RiiMy reaction is !. And beware of those who consider themselves ‘experts’.
This from someone who thinks he can judge the progress and professionalism of Chinese carrier operations from a handful of PR shots. :rolleyes:
Written in 1995 by RAND in cooperation with the USAF…
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR580.html
That sure was spot on… Oh wait…
I don’t think it’s that off the mark. 1995-2005 was pretty quiet in terms of advancements in actual fielded capability. A whole lot was going on behind the scenes of course, the fruits of which China is enjoying now, but that’s not what your bolded line is referring to.
RiiIreland doesn’t need fast jets because the UK has them. It’s parasitic on UK air defence – as it has always depended on an implicit UK guarantee of its external defence, later subsumed into an implicit NATO guarantee. Some other European countries understand that the internal peace of western Europe is dependent on its external defence, & accept that since they benefit from it they should contribute to it.
Ah, yes, the white ma– I mean London’s — burden is a heavy one to bear. :rolleyes:
RiiThe thing is I am not persuaded the MiG-35 is considerably cheaper to procure than Su-30. Operating cost is a different matter but Iranians are not exactly worried about higher fuel consumption, IMHO..
Quite possibly not cheaper to acquire than Su-30SM, but then if things pan out it should feature better technology than any Flanker variant also.
Given the otherwise limited market prospects for MiG-35, I expect Iran could get quite a good deal for it, including local production if so desired. Of course Russia would be willing to make similar arrangements for any Flanker variant that Iran might want, but the motivation on Russia’s part would perhaps be somewhat less and the terms for Iran correspondingly not as generous. The prospect of tripling (or more) confirmed order numbers for MiG-35 would have salutary effects on the supply chain and perhaps therefore even on RuAF’s own enthusiasm for the aircraft.
RiiFrankly speaking, the design of the F-35 proves complete ignorance of the LM towards the needs to Euro NATO users.
Never mistake deliberate intent for ignorance. JSF is part of the broader project to permanently cripple the ability of European nations to even patrol their own airspace without American assistance. As American economic hegemony has declined (since the 1970s) the importance of leveraging other forms of power has increased, and most European nations have played right into Washington’s hands for one reason or another.
Of course, the situation whereby the armed forces do not exist to serve the people in the lands in which they are parked and through which they are funded is actually the norm throughout world history, we are merely returning to an older pattern of rule from distant lands, local garrisons, co-opted local elites, and exploited peoples.
RiiBoth J-10 and MiG-35 seem short legged to me. For tactical force projection IRIAF would need quite a bit of range.. Depends on the price, though..
A smaller aircraft with shorter legs would not only be cheaper, but would create less alarm throughout the region, esp. Israel. At a time when Iran is seeking to re-integrate itself into the international system, it would be prudent to avoid unnecessarily provocative acquisitions.
Of course one could argue that Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. are going to kick and scream and hail the impending apocalypse regardless of what Iran acquires — even that armed Yak-130 variant — so one might as well ignore them and forge ahead according to strict calculation of the national interest. But even so, I think J-10 and MiG-35 would be attractive options.
RiiSu-30 has the benefit of being a two-seater where Iran is used to operating two-seat F-14s and F-4s. In any case, leaving strategic considerations aside for the moment, I think the best aircraft (in order) for IRIAF would be:
1. J-10B
2. MiG-35
3. Su-35 or Su-30SM or J-16.
I don’t think India would mind … Iranian having Su-30MKI as long as they keep their promise of hiding special stuff from China and West plus their allies.
Plus like every other country … India will keep a hidden trick in our sleeves.
Su-30MKI has Israeli gear.
Indo-Iranian relations are good, but given India’s reliance upon Israeli and American hardware, I think opportunities for cooperation/export are limited.
Rii949A with some very rarely seen weapons nearby.
Such a “Russian” photo.
RiiSeriously though, the USAF may well be doing what is the best thing for the nation, in its own considered opinion. One may agree or disagree with its choices, but there’s no grounds for questioning its motives, so far.
“USAF” (or any other military organisation for that matter) and “best for the nation” don’t belong in the same sentence. If USAF had its way the US military budget would be $3 trillion/yr and USAF would get 80% of it.
RiiI am quite surprised that you say that. An air force with decade long history of operating F-4D/Es and F-14As should hardly worry about operating cost of Su-30MKs.
That Iran already operates large aircraft with high operation and maintenance costs does not mean that this is an ideal state of affairs or one that IRIAF should seek to preserve going forward. Iran is a medium-sized country with an advanced civil society, if the relevant requirements (i.e. air defense, etc.) can be met by an aircraft that is smaller and cheaper than Su-30, then this should be pursued.
??? Please, elaborate.. Al-31FN?
Yes, I was referring to the engine. If you are buying a Chinese aircraft that cannot fly without a Russian engine, why not buy a Russian aircraft in the first place?
Recall that the eventual goal — if at all feasible — should be to operate two combat types from independent vendors so as to preserve the nation’s capacity for independent action in the face of sanctions. A type — J-10 — that is subject to veto by two different countries does not help.
Of course it’s possible that J-10B (+ Chinese munitions package) could be an attractive enough proposition (in terms of capability/cost) to overrule these considerations.
RiiIgnoring all the bigoted, alarmist, and simply ludicrous posts that constitute most of this thread, with the easing of sanctions Iran will undoubtedly at some point seek to recapitalise its air force.
Su-30 is undoubtedly one candidate the job, but not an ideal one. As a large aircraft it will have high acquisition and, more importantly, operating costs, whilst its long range will arouse anxiety throughout the region.
Long-term, Iran should seek to operate two types of combat aircraft from independent vendors — probably Russia and China. Given that J-10 cannot today be regarded as an entirely independent aircraft, I think this puts MiG-35 in the box seat, with Iran as perhaps the major customer for the type outside RuAF. Looking further afield, Iran could then supplement with J-31 at the appropriate juncture.
RiiWhat’s his source? Indian defense journalism seems to have more than its fair share of drive-by media that put up questionable articles. I wonder if this is one of them.
The specificity of the claims distinguishes it from most unsourced journalism. Better than even money that it’s accurate.
That report is just one huge bunch of speculation, from stuff like “AMCA does not have IRST so it can’t carry LGBs”.. err what if it doesn’t self designate?
They have just tried to do some stuff trying to figure out what ADAs slide show, with limited insight into what ADA has done and why.
The real question is why is there apparently no provision or planning for an IRST/EOTS capability for AMCA? Actually, forget AMCA, why is no such capability planned for Tejas Mk. 2??
RiiThey are just making the exact same observations that every other unbiased observer has… the PAK FA is designed with a relatively low emphasis on stealth relative to other 5th generation fighters.
No, that was not the claim. The claim was that T-50 exhibited “bad design” and that the program is “beleaguered”.
But then who needs to read when you can bring your own irrelevant agenda?
This line of argument of trainer jet or radome are plain arrogance to say least…
The only arrogance here comes from the authors of the report in question.
RiiSo you mean to say who ever writes an analysis has to first prove himself as a designer or a builder first?
No, I mean to say that the — mostly foolish — criticisms from Indian sources of T-50 are becoming tiresome, and if people in glass houses want to throw stones, they should be prepared to weather a hailstorm in return.
Regarding AMCA, it would be foolish for IAF/MoD to rely on it for anything. This is not to say that the project should not be given full support, but there should be a Plan B and probably a Plan C as well. Fortunately T-50, Rafale, and Tejas will be available to pick up any slack.
RiiFurther.. An interesting analysis:
http://www.orfonline.org/cms/export/orfonline/modules/issuebrief/attachments/IBrief_105_1442303279930.pdf
The Sukhoi PAK-FA, which has a distinctly more serpentine duct with significantly more offset
engines than the F-18, has a vertical S curve which still does not manage to mask the engines
completely and thus requires an inlet blocker, similar to the F-18. This is a cautionary tale for the ADA
on the pitfalls of bad design, given that the PAK-FA is a bigger aircraft that should have been able to
achieve better masking than the F-18.
Maybe when India can build a jet trainer (or even just a radome) without external assistance we can begin to take such criticism of others seriously. :rolleyes:
RiiSo the Dutch will have 20 Chinooks while Australia, which spends more than twice as much on defence (read: “defence”), has 7.
But hey, we do vanity projects real good.
Sign In
