vikasrehmanAs to the conspiracy theories of Russia trying to jemmy the Gorshkov back out of India’s waiting hands forget it. Answer one question – what use is a carrier, to Russia or China, that cannot operate the Su-30?.
Agreed. It is very likely a bluff as Russia probably wants India to come closer to a sum that she is demanding. On the basis of probability, both parties will reach a compromise (whatever that may be) and the ship will end up in IN service. Having said this, while poor project management could partly be responsible for this saga, part of it is also linked to geopolitical situation.
vikasrehmanBack in 90s and early 21st century, Russian R&D suffered from catastrophic shortage of funding which gave US the opportunity to get ahead and field fighters like F-22. All that Russian could do was to introduce upgrades of Sukhois and Migs. Right now it appears that their defence industry is once again suffering from cash shortage due to the global credit crunch (and this would take substantial time to be rid of). So how would this affect their future gen fighter development programmes?
vikasrehmanI agree with most of your assessment except for Russia’s export market to China. As China is becoming much more independent by the day. With the J-10 and Modern Warships being just two examples. Further, major export sales to small nations is problematic at best…………As a matter fact China could quite possibly be a competitor to Russia in Military Hardware to the Third World. Personally, Russia’s behavior towards India as of late. Is a major mistake in my book…………..:(
I know what you are saying, but I think China emerging as a competitor in terms of military hardware is a small issue (take a look at UK & US for example) vis-a-vis China and Russia becoming real strategic partners (take a look at UK & US again for example). Russians remember how their country was treated after the fall of Soviet empire, but they were a superpower and again want to be recognised as a global power. India is a developing nation but now also wants to be recognised as a global power…hence is no longer willing to risk the anger of west/US if a hot spot flares up between west & Russia (at most it will probably try to stay neutral). So if Russian is begining to losa India to the western camp or if India is trying to get a balance between its relations with US or Russia (and I have no doubt US would put a lot of pressure on India to come clean if it comes to any major issue…take a look at Iran-India relations for an example) Russians would have one of the two choice;
1. Go it alone and try to remain a global power of considerable influence as in cold war years.
2. Economy played a massive role in Soviet demise, and if Russians learnt anything from those days, they might want to join forces (or improve ties) with someone to share the load, i.e. China.
China is an emerging global power and the two (Russia/China) have to make some hard choices, i.e. go it alone or ditch their mistrust to some extent and combine forces to have better chances of survival in a bi/multipolar world.
So lets see how it all evolves.
Unfortunately for Russia, there are far fewer “petro dollars” flowing into its treasury.
They seem to have set their budgets to depend on a price of $70 per barrel… thinking to be more cautious than Iran, who budgeted for raking in $90+ per barrel.
The boom price of ~$170 was short-lived, and is now only in the low $50 range… so Russia is now hurting economically.
What will be the situation a few years from now, we can’t say… but it won’t be as rosy for Russia as it was a few months ago, I guarantee.
Thing with oil is that you cant put it back into the earth, and its demand wont decrease unless developed countries put in hundreds of billions required to find alternatives (of course much cheaper alternatives can be found but unlike their defence sector the will to fund such development is not there…at least not yet). So while the boom price of oil did not last all that long (more to do with current global fiscal crisis and hence the lowering in demand than anything else), unfortunately (for us) there is only one way the energy prices would go in the long run…up.
vikasrehmanIs this whole saga this simple?
Poor surveying and hence price renegotiations?
Probably not.
Regardless of what anyone says, the long standing strategic partnership between Russia and India is weakining. And the main reason is growing US-India strategic ties. Its a well established fact that US wants a strategic partnership with India to safeguard her own interests and containing China is probably right at the top. Indian elite is well aware of it but they also want exactly the same thing amongst others. Unfortunately for India, Russia is not as economically weak as it was a few years ago – thanks to the petro dollars – and is quickly turning into a strategic competitor to US. How India would be able to maintain a balance between its relations with US and Russia over next few years is anyone’s guess. But it would be a daunting task, considering current Indian-Iranian and Indian-Israeli relations compared with those of a few years ago, i.e. one side has strengthened while the other is going through a decline.
So all we know Russia is probably trying to send a very strong message to India. Either you are with us or with them. We know how Russia and India have depended on each other for cash and arms in the past. Things are a little different for both now. India can go elsewhere, and Russia probably wont supply modern stuff at friendly prices anymore. India can go elsewhere, but considering the humongous requirements for modernisation I doubt it has enough resources to go all european. OTOH, if India starts to get out of Russian camp, Russians do have alternative camps and China would probably be the main benefactor.
Only time will tell.:)
vikasrehmanSo what’s the truth?
Stated as in Vishnu’s Som’s article?
Or as in the video by the USAF pilot?
Or may be somewhere in between as is normally the case in such matters?
Well both had unprecedented access to these exercises and related material.
vikasrehmanSign, from the above list, with the exception of AESA radar, all other equipment are already present, or shall soon be installed on Tejas. Although TIDLS is already present in Su-30 MKI, plans for installing Tejas with it have not yet been announced by ADA.
Since ToT licences normally involve hefty fee, could one assume that India won’t be seeking ToT (with MMRCA) for any of that equipment besides AESA. Since MMRCA is more than likely to be IAF-specific – we have heard a lot about MKIzing it – its logical to use indigenous (cheaper as well as availability of codes etc) equipment than going for comparatively more expensive western/russian equipment.
vikasrehmanAs already mentioned by Ashok Parthasarthy and Vice-admiral Puri, in it’s current configuration, Tejas is indeed a 4+ generation fighter. Hence, your contention that it is equivalent to “early” F-16s is inaccurate and mistaken.
Who are Mr Parthasarthy Mr Puri? Critics of LCA programme? Dont the two also propose for the inclusion of LCA into MMRCA competion? Has that happened? Has IAF or Indian defence ministry agreed to go ahead with such a thing? If yes when? If no, is IAF/MoD mistaken on this account? Point being you can’t keep using such references to prove such points..if there is one to prove in this case. Every fighter programme has its proponents and opponents, and I would be an idiot to use a reference by someone who wants an increase in the number of F-22 units in USAF to say that F-22 is the best. But I would also apply the very same rule when it comes to an article by a critic. But let me be absolutely clear on one thig…I am not suggesting in any shape or manner that LCA is a bad fighter or not as good as anything out there. I hope this clears this little contention or whatever you want to call it.
It is also unlikely that it’s opponents shall be early F-16s or JF-17. As per this news report, a squadron of Tejas will be deployed in Chabua, which is a frontal Air Force base along the Tibetan border in India’s far north-east. As per the same article, on the other side of the border, China has deployed J-10s and Su-27 fighters. Thus, Tejas will be equipped to counter these modern fighters.
And the point is? Chinese J-10/SU-27s and PAF JF-17 are also likely to face LCA/MKI. Does this make them equally good…based on this line of argument?
As per an article dedicated to CRT displays vis-a-vis LCD displays in the cockpits of commercial airliners, CRT displays require 50,000 volts to operate compared to only 5 volts for flat-panel screens. It further mentions that besides the voltage generation equipment, CRTs also generate lot of heat, which in my view would require significant cooling equipment to dissipate the heat generated in the “cramped” environs of the cockpit. LCDs in comparison do not require any cooling equipment.
An entry related to the same topic in wikipedia mentions that LCD displays in glass cockpits require highly integrated avionics modules (in contrast, CRT displays require individual avionics modules). Thus many avionics boxes can be ‘streamlined’ into fewer ones should the switch to LCD displays be made from CRT ones.
Now this is something which carries more weight. I dont know much about this so anyone out there with more details? Is this implementable within the timeframe, i.e. IOC/FOC deadline etc.
He mentions that and I quote, “The 10.5 tons that I wrote about in my last post is the total weight of the Tejas, with full fuel on board; all 7 pylons fitted but not carrying weapons; and two outboard missiles being carried.”
In the underlined part of the same sentence above, he mentions, “pylons not carrying any weapons” and “two outboard missiles being carried”. This is a contradiction probably on oversight by Col. Shukla.
Thus, the 10.5 tons of Tejas includes 2 outboard missiles (which may weigh upto 300 kgs). Thus only 3.2 tons may remain to be carried upon Tejas weighing 10.5 ton. Considering 13 tons of MTOW, the shortfall in weight of weapons carried is 700 kgs only.
It is here that that Col. Shukla mentions in the end, that with the weight reduction of 600-700 kgs, this shortfall of 700 kgs will met.Reference :-
[/QUOTE]
Its a lot of assumptions to start with so lets wait and see.
vikasrehman2. By every standard Tejas is a relatively a modern fighter considered to be at least on par with early Gripen/F-16s by even those who might not like it.
The above is inaccurate. As mentioned by an article by Ashok Parthasarthy and Vice-Admiral (retd) Raman Puri, the Tejas is of the 4 + generation with superior avionics than ANY fighter plane currently in IAF’s inventory (including Su-30 MKI). They will remain comparable after the induction of MRCAs also.
Abhimanyu, I dont think you understood what I meant. Of course to the proponents, Tejas is as good as anything on the planet – bar F-22 perhaps? – but I was clearly talking about the opponents here.
I have only seen pictures of its cockpit which looks quite modern. So which particular displays and subsystems ‘within the cockpit’ could be re-engineered to save 300 kg? And how much do these displays and subsystems weigh to start with in any case?
I think any displays which use CRT will be replaced by LCD systems. The difference in weight can be guaged from the difference in the weights of a home TV set that uses CRT and an LCD or plasma TV set.
Of course changing CRT with LCD will save some weight (I can’t imagine it to be 300 kg though…maybe a few tens of kg as those CRT/LCD are way smaller than your avergae home TV). What I was asking though was that what alterations coule be done to an already relatively modern cockpit to shed 300 kg? Wouldn’t the addition of radar and furrther avionics (as its currently going through integration process) add more weight?
Please note that the external payload capacities of both, the MiG-27 and MiG-29 that are currently in service with the IAF are 4000 kgs and 3000 kgs respectively. The Tejas already carries over 3500 kgs, and with reduction in weight it can achieve 4000 kgs, as mentioned in Col Shukla’s article.
I might be missing something here, so please do clarify. Col. A Shukla’s article does indeed say that The maximum payload of the Tejas is 3.5 tons… carried on its pylons but then it goes on to say that The maximum take-off weight of the Tejas is 13 tons. So if you load the maximum payload of 3.5 tons onto the 10.5 ton fighter, your weight of 14 tons is beyond the maximum take-off weight. So you’ll have to shed one ton… or either internal fuel or external fuel/armaments..With full internal fuel I make that 2.5 tons in its present format. Do you not agree?
vikasrehmanmatt, as per this article by noted defence journalist, Col. Ajai Shukla, the total weight reduction on Tejas possible can be of the order of 600-700 kgs. This constitutes removal of the testing intrumentation and ‘re-engineering’ the displays (presumably CRT) to be LCD flat screens.
The above is inaccurate. As repeatedly pointed out earlier, as the Tejas can carry the external payload and fuel load equal to the serving MiG-29’s and MiG-27s of the IAF, it is not only merely a MiG-21 replacement, but it can currently supplant the entire fleets of MiG-23/27 and MiG-29s of the IAF.
Thus, as it can be used for medium range surgical strikes, it is eligible to be an M.R.C.A. It can also carry out counter strikes over enemy airspaces to establish air superiority.
Col. A Shukla is indeed a very good source of information when it comes to Tejas and other Indian weapon systems. But this article gives rise to some question, and maybe some informed member can shed some light on these.
1. Removal of telemetry equipment would indeed reduce the weight, but do these Tejas (with telemtry equipment) already carry everything else that is meant to go into production variant, i.e. radar, all avionics/subsystems etc?
2. By every standard Tejas is a relatively a modern fighter considered to be at least on par with early Gripen/F-16s by even those who might not like it. I have only seen pictures of its cockpit which looks quite modern. So which particular displays and subsystems ‘within the cockpit’ could be re-engineered to save 300 kg? And how much do these displays and subsystems weigh to start with in any case?
Regarding Teja’s ability to carry fuel/weapons equal to Mig-29, Mig-27 etc, please see the very same article quoted by yourself, and Col A. Shukla’s remarks about Tejas MTOW.
PS. I do realise that this article was written a little while so things might have changed of which Im not aware of.
vikasrehmanIf IAF buys some Gripens for MMRCA, they will get some really good lightweight systems in technology offsets..
Sorry, could you please elaborate?
vikasrehmanOk so with the removal on board telemetry equipment the LCA can shave of 300Kgs or so, but the LCA is 1 Tons overweight what happens to the other 700 or so Kg’s?
How will they save that?
Considering its a lightweight fighter of relatively small size, I guess they cant do an awful lot about the rest of the excess weight, and hence the requirement for a more powerful engine. What you said, however, raises another question. Any idea about the weight of the production variant? Would it be 1 ton heavier or only 700 or so kg as it shouldn’t have any test equipment. So what do current official LCA spec (if any) say about weight?
vikasrehmanAt this moment there is a Flanker version that pretty much gets close to a F-22 in combat, the Su-35BM has very likely a sustained turn rate beyond 23 deg/s and has supercruise capability, no F-15 version has such capability.
of all the fourth generation fighters, the Su-35 is the closest aircraft in performance and agility to the F-22 and very likely it has a radar almost as good.
In overall combat, there is nothing out there that comes close to Raptor, be it Typhoon, Rafale, Eagle or whatever version of flanker. With its reduced RCS, Raptor enjoys that significant advantage of first shot. For the argument sake, if we suppose that both raptor/SU-35BM have same sort of radar performance, ECM and ECCM capabilities, manueverability etc etc., just based on RCS it is very plausible that Raptor would detect SU-35BM first, shoot and be able to get away.
Having said that, just imagine putting those 10/12 Adders & Archers on SU-35BM. ooooops, Raptor would be able to detect it even from a further distance.
Coming to instantaneous/sustained turn rates, in today’s world of WVR with HMD directed HOBS missiles of extreme agility, manueverability does not mean all that much. Put a Mig-21 vs Raptor with similar missile in realistic combat, and Raptor will show you its capabilities. Now put a Mig-21 v Raptor agains with similar missiles/HMD, and Raptor could lose. Having said that, these turn rates of course would be relevant in BVR too when Raptor/SU-BM is trying to gain as much range out of its missile as possible in order to increase its own chance of survival.
Finally, we have heard so much over the years about Archer back flipping and reducing the chaser aircraft to ashes. Its still not in service. One must question why? Just to an aviation enthusiast it cant be all that simple. When merging, your BVR missile might have a given range of 50 miles. When chasing, the same missile’s range is normally given as 10-50 miles. Now imagine a missile which has to back flip, go against the momentum of its carrier, its not all that easy as some of these photographs/articles make it sound like.
vikasrehmanHaving more BVR missiles means you stay more time farther away, it can carry 6 AA-10s and 4 AA-11s, two missiles more than a F-15
It seems Russians have been working for years on reducing flanker’s RCS and have had some success in this regard. Haven’t you mentioned in some thread that (some of) these measures will be implemented in Su-35? Now just imagine a flanker with reduced RCS. What sort of impact would the addition of all those missiles have on its overall RCS?
vikasrehmanHistory appears to be repeating itself.:)
Some of yous might remember the way in which USAF fans and IAF fans reacted on such fora when IAF came on top back in Cope India 04. Now that it appears USAF performed better in these exercises, those roles have been switched, but we are getting the same sort of arguments and counter-arguments as we saw back then.
In reality, both airforces are very professional and they learn from their mistakes. Back in 2004, USAF appeared to be over confident, and they paid for that. They seem to have learnt their lesson, took IAF and its pilots more seriously, applied those lessons in these games and performed well. IAF appears to have perform as well as 2004 for what could be a number of reasons. I am sure, they would have taken valuable lessons and will use them to better themselves in future; as the guy in video put it, its only a question of time/training.
vikasrehmanyou were willing to ignore the ROE (which the IAF self-imposed in order to not allow the USAF or others to get actual info on performance) that didn’t allow the MKIs to use its main weapons and its radar..so why harp on the ROE of Cope India make to the results from that exercise?
Participation in Red Flag is by no means cheap, and if i remember correctly IAF had to fork out $20-25 million or some thing like that. Although its understandable that an AF does not want to give everything away about its most lethal weapon/s, the question is why participate and spend so much if you are imposing so many self-limitation? Was IAF there just to learn about the limitations of other fighters? If so, who is better equipped to learn…rookie or experienced pilots? If IAF is only to take part in Red Flag every 4-5 years time and is planning to have its own equivalent (as someone sugggested) it would have been a lot better to send more experinced pilots who would have learnt more and then implemented the lessons back home.
Sign In
