^ At the risk of going a bit overtime, Boom might not be as credible to you Quad, but his posts are quite sensible and informative. More importantly, he is not asking you to believe him, just asking TR1 to take Sengupta’s articles with a big cuppa salt. No harm there.

USS

So why did India chose MIG 29K then ? Both the 29K & 33K were out of production with the Su 33 atleast having more examples flying. The reason IN did that was because its just as capable.

IIRC, the IN would have preferred an MKIzed version of the flanker for their ship ,however, Gorky had too much of a space constraint, and the MiG-29 was chosen. There is little doubt imho, that a suitably upgraded flanker will edge out the fulcrum performance wise. Whether it is range, combat persistence, payload, or early detection, the uber flanker wins.

USS.

Now we know EF has 1426 T/R, so they used d=~72 cm

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1814916&postcount=490

Interesting, and rather fair i’d think, assuming that the F-35 actually can manage such a huge amount of TRMs and the EF2k cannot manage anything significantly larger.

However, unlike what the spokesperson says, I do believe that there is one significant 4 gen challenge to the JSF – the Su-35 or a similar flanker variant. Either with the Irbis OR with an AESA, I’d expect these birds to carry at least 500-600 more TRMs in their huge antenna/nose space.

And IF if they can keep RCS down to 1-5sqm, there is a chance that they might detect the JSF in time for an equally early shot. Also, the difference bet detection/shot might be reduced to such a marginal level, that the flanker might wind up taking shots (with longer ranged missiles) at similar distances ~ 100km.

It is truly amazing that the flanker design can still stay so competitive.

USS.

USS.

Have any more details leaked out on the MKI upgrade? It seems that the foll is possible:

1) Brahmos hook up.
2) New EW fit
3) AESA or Bars II
4) L Band AESA?
5) RCS reduction (blockers?)

What I’d like to see: weight reduction, plumbing for EFTs and an engine upg. If the MKI can get a range similar to the Su-35 and a better TWR than at present, it’d help in both strike and A2A roles.

Maybe they can divvy the upg. into a strike oriented one and an A2A specialization? The A2A variant gets greater thrust engines, no brahmos, AESA (X and L band), RCS reduction to the fullest extent possible. The strike variant gets increase in payload and fuel capacity, terprom.

Of course suitable weapons upg. is essential (KS 172, later version of R73 and R77 for the a2a variant, and bmos, new KH series for ground variant).

USS.

^ I beg to differ, the fighter inventory structure for the USAF or even VVS and IAF are totally different, almost diametrically opposed:

The IAF is headed for an inventory which is comprised 50% heavy fighter (Pakfa/MKI), 25-30% medium twin engined a/c and > 20% “light” fighters. Otoh, the others have more than 60% of their fleets equipped with lighter fighters, be it F-16 or JSF or MiG-29. The USAF not long ago iirc, had about 1200 F-16s and only about 600 variants of the F-15. Even in case of the mighty FSU, the bulk of the fighter inventory had floggers, fulcrums, and even fishbeds with far fewer flankers and foxbat/hounds. That is over a 2:1 ratio in favor of the “lighter” birds, otoh, it is a similar ratio in favor of the heavier a/c in the IAF.

Btw, interestingly, it is only in the eyes of the IAF, that these a/c are called “medium”. The Russians for eg. referred to the 29 to fulfil their Light fighter requirements. This fact in itself immediately brings forth the difference in size, scope and resource availability to the USAF/RuAF vs. the IAF.

IOWs, when even the largest AFs in the world pay heed to logic/economics in structuring their forces with fewer heavies and more “light” birds, it is ominous that the IAF, with fewer resources and demands, tends to have more heavy than light birds. Backwards imho.

I don’t blame the IAF for this though, it does what it can under the constraints imposed upon it by a rather whimsical (and even capricious) GOI. JMT

USS

Comparison of F-35 is not the most appropriate. For foll reasons – a) it is a VLO bird – i don’t believe these can come any smaller than the f-35, b) even though it does produce an incredible amount of thrust, it is a lot less than MOST twin engined MRCA (tiffy/Mig/shornet) – with the exception of the Rafale, which imho is the most suitable to the current IAF requirement, c) the US mil budget is probly 10X larger than INdia’s – IOWs, the US can afford this and even so, it still has a v. decent mix of F-35, F-15, F-22, and F-16. IIRC, the F-16s far outnumber the others. Far more balanced. This is dramatically opposed to the IAF acquisition path, where the twin engined heavies will far outnumber the single engined LCA. You’d think India has an unlimited supply of seriously cheap fuel to be inducting such a variety and number of heavy, twin engined birds.

Corrosion,

The IAF’s specific requirement for a M2k-5 was hardly “long ago” – just 4-6 years ago they were more than eager to grab it. WHat has changed so dramatically in the last 4-6 years that all of a sudden it WANTs a twin engined bird? Frankly, the IAF had little choice but to go with the new policy formulated by the new GOI, which opened up bidding to almost every variety of fighters available – a veritable menagerie. As a result, IAF revised its requirements as well – now the AESA became a requirement and so did uber performance. Think about it, the M2k deal was almost done, and then suddenly there was the Super Hornet in the same competition! In fact Dassault even pulled the bird out and inserted the Rafale instead!

USS

:rolleyes:So when you cannot match a good article you get down to discrediting the source. Yes it was in code one magazine, but the truth of the matter is that the claims by the pilot with regards to his flying hours on both platforms is likely to be true.

As for the Mirage 2000, the Greeks will tell you that if they don’t get the F 16 initially the situation from then on is in the Vipers favour in a dogfight, so you are comparing two machines which are inferior to the Viper one may be better than the other yes 😉

And the IAF review was just a dog fight, it did not pit the radar/electronics/missiles into equation, rather old fashioned that i would say.

Why would you take the IAFs word as Gold standard ? They have only recently started exercising with the Viper, and their favourite aircraf tremains the Mirage 2000. They are choosing a western MRCA, and if any one in the west would have given them the oippurtunity the Russians did with the FGFA they would have gone for it.

There is nothing wrong with Russian Aircraft, but till very recently IAFs choice was rather limited, I am not saying Western Aircraft were not on offer but they would not come with the ToT and freedom of an MKI for example.

Would India have choosen the Su 30 back then if U.S India relations were good and U.S was offering Brand New Eagles with a great deal of freedom, I doubt that.

:diablo:

Err problem with the above is that
a) The late BHarry had mentioned that much later, when both a/c were capable of BVR, the DACT ratio favored the Mig-29 7:1 vs. the M2k. Simply because the 29 radar (N019) was far more powerful, I believe the conversation might still be available on ACIG. So BVR or WVR, the fulcrum has/had certain rather distinct advantages over the “western” M2k. However, it might be a different tale with the 2000-5 upg. Still, missile range will benefit the fulcrum. Also, IIRC, the vanilla Su-30K did rather well vs. the Adla M2k-5. Btw, it is by now quite well known that the IAF had “no problems” in dealing with Blk 50 Vipers with their MKIs, in fact even the Bisons were considered a rather decent challenge to said Vipers. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the Viper is toast, but there is little between it and a well kept, flown MiG-29, and there are some rather distinct advantages even today that the 29 will enjoy over said western counterparts, radar range, IRST, TWR, and missile range for example.

b) The IAF’s choice was never limited as such, they infact wanted the M2k-5 but ultimately chose to go with the Su-30. The only limitation to western (non US0 birds was (and still is) their price. The Russki birds provided a tremendous bang for the buck, period.

Peformance wise, I don’t think the IAF has ever complained about Russian hardware. Problem has always been logistics, parts, and therefore, uptimes. If the latter are licked, the birds/hardware in itself is often more than enough to take on western counterparts.

USS.

A brahmos is about 30feet, airlaunched version is probly little shorter (25?). Even so that is a good 10 feet longer than the Scalp, which the Rafale carries on the inboard pylons. The Brahmos would be a tough fit, but it might be possible on the centerline imho, the weight is doable, and the length does not seem to be much more than the 2000 liter tank.