I’d be amazed if the Invincible lasted long enough to be considered for a future Russian/Indian STOVL fighter, it’ll be doubtful if she’ll last long enough to operate the f35B. She’s had quite a hard life and is already 30 years or so old.

Ya, you got a point there. But the Indians are known to pinch the pennies until they scream, take a peek at the Viraat (beast’s been there for almost half a century now). Also, if the Brits part with it at throwaway prices, it’ll be worth it just to relieve the Viraat for the next decade or so. In either case how ’bout the Saipan then, its older but how hard has her life been?

Regards,
USS.

Of course you would be better off with it than without it, but the question is whether it is worth the cost, which is pretty high for every fighter, and apparently even more so for the F-22 (not just due to technical difficulties but the relatively small number of airframes).

Well, for $ 200 million a pop, whats an additional million or two or three? If you are going to such massive lengths to make an a/c unassailable, why leave this relevant bit out? It seems insane.

Well, “better” is a loaded term, but sensors such as radar can give you information about the whereabouts of your enemies long before your eyes can see them, allowing you to better prepare (if possible). Even close dogfights start out as BVR engagements in real combat unless one believes that fighters simply materialize next to each other out of nowhere. 😉

You misunderstood me…when I mean “better than your senses” I mean the tech actually has better ability to directly (by bypassing the senses) communicate with the brain/mind/CNS whatever. IOW, even if radar allows you to prepare for enemies long before your eyes can see them, you still need eyes to read off the radar display and an optical nerve topass it along to your CNS to make sense out of what you read. hence the argument that if via HMS you can get information straight to your brains via the sensory organ of your eye, its one hell of a direct way to get info; and unless the F22 has ways whereby it makes your eyes redundant, the HMS is useful.

I wouldn’t necessarily put a “period” on that–they probably have good if not great BVR capability as well, and would much prefer to use that whenever possible, I would imagine.

sure, the period was just a means to drive the point home.

Regards,
USS.

Have to side with Jack here, just can’t see how a HMS/HOBS equipped fighter can be matched WVR by one without the same. F22 or not – you’ll be better off with it IMHO unless they actually have sensors that can instruct your mind directly and that too better than your own senses (eyes), which i truly doubt.
No wonder then that IAF MKI pilots would claim that a TVC+HMS combo is the best there is, period.

REgards,
USS>

You know what, it doesn’t really matter in this case, because whatever means the PRC used to hit a sat in space, it can use to hit a ship on earth.

Err thats assuming of course, that they know the course of the ship and its trajectory OR that they have a highly advanced RORSAT giving them almost live updates. In either case, there are inherent difficulties in making a successful hit. First, you need to spot the CBG in the middle of a HUGE sea and then you need to illuminate the target every step of the way till the very last moment – not an easy job considering ships can move and change direction any time they want. Getting a direct hit is a tall order. The best alternative is what SOC pointed to – use nukes.

USS.

Correct. The one good thing is whatever we get now will be at least 4.5 Gen or whatever, as compared to the Mirage 2000 which is on its last legs as a design. I sincerely hope that the IAF goes for the Eurofighter or Rafale, provided TOT is met. The MiG-35 is a third choice. The F/A-18 has too many restrictions in terms of TOT and politics.:(

Based on recent remarks from the CAS (i’ll try to find the article), the IAF wouldn’t mind buying fewer a/c (than the quoted # of 126). So, it wouldn’t be surprising to see about 70-80 rafales/typhoons/Hornets in service with IAF. The additional 40 MKIs ordered brings the tally to 126. JMT.

frankly, any of these a/c will do, however, the Rafale would be my choice since it would be cheaper than the other 2 AND has reportedly some commonality with the Mirage 2000-5.

regards,
USS.

Just an observation and one which i have made before. While MKI might be comparatively cheaper than M2K-5, i believe it would be a lot more expensive per flight hour. Im basing this observation on a fact (taken from an article on IDAF F-15 published in AFM some 3/4 years back) that IDAF F-15 pilots had to make up their hours on smaller fighters simply because one F-15 flight hour would cost around $15K (or was it $20K?) most of which was fuel costs. Considering russian standard of maintenance and engine efficiency vis-a-vis western ones as well as much heavier MKI airframe, inflation, and much high oil prices of today, i have absolutely no doubt that a single MKI flight hour would cost (as of now) at least what it was costing IDAF per F-15 flight hour a few years back. Over the years (lets say 6,000) these flying costs add up to a lot.

MKI vs M2k-5 overall costs:
I have no idea, however, I’d still not be surprised if the MKI came out on top.

As far as the MRCA candidates are concerned, they (most likely candidates such as Rafale/EF2000/MiG 35/Hornet) are all twin engined and bigger than the F16 or the Gripen and should have comparable costs per flight hour. The Mig 29SMT is supposed to have a cost of < $ 5000 per flight hour IIRC. Should be better for the 35. An f16 costs about $ 3200 per flight hour, i’m guessing twin engined MRCA birds ought to be a lot higher. Still if you take the difference ($ 2000) per hour for 6000 hours (aircraft life), you can add up about $ 12 million to the MiG 35 bringing it to about $ 60 million per bird (including the entire package) – nowhere close to the cost of a Rafale/Typhoon/Shornet each of which cost well over $ 100 million per a/c excluding fuel costs. I mean just look at the Aussie deal: $ 4.6 billion for 18 Shornets – thats like close to $ 200 million for one bird, similar with RAF or Austrian AF Ef2000s ($ 24 bln for 236), the ROKAF Strike Eagles would be lesser ($ 100 million plus per a/c) but again would have huge fuel costs compared to the MiG 35. Then add to these costs MLUs, again an area where russkies are much cheaper than western birds.

I’ll still maintain that the Super Fulcrum is half the overall cost of the other MRCA birds (except the Gripen and the Falcon) JMT.

Regards,
USS.

I would have to agree with unforseen cost. Just look at the Ex-Gorshkov and Su-30 deals…………lets not forget the Mig-21 upgrades.

When i said “unseen” costs I meant $$$s required to keep the Indian leadership/bureaucracy happy. NOT price overruns such as in the case of the MKI. BTW, at the cost of repeating it the umpteenth time, despite these overruns, russian birds still wind up being a hell of a lot cheaper than western birds. IIRC, the entire MiG 21 upgrade for example cost only about $ 300-400 million for 126 a/c. Includes new radar, canopy, rwrs, hms etc …beat that.

Regards,
USS.

Well, its really makes you wonder about capabilities and lifecycle cost vs price then. As Western Types vastly out sell Russian Types.

Riight and that is why decent pilots of the west have come to appreciate the threat caused by Russian a/c in capable hands. And that is also perhaps the reason why the Malaysians chose the MKM over the Hornet, perhaps also the reason why India loves its flankers.

So, with such a low cost and capabilities so close.
Why aren’t the free nations of the world flocking to Russia’s door step????

No offence Scoot, but you are not really this naive are you? Or do you intentionally and conveniently overlook the fact that most so called “free” nations (such as Iraq in 80s or Pakistan since its birth or Iran under the Shah) flocked to the west for their a/c simply because it was either western a/c or often NO a/c for them. You also realize that the world was until recently (and even today) is quite polarized right? Let me explain, after WWII some countries formed NATO and its allies and others formed the Warsaw Pact; those affiliated with the former automatically bought western/American a/c and those with the latter automatically bought Russian/Soviet aircraft. Under those circumstances it really didn’t matter which a/c offered the best cost vs performance ratio.

India, otoh, was one of those few countries (probly the only really large country) which maintained a somewhat neutral stance. This is clearly reflected in its airforce inventory which has traditionally comprised of both Russian and western a/c. Rest assured , it is probly in the best position to know which a/c are better and more often than not, it is very pleased with its Russian made birds (Su 30mki is a prime but not only example).

Regards,
USS.