To successfully use missiles against agile targets, or let’s say anything else than lame bombers, a fighter needs to engage afterburner and accelerate as much as possible.

Not as much as possible,each missile has an optimum speed of launch depending on height,for eg.IIRC that for R27ER is between 1050km/hr-1150 km/hr. at an altitude of 10k metres.

South Korea just completed a small Aircraft Carrier (Amphibious Ship) known as the LP-X Class. Also, while the KDX-III’s are classified as Destroyers. They are really Aegis Cruisers in all but name. Regardless, both are large complex cutting edge designs. As for how that translates you lost me? As I just explained South Korea’s experience in both commercial and warship construction. Also, while all three countries (Italy, Spain, and South Korea) have the expertise to construct the IAC’s for India. South Korea has a better reputation for delivering large ships on budget and on time! (Russia could learn a thing or two!) Sorry, but its “South Korea” not Spain or Italy that have the edge! Funny, according to you somehow South Korea is not capable of constructing a Aircraft Carrier for India. As it just doesn’t have the experience??? Yet, India has never built a complex Aegis Destroyer like the KDX-III or a small Aircraft Carrier like the LP-X. I guess India should just give it up………:eek:

The aim is not just to have a carrier,but also to learn how to make one.So it makes no sense transferring the learning part to a Korean or European yard.There will be delays and problems,but you have got to start sometime.

Also its not like since they havent built one,the Indians or Koreans should give up.What Broncho is saying is that it would be easier for them who has already build one in the past.

I am not sure,buit I think it would cost more to build a carrier in an European yard than at a South Korean yard,so SK has an advantage in that,where as an European yard has the expertise.

The Indian yards have built/are building large ships and the IAC(and also future ones) will get build at Indian yards anyway.Apart from other countries;) trying to put a spanner in the works, there will be a learning curve and therefore delays.

I was wondering that, how much does this have to do with the MMRCA?;)

It could have something to do with the MMRCA thingy..but the question is from which side..

So does this mean that if necessary it will be towed to India in 2008 and construction finished there ? :rolleyes:

Frankly,I dont know what it means….:confused:

The report says about doing it on war-footing…

Utterly wrong. A single seat aircraft with good MMI will give its pilot better SA than a two seat aircraft with poor MMI, and can have lower workload. It will also avoid problems of crew co-ordination, etc. A two seat aircraft can offer great advantages against single seaters with poorer MMI, or even equal MMI, if these issues are sorted.

You are utterly wrong.In Su-30 MKI the MMI is not poor.In Typhoon it is much better,but the Su-30 MMI is workable and functional.Plus two pilots have many advantages and can build up good SA,and in certain conditions are clearly in an advantageous position than a single pilot.And it can be improved by training.
BTW..I love the way you continue to insert one dubious factor after another..when provided sufficient training,crew-co-ordination is EXCELLENT.

WVR:Two pairs of eyes..better chances of picking up the enemy in the first place.Again,you lost the enemy and is jinking around..again two pairs of eyes… have better chances of picking up the enemy aircraft.Thats also SA.

BVR without AWACS:Operating radar…a flight of Flankers networks with each other with datalink and shares and fuses the picture gotten by the radar of individual aircraft to make a wholesome picture on the MFD.>>Good SA.The pilot flies,updates the picture from time to time,looks for other hostile tracks..the WSO selects and deploys ordnance against the already detected bogey/s.

BVR with AWACS:Very good SA for all aircraft involved.

Strike missions:One pilot flies/aligns the plane to the target,the wizzo selects ordnance..arms,fires.The pilot during the strike also engages air-air interleaving modes and takes care of some opponent interceptors while all the time the WSO is using the A2G modes searches and finds the ground/sea target and deploys munitions accurately.And this is a HUGE advantage for a/c with two pilots over single-seaters.

Plus all the other advantages..like long distance flying,one falling sick/getting injured etc. etc.

A better MMI helps,then again having two pilots help.But both are not by any way decisive.

You sir, are a masochist. 😀

😮 😉 :diablo:

Can I please participate in the debate?:D :rolleyes: 😀