star49Seems you are unaware of the fact that the MMRCA contender is not intended to replace the MKI, but complement it and to replace the MiG-21 fleet. To sum it up bullsh!t. But what can we expect from you…:rolleyes:
Replacement of MIG-21 is LCA class fighter. It is the fast delivery, operational service, Price and increasing role that MKI is taking IAF along with more sophiticated standoff weopons that will matter at the end not some uncertain future projects at undeterminable price that will put futhre burden.
star49[I]
EF is not serious contender just price/capability not there.1) Price is not there? So what is the price for India when some are built by HAL? EF GmbH haven’t told me, but if they’ve told you, then let’s hear it. I’d suspect that with the local production element they’ll get them much cheaper than Austria – so we’re talking less than €61 m. Perhaps even less than the UK, which would mean less than £37 m.
You forget about licensing, documentaiton and factory setup costs and creating supply chain. This thing does not happen overnight. it take nearly a decade to creat logistical foot print from raw material to finish product. it is more than likely that total life cycle cost of EF are several times more than MKI project for IAF.
2) Which capability required by India isn’t there?
It will not be able to fire Brahmos. The best and most capable missile in India arsenal for all services and i doubt it can carry more than 3000lbs class weopons. and with upcoming klubir/kh-31PMK/kh-38/Kh-58/KAB-SE. The range and complexity of weopons available for MKI will be in totally different league than EF. i am not going into AAMs. so they will continue to invest in enhancing MKI.
The Indian deal will either come down to politics, in which case it will be F-16 or F/A-18E/F, or capability and requirement, in which case it may be Typhoon, or cost, in which case Gripen looks promising. The success of M2K in India makes Rafale a wildcard possibility, despite the fact that India doesn’t like to be a launch export customer.
When MKI is supplied now at such rate and with reasonable cost. i doubt IAF has Pilots for another big project and HAL has personal for another undertaking. It is operational conditions that will dictate the matter in the end. Traing/supporting for $100m fighter is not same as $5m MIG-21/MIG-27.
star49$4B upfront extra is not the same thing as $4B extra spread out over 20 years. and there is no gurantee that Western ships cost half to operate vs Russian Ships of similar size. even in Civillian airlines the gap is 40% untill now at most.
It is more or less $1m per day for operating six ships at maximum. I
http://redbannernorthernfleet.blogspot.com/
Daily demand for fuel and POL for a destroyer or large ASW class ship is about 100 tons (the optimal-minimal figure). Thus, the daily expenditure of fuel for a six ship task force (three warships and three support ships) taking into account the functioning of support equipment can reach thousands of tons. It is not difficult to translate this into monetary expenditure, figuring that diesel costs 18 thousand rubles/ton (lubricants 20 percent less). One day of a task force at sea costs the Navy around 15-20 million rubles – just for fuel….
But this is far from all the expenditures: modern conditions demand shipborne aviation to complete the commander’s missions. A helicopter demands around a half a ton of aviation kerosene/hour flight.
Aviation kerosene in Russia costs around 1380 dollars/ton today in Russia and in North-West Europe – 1270 dollars. World aviation kerosene prices have doubled in the last year, although in the West it has begun to fall in May, but in Russia, this hasn’t happened. Right now (19 June, 2008) kerosene costs 6.2 percent less in Heathrow than in Moscow and in Dubai – 8.1 percent less
star49If, as seems likely, trench3 gets cancelled that means it’s no-longer an MMRCA contender- leaving the Super-Hornet the clear favourite. Now which aircraft have Sukhoi officials gone to pains to compare the BM to recently? the SH!
EF is not serious contender just price/capability not there. and SH production is busy with other customer. i doubt it can fullfill India order in time. It will take RAAF take 3 years to get first SH by that time Irkut can supply extra 126 Flankers as supply chain of all Flanker parts is common.
An Indian order for the BM would be pretty smart: not as many as 126 would be required, ToT/off-sets would be no issue (as per MKI) and sub-systems/weapons commonality & upgrades for ’35BM, ’30MKI & PAK-FA-MKI would save significant $ in the long-term.
Su-35 is single seat and have different cockpit design. Even Ruaf will take time to get use to it. i think if Irkut continue to supply Su-30MKI at reasonable price and speed IAF will continue with Su-30MKI as Pilots and infrastructure is already built for it. I doubt IAF even have front line Pilots for different kind of aircraft. they are now hooked up on MKI.
star49First time new wing for IL-76. Now with new engine, avionics and wing and possible new material and manufacturing process. It is new aircraft.
http://atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=13345
In addition, the company is developing an upgraded version of the IL-76 freighter that will have all-new avionics, a new wing and be “much better” in terms of fuel efficiency, he said. It is slated for first flight in 2010.
by Aaron Karp
star49Is the Su-35BM gonna gatecrash India’s MMRCA party?:cool:
MMCRA contests are already obsolete infront of Su-35. Today i saw Irkut in interfax that they can export 200 more Su-30MKI class fighter.
and now with the speed that IAF order is going to fullfil with all the upgrades on line by the time MMRCA is ready to signed there will be 250 Su-30. So It is likely they will continue to order the same thing. It is the price/momentum of deliveries that matter rather than creating whole new infrastructure/Pilot training for another type which is costly and delay. and than u already have BAE poor performance/Price increase in Hawk and PAK-FA is just around the corner so whats the point of that contest.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3631439&c=AIR&s=TOP
More than 100 Su-30MKI aircraft have been delivered to the Indian Air Force, including those assembled under license by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Forty more fighters were ordered last year, and upgrades of the Su-30MKI Phases are underway.
star49They also added canards to that thing remember. I doubt the nozzles added a ton each.
Canards may be necessary interms of design they want to achieve at that time. and the aircraft may also lack the heavier AESA radar with all cooling and other requirements. Basically ur extrapolating alot from some experimental airframe. there is even Sukhoi picture with square nozzle.
I think MIG-29OVT is the first one without canards and Advance FBW controlled 3D TVC but Su-30MKI is fully certified interms of heavier radar and operational life with weopons.
star49I wouldn’t call the weight penalty “substantial”. The nozzles are something like 600 lbs lighter than the ones even on the YF-22. Plus if you can trim with the vectoring that’s going to be less drag than using control surfaces.
the weight of F-15Active is given. It weighs several tons more than F-15A with only 5.2 fuel capacity. Certainly no one would want to fly fighter with more than 25 ton NTOW with such low fuel. and there is no guarrantee that those nozzel for certified for combat conditions. It is long way to go interms of cost. I highly doubt even EF can afford TVC and will need increase thrust to balance weight.
star49Just a waste of time and money, when pitted against stealth fighters. :diablo:
Ruaf certianly does not agree with that conclusion. MIG-31/Su-35 are worthy projects to invest. High altitude/Speed/fuel capacity gives more time to evade missiles and follow Stealth fighter to the airbase from where it is comin from. They certainly dont have unlimited range. and Radar/Sensors performance is increasing every year which is not the case with Stealth as overall shape of the fighter is the same for decades.
star49My point was, that true stealth is the key difference to all other top-end fighters, when in all the other areas it is not exceptional. 😉
what about exceptional altitude and speed performance with related massive internal fuel capacity for generous use of afterburner. Bigger radar in nose also helps. This alll adds up to make an exceptional fighter.
star49Never said thrust vectoring was “worthless”, just that it’s obviously not as important as a plethora of other items. It’s certainly not a “must-have”.
Why F-22? It adds substantial weight and cost penalty. certainly not suitable for cost and weight increase for 1970s era fighter. AESA cost is going down related to investment which is not case with TVC.
star49The point is both were flying over a decade ago. The reason nobody took them further is because nobody wanted them. Cost/benefit isn’t there.
It is certainly there. It is in high price F-22. Just look at F-15Active weight increase and that aircraft was barely certified for any load and now add the cost.
star49The US had thrust vectoring flying on aircraft before the Flanker ever flew with it. Whoops. If you wanted to and had the money you could buy 3D TVC equipped F100s & F110s RIGHT NOW. Nobody wants them.
These add further weight to the aircraft and cannot be implemented at reasonable cost and no one has certified the TVC nozzles for operational life. It is long way to go.
star49A Snorenet can’t do Mach 2 and they still buy those. 😀
u have no choice. developing TVC capable fighter in west is not cheap and all western fighters have gained weight.
star49When someone is in need of a yardstick about manouverability see there:
http://dieluftfahrt.blogspot.com/2007/08/video-maks-2007-kampfjet-mig-29-ovt-mit.htmlNeither the Typhoon, Su-35BM or F-22A can surpass that. When the data for the MiG-29 OVT are known at low level, that of the other ones has to stay behind, the bla bla about military secrets aside.
Back to reality, such an agility is misused as a yardstick for a fighter, when the true gains in operational use are limited at best. How many MiG-29 OVTs are ordered by the professionals or their services?
Next nice to have feature are AESA. The delays and the limited number of that do show, that such systems have still to mature. It is obvious, that the related software has problems to be built in time. The APG-77 is technical an excellent system, but it has run into software problems too. The main advantage of the F-22A was to stay fast and high, when do the look-down/shot-down mode most of the time. Ground clutter, ECM-pods and towed jammers are not the same cooperative targets picked up at the test-ranges.
Some promises related to AESA have still to mature. All modern radars are modular built and the AESA front end can be added with ease, when the other way around it is much more difficult. See the limited number of F-15C in Alaska about that. There is a reason behind the limited number and slow introduction, despite the advertisement claims about the AESA.
An excellent example to hide behind security claims. That has nothing to do with an “enemy”, except the taxpayer or politic will ask nasty questions about that. The first step to overcome a problem or shortcoming is to speak about that.
All the technical data are useless in its own, when the way it will be used operational are the real secrets or the actual software performance.
Su-35 will surely surpass MIG-29OVT. Its full flight enevlope hasnt been exploited yet. Just wait when three more produciton models join. Nose pointing ability is key for quick shooting down of target that are detected at last minute.
Sign In
