Seen on the BBC & Channel 4, read about in the British press.

Then it has to be true . After all these are the same guys who found WMDs in Iraq .

Accidentally – only if they’re reckless and/or incompetent. It was a clear day. You’d have to be blind not to be able to see that it was an airliner, flying high, & radar should have shown its height, speed & direction of flight, which was typical of an airliner, & completely different from a ground attack aircraft.

Ukraine had unilaterally enforced a NFZ over that area from July-08 . Only aircrafts flying at altitude of 7900 m or above were allowed to fly .

So , the REBELS probably mistook it for a Ukrainian military aircraft & shot it down .

Its location was known to civil ATC. Russian ATC was expecting it. They still talk to Ukrainian ATC.

x2 . All the more reasons the Russians ( not the Russian separatist/rebels) would NOT shoot down a passenger jet liner that belongs to an Asian country, deliberately . Had it been a U.S aircraft then probably they would have risked it . Remember , Russia is one of the largest supplier of military hardware to Malaysia .

F-35 fighter test pilot talks about flying the world’s most advanced warplane – using iPad and Siri technology

Feature-vise, Su-27 had something very similar to Link-16, albeit with inferior bandwith.

Thanks Andraxxus . I for one do not think that inferior bandwidth is much of an issue coz target coordinates, speed and current course is all that is needed to do the calculations.

If the flames shot out the front of the 117, they would have burned the composite duct (as per witness statements), the location of the fire damage concurs with the complex shape of Asakurius Duckius:

Jō , is it possible that a new engine was been tested & that’s why the Indian delegation was there ? Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t it true that the Indians want an uprated 117 engine ? Thanks.

P8 Poseidon Not Effective

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-23/boeing-surveillance-plane-found-not-effective-for-mission.html

the P-8A “is not effective for the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission and is not effective for wide area anti-submarine search,”

Gilmore’s report said the recent realistic combat testing confirmed earlier results on flaws in the P-8’s radar “and revealed the operational implications of the radar’s limitations for some targets.”

Deficiencies with on-board electronics to detect enemy anti-aircraft radar “limited threat detection” while “seriously degrading capabilities and aircraft survivability across all major missions,” the report found

For eg: Rustom-II UAV is a R&DE and ADE (both DRDO labs) design, the manufacturing was given out via an open tender between Tata, Mahindra, L&T and HAL-BEL joint team, which the latter won.

So , just to clarify , the above mentioned 3 Indian companies did NOT tie up with a foreign vendor ?

HAL – BEL winning means just what I said that the Indian Government prefers Government companies to Private ones. I am not suggesting foul play but just highlighting a pattern that OEMs especially foreign ones have noticed on a regular basis .

Here in the US , the DoD will release a list of hardware including sub components that they intend to buy and will also provide a timeline . These docs are available from the Governor’s office as well . Ergo , Defense OEMs know exactly what is required & when will purchases be made .

I think the Indian Government need to establish similar procedures for Private defense companies in India .

Re the L1 clause that India uses while procuring aircrafts , helos etc is it necessary when Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is also taken into consideration ?

In other words LCC & L1 do not go hand in hand .

Instead it’s of value to have a Technical Round and follow it up with a LCC round . L1 doesn’t make sense .