Yeah… air to air detection head on of +50kms and tail on +90km without AB on completely passively is useless in the air to air role… :rolleyes:

Garry, Flex,

I think the OLS-K is primarily for A2G usage, (OLS-K is designed to detect and track ground targets, it detects tank from 20km, rocket boat from 40km. Laser has range of 20km. System use the same technology as OLS-UM. It was made by NII PP institute, which previously made opical devices for space industry).
the OLS-UEM is the primary A2A IRST sensor situated near the cockpit. Its the one with the specs you mentioned.

So, Scorp does have a point. However, one needs to remember that this sensor can be easily removed for A2A missions. I’d rather have it than an external pod because it saves a pylon.

Regards,
USS

LCA should be able to carry couple of Kh-35, Kh-31 A/P maybe even 2 Kh-59’s. Its not meant to lug a brahmos around.

Hmm, I have a feeling that the LCA will carry more weapons of the Israeli variety. I’m actually thinking it might use the Derby/Astra as its primary BVR weapon instead of the R77. In terms of Cruise missiles, the Delilah, popeye/crystal maze types might be used. JMT

USS.

A very optimistic view into the reality. A modest 100% specification engine is starting its grows path, when cleared for first use. The report does show, that India has not the know how at hand to built even that basic specification engine. At least India does not hide that problem, what is the first step to overcome that.

Boss, what exactly is it that you are saying? why is the program director’s view “very optimistic”? he (of all people) he ought to know whats happening. And your 2nd sentence is very hard to comprehend, whats the point? The “basic specification engine” that you are talking about is quite advanced with pretty high thrust, weight and SFC requirements. Not too many countries can sport such a capability. If they have managed to get to 95% of stated target, its promising.

Regards,
USS.

So where does that leave LCA? Will IAF accept it with current thrust, or will it keep waiting for Kaveri?

I think the IAF will accept what it has already paid for (20 LCA) plus a potential 20 more based on the GE-404IN20 say from 2010 to 2012. thereafter, they will start getting the heavier, more capable LCAs with a 10ton class engine. JMT.

Regards,
USS.

So that is your EVIDENCE ? because russians can fit their desired IRST aboard the nose it makes it MORE SUPERIOR TO POD MOUNTED IRST ? So no evidence other then such rubbish ? No sceintific reason as to why the DETECTION RANGES AND PERFORMANCE of the IRST / FLIR would all of a sudden DETERIORATE when mounted in the belly as opposed to the NOSE ? It is funny because i bet that YOU YOURSELF WOULD ASK FOR MORE EVIDENCE IF SUCH STUPID EXPLAINATION WAS GIVEN TO YOU .

I am not saying POD mounted is superior however it will most likely add more DRAG hence the NOSE is probably the best AERODYNAMICALLY place to put an IRST , however I SEE NO SCEINTIFIC ARGUMENT as to why the POD MOUNTED IRST/FLIR=IFTS would face ANY (even minute) DEGRADATION in performance (IR-IMAGERY PERFORMANCE THAT IS) if it is mounted in the belly . OFCOURSE THE AIRCRAFT WOULD BECOME MORE DRAGGY AS OPPOSED TO A PURE NOSE MOUNTED IRST but NO SCEINTIFIC EVIDENCE IS THEIR TO SUPPORT THAT SENSOR PERFORMANCE WOULD BE DEGRADED . The F-35 has a bigger nose yet its EOTS (IRST+FLIR) is mounted on the undersurface of the nose .

.

Bring_it_on,

Whats the news on an IRST/FLIR for the Super Hornet? Last I remember, they were experimenting with hooking it up to a centerline EFT 😮 Have they moved on to a permanent pod? and if so, where is it located? Pictures would be very useful.

The only disadvantage that I can think of for a belly mounted IRST, is a FOV restricted to the lower hemisphere under the a/c. Apart from the drag as you pointed out. possible intereference from the airframe might also be a problem. THe nose mounted IRST coupled with an IRST/LDP on the undercarriage would be the best way out IMHO. THey did this quite nicely with the MiG-35 without wasting any pylon space.

Regards,
USS.

Please instead of guessing why don’t you ask them how much one would cost. ADS is not simply scaling up the cavour. It would require redesign and a cost of $3 bil is not unreasonable if built in europe. Heck for the sake of argument lets say 2.5-2.6 bil for a new built one. Even then to catch up with the cost of a new ADS from Italy it would take 26-28 years. Why don’t you just accept it that at $ 1.2 bil the gorky with 80 % of its parts replaced with new ones is a steal compared to anything europe can offer.:diablo:

Bronco is spot on here. Very succint and accurate reply. Only a modified (read enlarged) Cavour type can match capability (30+ a/c complement). And that would cost a packet. The Gorky despite all the issues, is still a great deal. BTW, no JSF types for India yet. As far as crew costs go, india can surely afford lots of crew – thats one HUGE resource india does have at its disposal.

Regards,
USS.

This litte statement shows your background on this issue and how you turn my writing into adsurdity by twisting words. I said clearly: can supercruise with one EFT. Why should the Su-35 be able to supercruise because the EF2000 can do with one EFT? I guess you’ll start with static thrust/weight ratios, … please don’t do it … 🙂

The Suchoi 35 will most likely not have a tactically useful supercruise capability. Too much changes necessary to achieve it. That it can – under some special conditions – supercruise is nice for advertisement, but not of relevance.

Above numbers I provided show that even Russian website credits the Su-35 with only fuel fraction of .29, which is the same as an F-16A for a normal a2a mission.
(P.S.: for those who don’t know, and I guess that will be close to 100% here, 0.3 is considered the optimum fuel fraction for conventional fighter aircraft)

The issue at hand is not my background in the technical details of supercruise. The issue at hand as I have amply made clear is that the modified flanker types such as MKI/35 clearly make it a very tough task for
new designed/built Eurocanards. To which you came up with wonderful (and inaccurate) arguments such as fuel capacity of the flanker is largely useless in air combat, you further supported your arguments with totally wrong information such as the NTOW of the flanker is 35 tonnes or that TVC is useless!
Now when a couple of posters have called you on your comments, you come up with a patronizing tirade against my background.:rolleyes: Forget it dude, owning up to making mistakes is obviously not one of your stongpoints!

USS.

I always like the Flanker fanboys. They state fuel load and payload as advantage … for air to air combat? Guys, have you any idea what you are talking about?

Always a little hard for Eurofan boys when the truth is made clear isn’t it?

Not that fuel and payload is a disadvantage, but for air to air combat you want your aircraft as light as possible. The huge fuel load is in majority there to haul the huge empty weight.

you have to be kidding. 😮 Its appalling to read something like “not that fuel and payload is a disadvantage”. one of the most important criteria in modern BVR combat is fighter endurance. To be able to play “cat and mouse”, you need to be able to engage and disengage at will and thats where a flanker’s huge fuel load is a massive advantage. Secondly, carrying internal fuel allows the flanker total freedom from EFTs, which the eurocanards will have to be burdened with if they are to match the flanker’s range/endurance. Thirdly, lack of EFTs automatically means less drag and better manouverability. Fourthly, lack of EFTs also mean tons of free space for carrying more munitions. So no, huge fuel load is not there mainly for hauling the airframe, otherwise a flanker’s range wouldn’t be considered such an asset.

A Flanker takes off with ~32 to 35 ton weight for a normal air2air mission, that is close to 2 Eurofighters.

Wrong and ridiculously so. The NTOW for a flanker is about 25500kg. In a pure A2A loadout, it could easily carry 6XR77 + 2XR73 + 8000kg fuel,which would give it insane range and endurance, Which the Eurobirds can hope to match only with large EFTs. Remember even with the above excessive fuel/warload, it still is quite close to the NTOW.

In case an engagement occurs, the EF can reduce its weight by several tons in a matter of seconds (drop tanks).

yes, and in the same breath lose its ability to turn and burn for any length of time.

Payload is great, but seriously more than 8 AAMs are wasted space, at least when you not engage in very odd situations.

hmm, no wonder the eurocanards advertise their ability to fly with huge amounts of AAMs every chance they get.

Flying circles with 12 AAMs is the best garantuee to get killed with 8 AAMs still hanging on your aircraft.

Highly debatable. it would depend on what the situation warrants. In either case, the ability to carry huge amounts of fuel internally is a massive advantage.

A “large radar” is at first a large emitter and enemy’s RWR best friend on long distances.If AWACS is not available, the guy who uses his radar is the guy who will lose, at least he will never score a kill (cause everybody knows where he is and gets away if his terms are not favorable). If AWACS is available, individual radar will be switched on short notice. Large long range radar might be advantageous for long range intercept, actually the mission the Flanker was designed for, but for a combat over limited distances with all the force multipliers it is primarily wasted weight.

talk about absurd reasoning. in that case, why even carry radar? ever heard of first look, first kill? No flanker is going to emit continously if he can help it. Also, Irbis has a degree of LPI incorporated in it making detection that much more difficult. Also, in case of a team of flankers, if one emits and provides SA, he can easily act as a mini AWACs for 4-8 other flankers, which can remain passive and position themselves favourably. So while your RWR might give you a general bearing on 1 emitting flanker, you have no idea regarding its buddies.

For an air to air combat over Central Europe a Eurofighter (and even a modernized MiG-29) are much better options than the huge Flankers, which have a massive logistical footprint, too.

Why? Esp. considering how large Russia is, it’d be nice to have a/c with great range. BTW, you are talking about a very specific scenario here.

Your celebrated TVC will be useless weight in 9 out of 10 situations. Actually if the Flanker was such a superior BVR platform, why does it need TVC? It still can’t supercruise, which a Eurofighter can use to disengage at will by that in case he is frightened by the Suchoi.

My dear chap, TVC is very, very useful, even in BVR and supersonic flight regimes as it helps cut drag. wonder why even the F-22 has it and why the Ef-2000 guys experiment with it if it offers no advantage whatever. And in terms of WVR, the flanker is at a disadvantage thanks to its huge size, so any feature that can help (such as tvc) ought to be incorporated. And the Su-35 is supposed to supercruise.

face it pal, the wiley russkies have pretty much nullified the uber expensive european a/c by introducing advanced flanker mods such as the Su-30MKI or the Su-35 and that too at half the price! Indeed a bitter pill for most eurocanard fanboys (including me 🙁 , only i’m open enough to admit it)

Regards,
USS.