inkThink for a moment about why the A400M is not flying yet. It’s not because there is any physical reason, or any known fault with the software. It’s because an administrative blunder means some of the software doesn’t meet EU civil certification standards for traceability, & the A400M is required by its customers to meet civil certification standards.
When you put it like that it does make a lot of sense 😎 Thanks for the constructive and informative response (it makes for a refreshing change from the hyperbolic nonsense I am getting so used to on this forum).
There are other issues with the An-70. Can it be put into production quickly? Again, a requirement. We have to consider the status of the manufacturing facilities. Are they capable of building enough, in the desired timescale? If they need investment, how much & how does it affect schedules? It has been in a very slow development & testing programme for many years: are all its components & subsystems still in production? If not, substitutes would need to be found.
Well, in my hypothetical scenario the An-70 would be licensed to European manufacturers so production capacity would be the same as for the A400M (or greater, assuming the An-70 is less complicated to produce).
None of these things are insuperable, but they need to be considered, when considering it as an alternative to the A400M, which is also a more or less complete design, & for which the answers to these questions are mostly known.
Fair enough. Though it still doesn’t seem to be 100% clear whether the An-70 would be more or less of a challenge than the A400M (or more or less expensive), you make a good case for it being far more complicated than it seems at first glance.
inkThere is no need for a de-Russification. The GAF did operate Russian aircraft without problems before and does task “civil” Il-76 for transportation needs to Afghanistan.
Some radios GPS and IFF will do.
Actually I’m inclined to agree. The consensus here seemed to be that (presumably Western European) NATO countries would baulk at the idea of operating anything with any Russian content and that’s why I mentioned it.
inkChanging horses now to the An-70 would in no way be cheaper.
I don’t see how. Genuinely. Can somebody explain please? Because to me it seems that the An-70 is more or less a complete design. I know the de-Russification would cost a fair bit, as would redesigning and modernising components/materials that are obsolete and that it would have to be readied for production but I don’t see how that will cost more than continued development of a problematic design that is, as it seems to me, much less ready. The Ukranians would be willing, I’m sure, to sell some sort of license to EU manufacturers who could then set about modernising the design and replacing Russian components. Production could then be undertaken in the EU, using the most advanced production methods, whilst the Ukraine still gets something out of an otherwise dead-end project and can use the wad of incoming cash to modernise its aviation industry in the hope of producing a similarly enticing design in the future.
Am I being a bit naive? Feels like that could be the case.
inkIf this goes on, India’s rate of indigenization will always remain low. Today it is MRCA, tomorrow it will be PAK-FA, the day after it will be some Israeli UCAV, and so on. Somewhere, it all has to halt. It has to start with cancelling the MRCA and then the PAK-FA.
To paraphrase a character from Pulp Fiction: you’re looking at this sh!t the wrong way.
If the IAF inducts the PAK-FA in the proclaimed time-frame, or even if the whole project is a few years late, it will enable this air force membership to an elite club of nations operating 5th gen aircraft. Even more importantly, the Indian aviation industry will be one of the very few such industries to have been involved in the completion of a 5th gen aircraft project. Now, I can tell that this isn’t good enough for you but think of it like this: Who will be operating 5th gen aircraft at the same time as India if the PAK-FA works out more or less on schedule? Russia, certainly, the US, obviously, the UK (?), France (I think not), Israel, probably, Japan (also probably), China (nope)… Who else? To be a member of such a small, elite club isn’t bad for a country that wasn’t exactly a world leader in terms of deploying 4th gen aircraft and is yet to produce and operate an indigenous 4th gen design.
EDIT: Alternatively India could drop the PAK-FA and work on getting the MCA from the drawing board and into the air in less than 35 years….
inkCommander,
Most sources, including recent ones, seem to quote a ‘takeoff weight’ of about 20 tons ‘in accordance with the technical requirements’, which would make it significantly smaller than the Su-27.
I agree but I also expect it to gain weight during the development process.
Abhimanyu,
What happens if India drops the PAK-FA and development of the MCA drags out (like the LCA… or like a lot of other projects worldwide)?
To me, and to Indian planners, that eventuality seems far worse than the other possible outcome – i.e. that the IAF gets the PAK-FA but not the MCA. At least this way they aren’t left hanging on to their MKIs for dear life in the face of other 5th gen aircraft in the region (think China). Not to mention that they can still retain the experts and engineers to continue with aircraft development in the future.
inkthink deploying a S-300V to face the threat of the Georgian aviation is a sort of “overkill”. With Buk systems should be more than enough. The S-300V was designed to confront heavy NATO air-raids. Obviously Georgia can not mount such king of air-raids.
Does anyone even know whether Georgia still has an air force to speak of?
inkAlso:
MOSCOW, May 29 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian government has approved the 49-year term of its lease of an airbase in Kyrgyzstan, with an automatic prolongation every 25 years.
The modified agreement, which was agreed on between the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Kyrgyz authorities, will replace the existing deal, which specifies a 15-year lease with an automatic extension every 5 years.
The document will soon be forwarded to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for signing.
Russia established in October 2003 its airbase in Kant, about 20 miles west of the Kyrgyz capital. The Russian base currently deploys about 400 troops, as well as 20 combat and transport planes, helicopters, and L-39 trainers.
Russian troops are stationed at Kant under an agreement in the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) – a regional security bloc in Central Asia, which also includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
The Kant base is intended to provide air cover for possible operations by CSTO joint forces in Central Asia.
Russia annually pays some $4.5 million to Kyrgyzstan for the lease of military facilities and also provides Bishkek with military and technical equipment as part of the lease agreements.
Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev signed a decree in February to close down the U.S. Ganci airbase at Manas airport located 30 kilometers (17 miles) east of the capital, Bishkek.
Kyrgyzstan officially notified Washington of the termination of the agreement on a U.S. military presence at the base, and gave it 180 days to withdraw some 1,200 personnel, aircraft and other equipment.
In April, Bakiyev signed a law ending the deployment of foreign military contingents from Australia, Denmark, Italy, Spain, South Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Turkey and France, at Manas.
inkHow does one go about putting an entire thread on their ignore list?
inkThe PAK-FA is probably the most aniticipated aeroplane since…Well? Since what? Its been the most anticipated for me anyway.
I dunno, I’m still waiting for them to reveal the MiG-37 Ferret.
inkKnAAPO Su-30MKK/MK2 uses Russian & Chinese equipment.
Presumably only the MKKs (i.e. the ones going to China) have Chinese kit installed. When sold to other customers they are, I’m guessing, purely Russian.
inkIt appears to be. The idea is you can’t see the lens unless you’re looking at it straight on. It doesn’t hurt the view really at all but it does hide the lens from lookers. Oh, and it’s not so much to defend against the laser itself but to prevent detection, thus the attention of the laser. If you don’t get seen the laser isn’t going to try to zap you.
Makes sense. Sounds pretty good. I always like those simple, cost effective solutions to problems that, on the surface, look like they’ll be difficult and expensive to solve.
inkRussian Navy Marks Pacific Fleet Day:
inkThanks soyuz – interesting stuff.
sferrin, thanks re: the anti-reflection caps… Yugoslav army snipers used to use women’s nylon tights wrapped around the end of their scopes in 98/99. Is this a reliable way of stopping blinding lasers though (nb, I’m not trying to be contrary – its a genuine question)?
inksferrin,
How is the US “hell bent on keeping Russia from defending themselves”?
I’ll add in some bold text to help you out:
Perhaps because they feel that the nation in question is hell bent on keeping them from defending themselves?
But seriously, lets not get into another discussion about ABM… There are so many better things to talk about*.
soyuz1917,
You say you translated the article – you couldn’t dig out the translation could you? I’d be most grateful. I have an irrational aversion to online translators.
* Such as the status of the Russian ABL project
inkNot sure why Russia would want to keep another nation from defending itself.
Perhaps because they feel that the nation in question is hell bent on keeping them from defending themselves?
Coins generally have two sides, sometimes its worth taking a look at the other one.
Sign In
