You do realize Erieye and Phalcon are in different classes of AEW&C right? Erieye is a small low cost approach to AEWC systems and is “limited” to say the least. Phalcon is a E-3 class system and is a fully fledged system.

how is one low cost than the other? u have to look at overall cost not just the systems inside aircraft.

1) If you need to hide your AEWC deep in the ground then what’s the point of having one? 😀 But given the Phalcon and all those data linked MKIs I can imagine that the PAF Erieye will be spending most of its time hiding in an underground bunker.

i mean u can park it just like any other fighters in secure place. no awacs can be airborne 24 hrs and big aircraft may be targeted by crusie and billistic missile or airstrike on the ground. and no one buys awacs without datalinks.

2/3) Do not matter. The advantages of having a larger system are so much than having a smaller system that probably won’t give you the endurance/capability when you need it.

post some figures about endurance? and Saab has much shorter turn radius and operates at low altitude from 4000 to 6000m unlike 10000m for IL-76 for optimum crusing. and capability is transferred to the ground. it is just eye in the sky. brain is on the ground.

4) Lower operating costs are hardly a factor considering IAF’s budget. If PAF had the budget (and political will) they would have gotten a more full fledged system too.

what is mean full fledged system?

this from last year.

MOSCOW. Dec 21 (Interfax-AVN) – The Moscow-based Salyut machine-building enterprise is upgrading the AL-31F air engine to gain the backlog for the development of a fifth-generation engine

Addressing an Interfax-AVN question, Yeliseyev said that Salyut has already developed and launched the program of AL-31F upgrade, which is fitted in the Su-27 family. “We have variants of modernization of this engine into AL-31M-1, AL-31M-2 and Al-31M-3 versions. At the present moment, we are almost through with the official flight tests of the AL-31M-1 engine. Another three quite simple flight tests are in store, and we have no doubts whatsoever that they will be a success,” he said

He added that the interest in the modernized AL-31F is shown not only by the Russian Air Force, but also foreign customers. Among them there are some who would like to acquire technologies in order to upgrade their fleet of aircraft on their own.

According to experts, with the upgraded engines in place, the aircraft will be provided with substantially new characteristics. For instance, if Su-33 shipborne fighters are equipped with the modernized engines that feature the thrust one ton more than in organic versions, there will not longer be the need for a special ramp at take-off.

“The AL-31M-1 is a very promising engine and I think that in the near three or four years it will be in demand in the market and earn us a substantial profit,” Yeliseyev said.

As for the AL-31FM-2 version, it is likely to start bench tests already next January, while the AL-31FM-3 will be brought to trials in late 2006

I’m looking for accurate info on the MiG-29M2’s radar set and the Eagle’s AESA.

F-15T/K like fighter is $90 to $100M per aircraft. MIG-29K/OVT is around $45 to $50M. so u can get 2 MIG-29 for each eagle. and they advertize $5500 per hr operational costs. superior radar will not give advantage on stand alone basis when otherside have more quantity and can exploit communication.

What BVR AAMs do the new FULCRUMs carry? If they’re still restricted to ALAMO and the R-77, then the AIM-120B comes out on top. I’ll go into more details as to why later. JHMCS and AIM-9X are pretty much analogous to the R-73/74 and HMS used by the FULCRUM, so the WVR missiles are pretty much a draw.

on theory Amraam is better but it hasnt been tested by foreign airforce in real combat like in africa. so training with bvr is also important.

Unless you’re talking a 30-40,000 foot difference, this doesn’t really matter that much for comparison. At any rate the two should be comparable, the Eagle’s service ceiling being around 60,000 feet, and the quoted figures I’ve seen for the FULCRUM being in the 55,000 to 59,000 foot range. Not big enough of a difference to confer any kind of serious, exploitable advantage.

what is important is climb rates, acceleration and turn around time for rapid interception. and i dont think F-15 has range advantage over latest MIG-29 without CFT. it is pretty close.

Agree 100% on all counts. Specifically, the Soviet Union’s lack of aggression is what ultimately lead to its demise. They should have been firmer in Europe, they should have been firmer in Latin America (Cuba, Chile).

The Soviet Army was unstoppable in 1944 and 1945, and they should have proceeded with conquering all of Europe. Stalin made a mistake in insisting in the Allies participation and D-Day. Allies involvement would have been valuable in 1943, but it didn’t happen until after the Allies were certain that Germany was losing the war. In fact, the whole point was to stop the Soviets from overruning Europe.

Stalin should have stopped any negotiations with the West in early 1944. This way he could have taken over Europe. But Stalin lacked confidence and was always looking up to the UK and – later – the US.

Actually by 70s Europe and latin America was irrelevant as far SU future is concerned. it was Middleast and Asia that i made strategic mistakes.

Soviet Union should have embargoed Irak for its invasion Iran (most of weoponary was soviet orgin) and immediately start full supplies to Iran. this would have lead to defeat of Irak and rise of shia power in both irak and Saudi and with that the control of Oil and global currency collapse. Soviet Union was not quick in relignment of its policies. they could have won the afghan war much easily by changing some tactics. instead of making compromis in 1989 with China it should have been done much earlier and freeing up forces in europe and asia which could be used for economic betterment but they were too single minded.

For your info those comments about what a Chinese pilot average yearly hours of flying from the 1970 to 2000 are not coming out of my imagination. It comes straight from a former Chinese fighter pilot who ended up his career as 4 star General, I think knows better than you and I what he has done during his career with the PLAAF.

From my side it was just to share what can be said as very reliable information and give some insight about it, nothing else.

The J-5, J-6, J-7 fly an average of 45mn per sorties, which would come to about 125 missions a year.I would not take for granted that a Class A fighter pilot fly 300 hours a year on the J-11. The J-11 has been a difficult plane to handle in the PLAAF, there was quite a few crashes during the last couple of years and it is going to take few more years before those problems are all solved. This is due to the fact that the techonlogy gap between the J-7, J-8 and the J-11 is quite steep and it takes a lot of learning and training to handle it.

First we are comparing Naval aviation right? so sea harriers are much older airframes and engines compared to
JH-7 and Su-30MK2 and flight hrs are directly influenced by age of aircraft.

and even if u compare airforece than %age of new built aircraft with Plaaf are far greater with than with Iaf. i can safely assume that most of Plaaf operational aircrafts are built in 90s or 21st century. it does not matter if it is a J-7 , Flanker or J-10. Most of IAF aircrafts u can easily trace to 70s and 80s if not earlier.

To come back to the subject it would be interesting to have the Russion give India the chance to try their MiG-29K against the Su-30Mkk and compare it how they handle.

handling of aircraft does not even matter. as most of anti-ship missiles are launched at standoff ranges well beyond the air to air bvr horizon. so JH-7 and Su-30MK2 has similar effect in strike. the key difference is the superiority of command and control , communication and information capability of respective navies.

Good call. We can just let them fly airplanes into buildings and blow up subway stations. Maybe if we ignore them they’ll go away.

Soviet Union/Russia ignored them for past 30 years. they could have lobbed a few ICBMs on Middleastern Oil fields. that would have dried up the funding and Ideology to begin with and they werent depended on Oil infact it would have been beneficial for there economy.

Well, frankly, people around here do sometimes tend to be deluded into thinking that Russian hardware, at least, is automatically superior to anything ever invented in the West (firebar, where are you?). Yes, the problems with Russia’s military are predominantly the result of a lack of funding. But you do have to question a few things. For one, their tactics. Have they changed their warfighting doctrine significantly since we beat down Iraq and Yugoslavia, both of which are nations that used a Soviet warfighting model? By all means, you have to credit them with having the thought that their tactics could need some revision. But have they received the funding to properly train and implement those improvements? That’s the real issue. Having fantastic high-tech weapons does not mean anything if 1) the people aren’t trained well enough to use them, and 2) the tactics you’re using are crap to begin with.

It has nothing to do with weopons or tactics but ability to fund war and overhelming superiority in numbers. Yugo and Irak would have the same fate even if they change there tactics.

Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that they had built up militarily to the point that they could collectively challenge India :rolleyes:

India cannot afford even to individually fight them. and it is not limited to South Asia context. u have to look at AFrica, middleast, Central Asia and even russia.

Why not? Surely we’d be better off dealing with them politically and economically than dealing with them militarily.

how u deal with them Politically/economically that i ask?. Just in Iran case u have to liberate alot of people just like in Irak in different parts of Middleast or let them do the job without backing the other side. there is alot of other things involved. and how can socialist/leftist. countries fit in capitalist world view?.

I don’t see how expanding relations with some of the biggest consumer bases in the world would provide no benefit.

how would u expand relations with them? what product or service u want to sell to them that they either cannot produce cheaply or buy it from EU/SK/Japan with better quality. and they have totally different geopolitical priorities. u have to make alot of compromises.

Opposite?

just take example of Mexico. what do u think does US needs Mexico more or Mexico needs US more in 2006?. there are three constant things. debt/interest/inflation. that can kill any free market economy. and in order to keep the first two downs u have to keep the third one down.so u need cheap products/natural resources and personal services. who do u think will do farming for u or cleaning or construction with those wages? certainly not legal people with all employer expenses.

Why not? It’s not like they want all that much to do with us anyway. How can we be faulted for giving them what they want?

again what kind of reduce relations? first explain this. EU/Japan/SK products are more popular in US than the otherway US products in those countries even if they are expensive.
u are going basically against free market enterprize.

Eh?

I think u live in dream world. thats why u put impractical solutions and logic.