Phaidnavy’s fighters will also be tasked to take care of the PAF mirage squadrons seconded for maritime duty, which are based out of karachi IIRC.
Navy’s fighters will be busy shooing MPAs away from the surface fleet, not “taking care of” full squadrons of land-based fighters.
PhaidI don’t buy this in the least. The P-8 and AH-64 are frontline platforms, and transport (i.e. logistics) may be less sexy but is hardly of secondary importance. Technology transfer issues re: CISMOA and the like are more plausible.
What he is saying is that India will no longer accept vital systems without full ToT, because they do not want to depend on someone else for production and control over these assets. It is not a question of “front line” systems but a question of systems where the technology really matters most. The effectiveness of MPAs and transports, and even attack helicopters, is not nearly as dependent on technology as are fighters.
It is also pretty clear that in the strategic sense, they want to be able to develop these systems on their own, thus the requirement for full ToT instead of simply bolting kits together. If you can develop fighter engines and AESA radars for a fighter, you can certainly develop MPAs. The reverse is not the case.
But no, the real reason F-16 and F/A-18E/F were eliminated is because they are fat and slow and India actually cares about such trivialities as acceleration, agility, etc.
Yes that is what Eurocanard proponents repeat to make themselves feel better, the reality is that they are more desperate to sell their aircraft and so are willing to sell the factory along with the vehicle. Both Lockheed and Boeing were debriefed on the reasons they did not make the downselect, and both accepted the fact that they lost because they would require ToT waivers for some technologies, and this was not acceptable to India. But hey whatever you want to believe 🙂
Phaidjust for confirmation of AK’s post: the TV on the F-22 is used for manouvering at low speeds. at higher speeds the aerodynamic controls are more effective and allow for the aircraft maximum performance
Incorrect:
The F-22’s thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed.
Beyond the F-22 specifics, it is simply not aerodynamically correct to say “at higher speeds the aerodynamic controls are more effective”, when discussing supersonic speeds. This is basic supersonic aerodynamics. As Mach increases the movement of control surfaces has decreasing effect on the aerodynamic loading on the wing. Effectiveness of all-moving tail surfaces does not decrease at the same rate as that of trailing-edge control surfaces, but they nonetheless become less effective as Mach increases. TVC is a much better solution, redirecting the thrust rather than trying to affect the air flow.
PhaidThose are Swearingen C-26A Metro from the Royal Barbados Defence Force (RBDF). RSS-A2 is a former U.S. Army C-26 now used for patrol / drug interdiction.
PhaidIf thay have no AIM-9X (or any other same generation missle like IRIS-T), doesn’t it make JHMCS useless? AIM-9M doesn’t work with JHMCS.
JHMCS does work with AIM-9M. Two ways, actually: one, it can cue the radar when the missile is slaved to the radar in SEAM mode; two, JHMCS can cue the seeker directly. Unlike AIM-9X, the cueing is limited to the missile’s gimbal limits, but this is still much faster and provides a wider envelope than was previously possible.
In general JHMCS prevents the pilot ever having to be heads-down, allows visual targeting of air to ground ordnance, cueing of targeting pods, etc. It’s a lot more than just a sight for AIM-9X.
PhaidP.S. Don’t forget there is an F-5 with an F-22 kill out there…
T-38, not F-5.
PhaidFrom an old forum post by a former F-4J/S tech:
The APG-59 is credited with 1 kw, but that’s Pavg, with a 44% duty cycle. Avg. detection range on a 5m.^2 target is 60nm. I don’t know if that’s for a
50%, 90% or other % probability of detection.
PhaidBlock 20 RQ-4s to be fitted with BACN, re-designated EQ-4B.
Get Ready for the EQ-4 Global Hawk
The jets equipped with the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node will be dubbed EQ-4s and will likely head to Afghanistan where BACN has been in use aboard a WB-57 Canberra (old school, huh) and a Bombardier Global Express business jet. Keep in mind that the company was awarded a similar contract to install BACN on a pair of Global Hawks several years ago. The jets loiter over the war zone using BACN to translate communications between ground troops and attack jets. In theory, BACN should also allow the F-22 Raptor’s stealthy Intra-Flight Datalink (IFDL) to talk to older jets that use the standard Link-16 datalink.
PhaidPhaid, Key Publishing is one of the biggest aviation houses in the UK, would you be prepared to state that it’s readership were representative of the UK viewpoint on anything but aviation? I think you can take the same stance towards the viewpoint of the online readership of Liberation, it’s not representative unless you are focusing on left wing, anti Sarkosy viewpoints.
And the other two papers I quoted are not. Le Figaro is much more right leaning, the article was basically neutral but the comments were negative. Same with Le Parisien, cautious article and overwhelmingly negative opinion.
PhaidThose two newspapers are heavily left leaned. They are hardly representative.
Not representative? They’re two of the biggest papers in France.
Still, if you want another point of view, the article in the right-leaning Le Figaro and its comments aren’t much different.
Likewise, Le Parisien, the most widely circulated paper in France:
«Le bénéfice pour la France risque d’être limité»
Les experts internationaux se montrent prudents dans leurs premières analyses, en décalage avec les réactions au sein de la majorité gouvernementale. «Le soutien politique français a été essentiel pour appuyer la candidature du Rafale et c’est une grande victoire pour le président Nicolas Sarkozy (…). Reste à négocier la coopération industrielle», souligne ainsi Endre Lunde, consultant au sein du cabinet de conseil en aérospatial, défense et sécurité, IHS Jane’s. «L’Inde est très exigeante concernant le niveau de participation qu’elle demande pour son industrie locale et le bénéfice économique pour la France sur le long terme risque d’être au final limité», ajoute-t-il.
Likewise the comments are overwhelmingly negative.
Phaid+ The M2k-D can now be upgraded, plus the gov can free some money toward other programs etc.
How do those things have anything to do with the Rafale sale? It’s not as if all if the Rafale sales profits are funneled directly into government coffers for military procurement.
PhaidAnd if the deal includes provisions to allow Indian-made Rafales to be sold outside India, like the Brazil deal did, then it’s even worse for French industry.
Do you have evidence of this?
It was widely reported. Here’s a couple of sources:
Brazil to manufacture warplanes to sell in Latin America
Sarkozy promises Brazil fighter jet technology
I am not claiming that the MMRCA deal includes those kinds of provisions, just that it would clearly not be unprecedented w/r/t the Rafale.
PhaidBecause the losses they are complaining about are imaginary.
If they had their way and Dassault offered less workshare to India then the contract would’ve gone elsewhere leading to actual loss of work for French workers and less income for Dassault (and tax income for France to spend on its citizens).
Kind of. But really, Dassault is outsourcing production and transferring technology to India. On the front end, that’s great money for Dassault, and no doubt some work for Dassault engineers. But over time, it’s not really much of a job creator for France. And if the deal includes provisions to allow Indian-made Rafales to be sold outside India, like the Brazil deal did, then it’s even worse for French industry.
PhaidYes, but I’m not sure how that explains ppp’s mystical logic at how the PAF will “better” the more capable IAF aircraft. Note I never actually said anything about relative capability (though it is obvious who is favored), but his argument is devoid of any logic.
I think what ppp is saying is that most forum people seem to view air combat as some kind of joust where everyone’s fighters line up facing each other 400km away and fly in a straight line toward each other. Statements like “This Indian aircraft will handle that Pak fighter, while this one will handle that one” tend to bear that out — as if each fighter type could just pick and choose who and what it will fight.
Air wars, except in fanboy fantasies, are not just about going up and duking it out with the other guy for no purpose. Personally I think it’s pretty clear the IAF has the upper hand vs the PAF, but that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with what specific types each is flying, but with numbers, logistical support, money, base dispersment, training, etc. That being said, anyone who thinks flying offensive missions into Pakistani airspace would be a cake walk, even with those advantages, is fooling themselves.
PhaidThanks for the info. So, basically the conditions for USN and USMC Hornets basically are the same, since NAVAIR keep the rotations betwen two services practically even out, right ?
To an extent, but each fleet squadron uses only one subtype (A+, C, D), and there are different subtypes that are exclusive to each service. The Marines use the F/A-18D while the Navy does not, the Navy uses Bs only for training, and I am not sure at this point if the Marines use the F/A-18A+ any longer — I know a number of VFAs transitioned from the C to the A+, and a number of VMFAs transitioned from the A+ to the C.
Sign In
