselves will be relatively cheap.

What if I attack your C3I nodes and AWACS- without them your PDI equipped AF will be at a huge disadvantage.
No matter how you disguise the stations, ELINT and SIGINT triangulation will enable your opponent to detect the nodes.
IMHO, PDI’s operate best in conjunction with heavier platforms which can act as formation leaders, force multipliers and help your PDI heavy force do what you have planned for it.
And whether per unit costs are low or not, maintaining and flying a gargantuan force of a/c will be a huge drain on your budget. So you definitely need a “mix”.

I like the way the Gripen has developed- by giving the a/c a decent AESA, an IRST and active AAM’s, they are giving a light fighter a basic capability to survive in a high threat environment without AWACS support.

And now STOP BICKERING, pretty pretty please please.

Ok since you said it, so I’ll retire. 🙂

Crobato,

You’re quite wrong about that, since I’m in the US.

Which is exacly what I said. Far far away from the mainland.

As China isn’t a democracy, it has no point having a GAO. And even if it has a GAO, the committee would still be bound in rules about releasing classified and covert information. Hence you’re back to square one again, since the commitee isn’t going to release stuff that isn’t known already.

Which gives you no factoids to work with but only open source guesswork.

Regarding the rest of your comments, lets not waste further bandwidth, we have quite reasonably exchanged our views.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree for the time being and you are welcome to respond to this post per the volume takes all theory. I guess this my last post for the time being.

So what happened to the G11? Last I remember reading about it was in a technothriller by Craig Thomas where the SAS are equipped with G11’s and (predictably) stop an entire unit of Russians cold. 🙂

ah the infamous palm trees in the FLIR shot. kill ’em kill ’em all!

:p :p 😀 😀

Hey folks,

Perhaps the Rafale etc still have a chance,

ndian Air Force to buy 126 planes; one manufacturer to be chosen – air chief

BANGALORE, India (AFX) – The Indian government has given the air force the go-ahead to buy 126 multi-role aircraft, air chief marshal SP Tyagi said.
‘At the moment the government has cleared the purchase of 126 aircraft. We are taking information from four countries, the United States, France, Sweden and Russia,’ Tyagi told reporters on the fringes of an aero-space seminar.
‘We are seeking information (on various aircraft). It could be single engine or twin engine (jets). The field is right open,’ said Tyagi who took the top job last month.
‘Once we get the information, we will go ahead and seek requests for proposals. We will study those proposals and carry out a technical evaluation … Then we will do commercial negotiations,’ he said in this southern IT hub.
All the aircraft will be bought from a single manufacturer, he said adding:’ We cannot buy half from one and half from another because it increases our difficulties.’
France’s Dassault and US giant Lockheed have long been considered frontrunners to upgrade the Indian air force.
The Indian Air Force (IAF) has about 1,500 aircraft, but has lost a number jets, particularly Russian-made MiG-21s.
Tyagi said there was no fixed time-frame for the acquisitions but, ‘as chief of air staff I want it today.’ He refused to put a price on the acquisitions.
‘It’s too early because each aircraft comes with a lot of systems, weapons, so I cannot even hazard a guess,’ he said.
The seminar precedes India’s annual air show which opens in Bangalore on Wednesday. Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT – news) is showcasing F-16 fighters alongside Russia’s Sukhois, MiG-29 and MiG-21 jets and Dassault’s Mirage 2000.
The air chief said India’s home-grown Light Combat Aircraft, whose development has been delayed by a decade due to US sanctions and technical difficulties, will also be flying with the IAF soon.
Last year, New Delhi decided to buy 66-advanced jet trainers from Britain in a deal worth more than 1 bln usd which had been under negotiation since the 1980s.

It’s still valid enough to know that one J-7 crashed for the year.

Only *one* J-7 crashed that entire year?

There is no guess in the actual mention of the J-11B in a PLAAF journal, and the successful test flight of such last year, all of which are official. The building of a new engine plant by Shenyang Liming is official. The cancellation of Su-27 kit deliveries to China is official. We know for a fact that the J-11 flew with WS-10A engines, that was official, complete with pictures.

C’mon Crobato, the PLAAF journal would stress upon the positive aspects of the PLAAF. Pretty similar to what the USAF official sites do with the USAF. Show me an unbiased report which points out the +/- of the J11 in PLAAF service. Not just the PR work here and there. I am sure there are some around?

The stuff I mentioned above are official and has happened.

You are the one having trouble believing in them. I don’t see the point of you mentioning your GAO, I mean does such a body ever really affects outcomes of weapon projects in Europe and the US? We don’t need the GAO in the US to tell us if there are problems in the F-22 for example.

Excuse me, but the GAO *does* affect weapons development programs. It breeds transparency and can have developer claims brought back to reality. Overwatch is essential. Furthermore, in the context of the discussion, the GAO provides accurate data about the status of a particular program, without ifs and buts. In India the combination of the CAG and the PAC give a good overview of the relevant programs and by law the PAC’s reccomendations carry a lot of weight. This is not an India vs China comparison, but merely pointing out how important oversight is.

A lot of stuff in China remains speculative because of secrecy and the sensitivity of such reports. Much like what happened in the Soviet Union. So you do the speculation/analysis game. But all speculations begin with a seed of fact. A piece of evidence that leads here and there.

Finally! A honest admission there! Much like in the FSU, many of the reports and “analysis” that goes on using them can be based on incorrect assumptions or half known facts. Many “analysts” spent a lot of time describing the T80 wondertanks etc, the reality was different.

the speculation on the J-11B did not arise from a vaccuum. It arose from a whole pattern of evidence and reports, some of it were official. Speculation is actually a wrnog word for it now; it is now accepted as existed and fact in all Chinese internet discussion.

“Chinese internet discussion” may accept a lot of things, but unless they are backed by solid, credible data- they remain speculative.