Alpha BravoHaving read some Indian forums, the discussions regarding the PAK-FA has been basically like that.
I actually read on one that Tejas has a lower RCS, because of its ducted intakes. Nearly died laughing.
That’s what you get from reading indian forums 🙂 we can see some of their posters on here as well, especially when it comes to the Tejas :rolleyes:
All this discussion of rear “visibility”, people seem to forget that there is likely to be further development work on the engine housing and exhaust nozzles, the production PAKFA will be quite different in the rear hemisphere. Besides, the F-22 isn’t that well protected from the rear when it comes to IR signature, hell, no plane really is, especially when in wet thrust.
Alpha BravoThey seem to be churning out quite a few Z-19s there, is this already in operational service? I thought it was still at the development/testing stage, given that it doesn’t seem to have that much in the way of external equipment, just a ball turret mounted optical system.
Alpha BravoWhat nonsense. What about the intakes?
Regarding back end, you think Raptor will be sealthy from any emitter aimed at its rear?
LOL!
Don’t worry, the indian version of the PAKFA will rectify all the shortcomings of the Russian design, like composite tail elements, tighter panel gaps, better radar and avionics, as well more “stealth” features :dev2: LOL
Alpha BravoThe IAF pilots were drawing a comparison to the various kind of aircraft flying in the opposition AF today, including the F-16s of both kinds (upgraded & non). They pulled no punches in noting that the F-16 had a better flight envelope, but that avionics wise the Tejas was comparable & clearly, indeed superior to the low end fighter (even by the PAFs admission) that is the JF-17 :stupid:, which is what seems to have given you apoplexy. If you weren’t so busy outraging over something so obvious, you’d have known the IAF pilots compared the LCA to a range of aircraft – upgraded & non, local & competitive, to place its capabilities.
If the IAF pilots want to draw comparisons to the current state of the JF-17 and LCA, they should have known that the LCA has no BVR capability yet and no gun. As it currently stands, the JF-17 already has BVR capability, and even by their own admissions, the LCA is inferior to the Block-52s but fail to recognise that the A/B models are being upgraded to Block-52 standard avionic wise :stupid: I have no qualms in the IAF making comparisons with other aircraft, as long as they make them on a reasonable basis. Do they have detailed specifications of the avionics in the JF-17 to do that?
Perhaps you were hiding under a rock and haven’t been following any news of late, but to the rest of the world, its been clear for a while that the MMRCA moved on from fielding a Mirage 2000 equivalent to something superior to that benchmark. But then again, the PAFs “best” are its upgraded F-16s, something the IAF (and many other AF) don’t regard as the benchmark for acquisition in today’s world.
I suspect the PAF would consider their new Block-52s as their “best”, similar to quite a few other airforces around the world, which supposedly “may be a match for the LCA” according to the IAF :stupid: Yet despite this, the IAF have only ordered 20 so far.
The IAF are professionals & their criticism & praise both reflect their views as warfighters. In contrast to the views of amateur hour jockeys who expect the IAF to play to their script & be deferential to their rather stupid biases. Not going to happen, live with it.
Yes yes, the IAF are professionals etc etc…and yet they claim the PAKFA has poor avionics and is not “stealthy” enough and the LCA is better than a Block-52 Viper, sure they are a professional bunch :stupid:
Alpha BravoThanks … that image is new to me and it si showing the new KJ-500 !! :applause:
Interesting, so how is the KJ-500 different to the KJ-200 or the ZDK-03? From the look of the radar array, I’d say it’s based on a fixed configuration of 3 AESAs to provide 360 coverage, similar to the KJ-2000, as opposed to the more conventional rotadome of the ZDK-03. It also looks to be on a Y-8F600 airframe. Any details about the range and performance?
Alpha Bravo— OT —
So it could be that India might skip PAK-FA and Rafale all together and directly move to PAK DA (Bomber)
:stupid:
We will see … if it is an export or JV or something else?
In the same way the PAKFA is a “joint venture”? :stupid:
Alpha BravoThe Tejas� capability is best known to the air force and navy test pilots in the National Flight Test Centre, who have tested it in 2,400 flights.
The Tejas� likely adversary, the Pakistan Air Force�s F-16 fighter, has a slightly larger flight envelope, but the Tejas� superior avionics give it a combat edge over the PAF�s older F-16A/Bs (currently being upgraded in Turkey); and superior to their new JF-17 Thunder light fighter, co-developed with China. Only the PAF�s 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 fighters, flying since 2010-11 from Jacobabad, may be a match for the Tejas.
Said an NFTC test pilot during the IOC ceremony on December 20: �As a multi-role fighter, the Tejas is at least the equal of the IAF�s upgraded Mirage-2000. It can more than hold its own in our operational scenario.�
This is quite contradictory, the IAF claims Block-52 Vipers “may be a match” for the Tejas :stupid: and yet, fail to recognise the older PAF Block-15 Vipers are also being upgraded to Block-52 standard when they claim the Tejas has “superior avionics” to the A/Bs?! :stupid: And of course, the Tejas is automatically “superior” to the JF-17 without giving any details on the KLJ-7 or any other avionics/weapons on the JF-17 :stupid:
If the Tejas is supposed to be as capable as the M2Ks and Mig-29s, why not simply cancel the MMRCA and order Tejas en mass? Wasn’t the MMRCA essentially to license build M2Ks?
It’s comments like these and the ridiculous criticism of the PAKFA that makes the IAF look rather stupid.
Alpha BravoThe ludicrous smearing of FGFA is likely an attempt on the part of IAF to dissuade Indian government from backing out of MMRCA on cost escalation grounds. The original article in Indian Business Standard raised this opinion itself, attributed to MoD. Once MMRCA is secure you will see this campaign vanish.
For the IAF to do that in such a public manner makes them look childish and quite pathetic really, and renders any other comments from them to be taken less seriously and with a pile of salt. Whatever issue the IAF have, the should simply make their position clear with the government, and leave it with them to decide if the country can afford the IAF requirements. If they can’t, then the IAF should be made aware their preferred options are not possible, allowing other cheaper alternatives to be proposed. But then I guess this is India, so something that should be straightforward gets complicated by bureaucracy and internal politics.
Alpha BravoWell the good old US of A has spent thousands of millions of dollars invading Iraq to crush the non-existent Al Quaeda threat they perceived…
The US didn’t invade Iraq on the pretext of Al Qaeda, but on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction and regime change.
In terms of the Apache deal, are there hidden costs that haven’t been revealed in the DSCA notification? And what happened to the Mi-28 deal, is that still going through?
Alpha BravoMishaps expose chinks in Navy armour
Seven accidents involving frontline warships in as many weeks have exposed major chinks in the Navy armour and punctured the claim of Admiral D K Joshi made last month that the safety record of the force was “not all that bad”.
In the latest incident, INS Betwa — a Brahmaputra-class guided missile frigate — is suspected to have run aground or collided with an unidentified object while approaching the Mumbai naval base.
The sonar dome mounted on the hull of the frigate commissioned in 2004 has cracked, leading to faulty readings and ingress of saltwater into sensitive equipment. The damage, which has prompted a board of inquiry, has rendered the ship ineffective.
The incident called “minor” by the Navy is the latest in a series that have come to light since December 4, Navy Day. Defence Minister A K Antony is believed to have sought a report.
Joshi, whose term as the Navy Chief has seen several major incidents, including the loss of the INS Sindhurakshak submarine, had on December 3 defended the safety record of the force.
The very next evening, India’s leading minesweeper, the INS Konkan that was undergoing repairs in Vizag, caught fire and suffered major damage to its interiors. The Pondicherry-class minesweeper was getting a refit at a dry dock when the incident occurred.
In another incident, a 30-mm gun on ICSG Sangram, a patrol boat undergoing a refit at the naval docks in Mumbai, fired accidentally. The shell pierced the Naval headquarters building damaging a few offices and narrowly missing a few officers.
Following this, the INS Tarkash — a Talwar-class frigate which has conducted several overseas missions — hit the jetty while berthing at the Mumbai naval base. Its hull was badly damaged.
Late at night on December 23, the Navy suffered a major embarrassment after the INS Talwar collided with a fishing vessel 10 miles off the coast, injuring many. The 27 people aboard the fishing vessel had to be rescued after it sunk.
The dwindling submarine force of the Navy too suffered a setback when the Kilo-class INS Sindhugosh was “grounded” at the Mumbai base after it entered shallow waters at low tide. The submarine was, however, freed and did not suffer much damage.
A fault on board the INS Vipul, a Veer-class corvette that recently underwent repairs and refit, has also come to light. The warship, sources said, had to be sent back for repairs after a breach was discovered during sailing.
Besides these seven accidents, the Navy suffered its biggest blow last year when the INS Sindhurakshak submarine went down at the Mumbai harbour due to still unexplained explosions, killing 18 sailors. Almost six months later, the submarine is still lying at the bottom of the naval dock in Mumbai.
The Navy Chief asserted last month that it takes months and years for sunken submarines to be brought to surface.
Alpha BravoExclusive: Hole in Indian Navy’s missile vessel forces its return
Putting a question mark over the workmanship within the elite Naval Dockyard in Mumbai and supervisory checks in the navy, a member of the elite 22nd Killer Missile Vessel Squadron of the navy, INS Vipul (pennant no. K46) was detected with a hole in its pillar compartment which forced the ship back into the harbour while it was on an operational deployment. This comes close on the heels of incidents involving its Kilo-class submarine INS Sindhughosh as first reported here and frigate INS Betwa.The ship had only recently joined the fleet after spending months undergoing a Normal Refit (NR) within the naval dockyard, raising questions over the quality of work .
It was learnt that earlier this week, the INS Vipul was on operational patrol when, close to 70 nautical miles off Mumbai, ingress of water was detected owing to a hole in its pillar compartment. Pillar compartment is located close to the rear of the ship, described as stern. Pillar compartment is the location from which a ship’s underwater components connect to the ones aboard and there are multiple openings there, as a result. Those aware of the incident described it as a very serious one which necessitated ‘action be taken against those involved in the refit process and those supervising the same’.
When asked, sources within the Navy admitted to the incident but claimed that it was a minor one where leakage had been detected in time and action was initiated. “It is not a happy situation for us. More so because it took place despite the ship emerging from a refit. But it is not an extraordinary situation either. The ship’s age too must be looked at. We will be looking into this thoroughly,” said a source.
The INS Vipul was commissioned into the navy in March 1992 and operates under the Western Naval Command.
Alpha BravoJan 19/14: Accident. The Kilo Class boat INS Sindhughosh runs aground while trying to enter Mumbai Harbour. Its entry was delayed, and by the time it was cleared, the tide was too low. Salvage efforts rescue the sub by floating it off as the tide rises.
The Indian Navy is initially saying that there was no damage, and that the submarine remains operational. It’s hard to see how this can be determined without a drydock examination, but so far, no decision has been made to do that. Or to launch a Board of Inquiry.
Alpha Bravo$1.2 billion at the current exchange rate for the Tejas Mk1. And most of the import value for the aircraft is owed to the GE engine. Like it or not, it is ‘so cheap’.
There’s also the Israeli Radar and Lightning LDP pod to consider as well.
Alpha BravoThe IAF’s deputy chief of air staff (DCAS), its top procurement official, declared the FGFA’s engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered, India’s work share too low, and that the fighter’s price would be exorbitant by the time it enters service.
Well, if the Indian’s believe they can do a better job by themselves, they’re free to go ahead and develop their own fifth gen equivalent to the PAKFA, F-22, J-20 etc., and see how far they get. It’s quite ridiculous for the IAF to be ridiculing technical details such as the radar and “inadequate” stealth features and preaching to the Russian’s.
Alpha BravoAny details on the specific airframes the Israelis intend to sell as part of the package, in terms of flight hours, remaining lifetime etc? I know they intend “zero life” the airframes, but doesn’t the amount of work required to do that entail almost rebuilding the entire airframe, particularly for such an old type? I guess the same could be said about the engines?
Sign In
