No need for figures USS. The Goshkov, even with its new boilers, is a VERY manpower intensive vessel – an 8 boiler steam plant is going to occupy the attentions of a great many stokers.

Yeah but the crew complement for both the IAC and the Gorky are almost the same (1200-1500). Even the current Viraat employs a similar figure. Thats one of the advantages of having loads of relatively cheap and qualified labor, which india does.

Simply put a modern, gas turbine prime-mover, electric propulsion system is more efficient and easier to maintain by several orders of magnitude.

No argument there, my greatest concern would be fuel costs and difference in fuel economy between the two carriers.

You dont need to be an engineer officer to see the difference between a propulsion system that requires 8 boilers and many hundreds of miles of high-pressure steam piping (whose thousands of joints and valves require careful routine maintenance) and a propulsion system that doesnt even need conventional gearboxes and inline shafts to transfer motive force to the screws.
IF you need some figures to latch on to the RN originally specified the annual operating costs of the two CVF’s to be no more than the costs of the 3 CVS’s. In monetary terms approx £200mn per year. As I understand it that target hasnt been achieved, but, its not far off. To operate a 65k ton carrier on an annual budget that is 5 or 6 times that of a Type23 frigate is quite an achievement. To further indicate the difference between modern propulsion and legacy the Type45, with its IEP, is described as offering a fuel burn 55% of that for a COGAG Type42, for equivalent distance, with a hull thats twice the displacement.
Lifecycle costs for the Gorshkov WILL push its price higher and higher for the IN especially when fuel, spares and wage costs really start to ramp up. Problem for the IN is that the IAC looks like it should be everything the Gorshkov isnt and the comparison is going to be very easy for the accountants to make in cost-per-deployment terms. In those terms, if nothing else, I wouldnt expect Gorshkov to have the service life in the IN that some here expect.

Jonesy,
while overall I’d agree that more recent designs are more efficient and therefore cheaper, there are a whole lot of factors to consider in the current context before this can be convincingly argued esp. in the context of other compelling reasons that I pointed out in my post. Also, what is the accuracy of the “only” report claiming the full cost of the Gorky being $3.4 billion. Almost all other sources point out to a maximum escalation of $ 1.2 billion, which would take the total price to $ 2.7 billion including the cost of 16 Mig-29Ks (incl support, training etc). Building an IAC sized ship in Europe is no joke –
1) What would be the cost of building the ship?
2) What would be the cost of equipping it?
3) What about the cost of its air wing (probly rafales)
4) What about crew training costs?

lets take the example of a Cavour type. Said ship, despite being a whole lot smaller (in terms of displacement), costs about $ 2+ billion without the airwing! For an IAC size ship, perhaps it’d be $ 3 billion? If you consider something like 16 Rafales for the IN, you add a whopping additional $ 2+ billion. Thats a total cost of $ 5 billion. Even if the Gorky cost $ 100 million extra per year to run, it’ll still take a good 20 years to even out the upfront cost difference. Then lets not forget, that for a country like India (at the time the deal was signed and perhaps even today), huge upfront costs are more difficult to manage.

regards,
USS.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more it makes me wonder. what exactly is the great advantage of the Eurocanards? Is it only to maintain a decent aerospace industry in europe?

performance wise, they hardly seem to offer anything better than upgraded flankers and eagles! one surely doubts their competitiveness when compared against a su-35 or F-15SG. And surely they are nowhere close to dealing with 5G a/c such as raptor, pakfas etc.

I think at last I can understand why the Koreans or the Singaporeans went for the Eagles. Not only will these be supported by existing infrastructure and tactics but a jump to a 5G type makes far more sense. perhaps for similar reasons, the IAF MRCA will also go to the Russkies. Why waste money on 4.5 G types when a heavily upgraded legacy jet gives you the same results and you can get a 5th gen bird soon enough.

regards,
USS.

Underperforming :rolleyes:

The su-35 is a dressed up su-27, there is no escaping that.

Ya but that dressed up Su-27 is good enough to kick some euro butt. I think they might as well quit before the Pakfa comes along :diablo: its amazing how fanboys absolutely refuse to see facts as they are. These same gents who point out that the Irbis will “light up” RWRs far away with that kind of power will be the first to point out that the EF-2000 has a far better chance against a Rafale A2A simply cause it has a more powerful radar:rolleyes:
Others will bring out ancient (and decidedly biased) DERA type studies only to repeat a fallacy ad nauseam. That the study was against an early 90s su-35 and even then was hardly factual hardly seems to matter. then there are those who simply feel that the russians can’t possibly come up with an amazing aircraft design and clever engineering and constantly rant about weights and measures. Hmm wonder how they came up with Sputnik? Drat must’ve been one off luck, Gagarin? two time lucky I s’pose. Lucky ba***trds these russkies, wot? must be the vodka.
fact of the matter is that the Russians for the last 60 odd years have produced some very competitive military hardware. that a 30 year old design with a few upgrades can give the latest and greatest eurocanards a decent licking might be hard to digest, but stands as a tribute to a fantastic Russian design.
Go Flanker! 😀

regards,
USS

Is it really so hard to guess. Here’s a hint: the Su-30MKI matched the tiffy quite well during Indradhanush. The Su-35 is just the next iteration.

With reduced RCS, increased TWR, better TVC, greater endurance and a solid improvement in an already awesome radar, the flanker ought to gobble up the itty bitty eurocanards quite nicely. :diablo: First detect, first shot, first kill. Game Flanker.

Even with a t3 typhoon, its going to be an uphill battle. Lets nots forget the russians too will have an AESA option in the near future. 1800 TRM AESA anyone?

Regards,
USS.

OK lets just face the facts a bit:

By a given date, say 2012 what will the 2 forces look like:

PAF:
~80 odd F-16blk52s
~40 odd Mirage III Rose upg
~ 40 odd JF-17

All BVR capable (SD-10s + Amraams). A total of 140 really worthwhile a/c. Plus add a couple of Erieyes to the eqn.

IAF:
~ 180 odd Su-30MKI
~ 60 odd MiG-29 upgraded
~ 50 odd Mirage 2000 (few upgraded all bvr capable)
~ 40 LCA
~ 80 Bisons (considering about 40 might have been retired by then)
~ 20 odd MRCA (Super Hornet, EF-2000, Rafale etc)
~ 80 odd Darin II Jags (all LDP capable)
~ 40 odd MiG-27 (all LDP capable)
~ 60 odd MiG-27s

In terms of pure A2A or multirole BVR capable assets, the IAF has a massive edge on the PAF (3:1) just in numbers. Qualitatively, the difference is again considerable, only the Vipers may pose some threat (and that too minimal considering the Bison’s superlative performance during the Singapore exercises). And thats not even including the strike fleet of another 190 odd a/c. Plus Phalcons and perhaps even the local AEW platform.

I think the answer is quite obvious as Nick has been trying to point out. Talk of credible deterrence is desperate jingoism at best. However, a surprise attack using the new RAAD? CM could bloody the IAF nose a bit at least initially, however, the the inevitable would just be delayed.

The greatest threat that pakistan poses for India imho is not through its armed forces at all but the very many terrorist cells it has been able to form deep within india. A sudden simultaneous activation of such cells along with a coordinated PAF/Army offensive could pose a serious problem. JMT

Regards,
USS.

Ok, South Africa used the V4 R-Darter on the Cheetah-C before that aircraft was retired. So here are some questions:

1. Who uses the Derby or R-Darter? Chile and Brazil have been mentioned as potential Derby users in the past, have either of them actually acquired the missile? One of them actually had modifications done to support the missile; I think it was Chile but I can’t remember off the top of my head.

2. Has Israel ever acquired the Derby? I recall an IAF officer or Rafael official, one of the two, claiming at one time that it would be used on the F-16.

3. Is South Africa going to integrate V4 with the Gripen, or are they still planning to pursue a new BVR weapon along with the A-Darter for WVR combat? JDW reported a while back that Denel was working on a new BVR AAM for Gripen which would be based in part on the Umkhonto SAM, but I don’t recall hearing anything else on that project.

4. If nobody is acquiring or using either weapon, are they both dead projects (apart from the SPYDER SAM variant of Derby, obviously)?

I think a potentially strong candidate for the Derby AAM is the IN with its Shar upgrade, which includes the EL-2032. THe early versions of the LCA also might carry it. Unless of course, the Astra comes along ASAP. JMT.

Regards,
USS>

🙂

Luverly, Gracias kind sir! I see that its still the old 154 airframe though. Not the latest iteration as shown @ Maks 07 with the 11 hard points. Still, here is an a/c that come a long way. Can you shed any light on the different R77 versions mentioned in the ILA report. Thanks.

Regards,
USS.

It is linked to the RHAWS system and is used to detect weapons launched at the aircraft. It is fully integrated into the fire control system.

Yes, they made the laser communication system used on GPS satellites.

Both are used together to provide 360 degree coverage.

Both are used for targetting and detection of incoming missiles… air or ground. The bottom system is optimised for ground targets but like any optical system it images targets so it really doesn’t care if they are on the ground or the sea or in the air.

It identifies shapes on the ground or in the air… it has autotracking/targetting capability… much like the Shkval-M on the Su-25TM. Have seen a test flight with the Shkval-M of the Su-25TM targeting a Tu-16 drone and shooting down the target with a Vikhr missile.

Hmm, I thought the MAWS was a different system altogether, (I haven’t read anything regarding the OLS-K providing a2a detection). IIRC, the MAWs is called SOAR and is on the other intake of the a/c. The OLS-K is primarily for surface designation . Altogether, there are two bumps on the intakes, one on each side. One for the OLS-K and the other for the MAWS/SOAR. the SOAR provides 360 deg coverage with the use of another little device just behind the canopy. Apart from these, there is the 360 deg LWS located on each wingtip, the EL-568 internal jammer and the RWR.
All in all a neat little package.
About the SOAR:
System consist of two stations, one on engine’s gondola, second on the top of the fuselage, behind the cabin. It detects rocket launches and shows the direction from which the missile is coming. The threat is also signalled by vioce. It can detect Stinger/Igla from 10km, a2a missiles from 30km, big surface to air missiles from 50km. SOAR was also developed in NII PP Institute.

Point is, how useful is it to detect a mach 2 missile 10km away or a mach 4 @ 30km?. You barely will have 15-20 seconds of warning. I guess some warning IS better than no warning, but still.

Regards,
USS.