Rather than the huge nuclear submarines , i’m more interested on that hybrid propulsion system, that was revealed by a information “leak”, i would suppose they are using a very small nuclear reactor for low speed submerged cruiser, and use the energy reserves for high speed operations, if the concept is that, IMO that would be revolutionary, and far more important than any new SLBM or SS/BN…of course that would be why such concept still is a secret

Serioulsy the “escorting” idea, is way too ridicoulus, is funny to see how many people have been hooked with that idea

The Ka-50/mi-28 were not designed to “escort” any other helo, neither the Mi24’s were out there to “scort” Mi-8’s, some attack/deployement operations were done by lone mi-8s or lone mi-24s some operations were mixed ,that “task” just came out when the US Army did not know what to do with their Apaches, from there comes the “escorting” thingy that is now all arround

Helos are not fighters, there is not “interceptor-helos” out there, and although manouverability is good to have, the hind agility is the same as the apache one, that is all you really need, but of course the hind still needs elctronic thingys to be on par with many modern machines, and yes, mechanical improvements, probably the use of composites and a rotor tail similar as the 28

The things are different there, air force fans will state some arguments, army operatives will say other arguments…

The ideal system would be an armored Ka-28 (not really, but the same concept, or more/less), but still i find more useful the 24 than the 28/50

The main advantage of an helo, is it mulirole capability, planes destroy tanks better than helos, and they can even be cheaper for such task, to remove the transporting factor is to kill the definitive advantage an helo has

Dedicated helos, is probably one of the most dumbest concept ever

BTW, the mi-24 is not a replacement for the Mi-8, but then , i would laught to the guy with the “single mission” mind , not allowing to fit machine guns or rockets on a Mi-8…

You have just provided the perfect example of why historicaly, the aerial element has always got “through”.
To face ARM´s in the ALARM, HARM class, the Soviets first, then the Russians were forced to go to the 1,5 to 2 tons SAM´s, now care to imagine the size/weight of something made to counter something like a ARM variation of the Taurus/JASSM? 8 to 10 Tons?
And what is the NEZ of a 2,3 ton 40N6 missile against a highly agile Mach 1.5 flyer? Because 400 km is the ballistic range… Divide those 400 km´s by something like four and it shouldnt too far off…
Finaly, the 1200 kw his just a very fine way of making a huge Neon saying “Look i´m here”, it´s not gona cross mountains , it´s not gonna make the earth flat, and without AEW backup, the 20/25 seconds “alarm window” against “nap of the earth” subsonic low flyers is still there.

Harm and other ARM’s can’t be effectivelly used against searching radars, they must wait until the enemy system is using their tracking/”iluminators”, which work at higher frequencies

Now, even using searching radars , you can get a precise location of the target, in theory, you can launch the missile without using the tracking system, and just iluminate the target, when is needed, leaving ARMs useles until the final SAM target acquisition

Airborne sensors have a size/weight limit, the future for air interception will be the use of main VLF radars , not because the mythic stealthy thingy, but because they definitivelly can’t be targeted with ARM’s, these systems will be combined with high presicion/frecuency radars

SAMs still have the advantage

People have “satanised” the big output power systems , with the typical arguments of “LO” , “stealthy tactics” or “ha! is a light bulb” and such sort of tales, but what if your high powered system cant be really targeted?

Pasive systems have their limits, because you depend on the source, and if the source is off, how can you destroy the target? yes you can say “but hey!, they did not know that i was there!, because i’m stealthy and blah, blah, blah…” but in a war everybody know that potencially somebody must be out there, also, you can detect the incoming missile with different means

Radars will become even more powerful, for a effective use of pasive tactics, you need a powerful friendly radar, not a average one, a really powerful one.

Lets see another case, for example , on fighters, yes you can use pasive tactics to kill a fighter, but lets say it radar is operating at a lower pulse per second setting….the position/location uncertaily increases, lets say is using datalink, and lets say you have a couple of fighters/radars operating at very low PPS sharing their data..the uncertainly is way too high to kill even 1 of them….but they will kill the eqivalent number of enemy fighters that are using pure pasive tactics 🙂

Yes pure pasive tactics are nice, but it wont kill your “Neon” radars

Depending on the others will make you lose your initiative, losing the initiative will make you lose the best position to achieve success

The problem is that , the f-16 is a 9 tons machine with 3 tons of fuel, and the mig-29m (which probably the 35 will be based on) is a 11-12 tons machine with 5-6 tons of fuel, the F-18 is better than the F-16 on that, since is a 13-14 tons machine with -5-6 tons of internal fuel

CFT’s are not a “plus”, are a need for the new F-16, people when see CFT get impressed by all the marketing crap, but actually CFTs are patch solutions , and reveal shortcomings rather than real advantages

The design with the angled rotating array, is not the real solution

You can’t focus the beam , and you still need the phasing to concentrate the energy, also no matter at which angle it is, you are still lacking for output power for the forward scanning

The real solution should be something with 2 degrees of movement, and until now i have not seen such configuration

Aspis, regarding the difference between single-double engine, you are wrong, 2 engines does not means instantanously double thrust or consume, since a single engine’s aircraft get a more poweful engine with higher fuel, but in general i agree, more installed thrusts means more consume

About the cost of fuel and it influence on the overall flight cost, 1000 lts (800-900ks) of fuel are equivalent to 700-1000 USD, i serioulsy have some doubts about your 30000 euros/h, probably are euros per flight, but still i doubt it

The F-16 is not cheap, the block 60 cost 70 millions, same as the Rafale, the costs went to stratospheric levels due electronics and upgrades (competitive engine) , the industry in general will be more happy not offering you cheap practical models, they want you to get “stuffed” with their expensive yunk

BVR is a old tale, AMRAAM is a old tale, BVR combat is still flawed, the industry
is still light years away for a reliable BVR combat, take a look of the normal training, they give 50% probability (simulating AMRAAMs) for 20Km range , without counting ECM, and that one, is an optimist figure

Multirol is not bad, but there are limits, as everything else, why not to replace the old A-7’s with A-10/Su-25?, why to replace them with F-16’s?, why to buy more f-16/EF/Mig-29 to drop dumb/smart bombs?

The corsair is actually an example of the flawed mentality in the 70’s in which there was not dedicated strikers, they took a high performance airframe (F-8) and turned into a bomber, same as the tornado/Mirage F-1, from that, the things have evolved to the “multirol” tale, which is even worst, but everybody have overlooked the 80’s developments on heavy CAS aircraft like the A-10…

BTW, i’m not talking about greece, turkey, etc..it is a bit more global thing

Aspis, i agree with you 95%

But i really don’t think there are “cheap” fighters anymore, the f16/gripen cost 30-40 millions, a bit too expensive with the inherent risks of the single engine planes, and even them are way too costly for bombing tasks, what is the deal getting supersonic speed, when using dumb/”smart” bombs you must get near of your target at low speed/altitude?

The added electronics, ECM, fancy radars etc, advanced engines .. has turned more and more expensive the new planes,IMO i think they need to be double engined

Simply, the user that doesn’t want the IRST, or the AESA or the OSF NG or DASS, most likely doesn’t want to buy “Mercedes” in the first place! He is looking for F16 or Gripen. The ones that could buy a “Mercedes” are those that want the leather seats and electric mirrors, and so, want IRST, HMD, AESA , etc.

I agree with that, actually i think i made a similar comment, that is why the EF and Rafale are not doing well on the market, too expensive, too complictated just for a small proportion of the market