vikasrehmanOff course its his word vs. AFM. But we know for a fact from the latest AFM drivel (sorry…thoughtfully researched article) that TVC sux…so obviously this gentleman really does not know what he is talking about. Off course this is the Oracle forum so its great at producing Oracles on any topic (Twu BVR). So I guess there is a new breed of Oracles of TVC being produced right now as we speak. Them injuns are crazy to get 140++ MKI, all their adversaries have to do is stick the AFM article to their canopy and the MKI will drop like flies.
Have you even read the article?
If so, where does it state that (in your words) ‘TVC sux‘???
Authors has presented both sides of argument and simply seems to be of the opinion that whereas TV does have its advantages western AFs seem to decided to have taken alternative routes, i.e. rely more heavily on HMS/HBOS missile, BVR etc.
PS. How come you have 535 posts on an oracle forum?:)
vikasrehmanWhile this article is likely to be quoted for sometime to come, even John Golan (author of the article) states that the debate about the relavance of TV tech on jet fighter tactics has been raging for almost 3 decades and will continue in the forseeble future. In other wrods, one should not take this article as the ‘word from Bible’.
The whole energy management focus in a dogfight is to maintain airflow over those conventional flight surfaces so you can point your nose with your main air to air sensor and your weapons… fixed and disposable… at the target. You might be able to fire your missile forward and it will fly in a 180 degree arc to hit a target behind you but a missile with a range of 20kms will not be hitting targets behind you at distances much greater than 5-6km. Flick the control stick and swing your nose 180 degrees and hold your plane in that attitude, lock and fire the missile, or lock your high off boresight missile before you perform the manouver and you missile will travel much faster, much further and have much more energy to kill the target. You can then point your nose on a parallel course (ie turn another 90 degrees) so you can keep an eye on the target and observe whether your missile will hit or not and accelerate and regain lost velocity.
Garry B, while i agree that by performing such a manuever your missile (in such a scenario) will travel faster, further, and have more energy, I am not sure how much of an advantage this will offer so that it would be worth the risk. Amongst other factors, kinetic energy plays an bog role in determining the range, speed, energy of a missile. While a swing by 180 degrees by a TV equipped fighter would indeed bring the nose in line with the opponent, this will not actually alter the flight path of the former as its existing momentum will keep propelling it along the original trajectory. Hence, overall kinetic energy would still be considerable less (and hence the range, speed, and energy of the missile) than if the missile is fired in frontal hemisphere from behind. OTOH, when the TV equipped fighter quickly decelerates to point the nose at the opponent, this ‘might’ give the latter an opportunity to actually fire on the former first…and if the opponent is also equipped with HMD/HOBS missile then TV probably wont be of that much help but slightly increasing chances of survival.
vikasrehmanActually, and after “digesting” for almost a week the 2009 Budget of the US Navy and taking advantage of the excelent job done by TMOR on the cost of the RAFALE program, it seems that the French Fighter, the Super Hornet an the Eurofighter Typhoon are on the exact same bracket of costs. At least the fly away costs. And the fact that most of those aircrafts are going to be built in India his a major cost “equalizer”.
MKI was meant to cost $34 mil a piece or so (???). How much does it cost. Regardless of anything, with those ToT/Ofset demands, costs are going to be huge.
vikasrehmanIndia has always bought from a variety of sources including Britain and France. The US is sucking up to them at the moment and India would be a fool not to take note but it is only a matter of time before the US starts trying to control Indian defence decisions and choices and that will be it… the Indians wont put up with that sort of control. They have been the victim of colonialism once before.
Garry B, while India has become too big to be colonised (figure of speech), i thought some of those decisions (albeit foreign policy and not defence…yet) are already being affected, i.e. Indian vote against Iran wrt nuclear issue and Indian mute over Israeli blockade of Gaza. While someone might (and rightly)argue that such policies are in India’s interests, it is quite obvious that Indian interests over past few years have gone through a dramatic evolution.
With regard to Russian and Indian squabbles over these issue, I have been saying one thing for years…India has realised that its too big now to rely on Russia only for its defence needs (although France/UK and other did supply to India, USSR/Russia were by far the largest sellers). Hence India wants to diversify and is looking for alternatives (especially now that India has more money), something which Russia will not like at like (especially when they are making so much from their energy sources). I have no doubt that many of these Russian-Indian issues will be sorted with a bit of give and take. But that India- Russia-centric sentiment is declining. Unless something major happens that changes the whole equation, I guess India will keep buying from Russia (smaller scale though) and Russia will simply find alternative markets to sell to. If things keep going the way they are, I can almost bet that Pakistan will be one of those alternative markets…well India does purchase from France and increasingly from US will be Russian excuse. Although an indirect Russian-Pakistan contract has already been signed albeit via China (RD-93), a direct major contract is in making, though I dont know how long it will take to materialise.
vikasrehmanBesides, F-16’s out of the question because pakistan operates it, LM’s best chance would have been an F-35 tie-in on price & ToT but with spiralling costs and sensitivities over tech (remember UK source-code sharing saga?)- it’s a no-no.
Up until recently I would have said Boeing’s SH was front-runner, but with the Australian debate, the bid’s taken a serious hit, which is a shame ’cause it’s arguably the most capable warplane on offer.
The Rafale’s highly unlikely, what would the french unions make of the offsets? Gripen falls in Tejas class.
Hence, imho, the Eurofighter comes to the fore, especially as EADS can probably offer the most lucrative economic offsets whether civil or military.
And Typhoon is also probably the most expensive of all (???) even in its current format. With AESA and the sort of ToT/ofsets India is asking for I can imagine its (or for that matter any of those machines) price going up considerably.
vikasrehmanWhat about India’s own AJT? Wasn’t India meant to be designing/developing one?
vikasrehmanour neighbour to the east. it currently has A-5s, J-6s, J-7s, J-8s, Su-27s, Su-30MK2s, JH-7s, J-10s and is probably developing a J-XX for the 5th gen fighter requirement.
even with A-5s, J-6s, J-7s and J-8s gone, it’ll still have J-11s, Su-30MKKs and MK2s, JH-7s, J-10s, FC-1 (maybe?) and 5th gen J-XXs.
So, if that neigbour is operating 10 different types of tanks and so on, should India be doing the same?
That way by 2030, you’d have: Pakfa, MCA, Su-30MKI, LCA.
Pre…cisely.
The fuel costs are a fraction of the costs per flying hour only. That cost per flying hour is very questionable, when to be used in a comparision. It is true for a given country, service and related cost-structure only. It is like the commercial way quoting the cost per km for a given car. It is a addition of fixed costs, costs to spare for a replacement by running down the investment through usage, repairs, spare-parts, rent for the garage, taxes and many more.
I dont think fuel costs are a fraction only. I have read about Israeli F-15s in an AFM article that were costing them >$15,000 per flying hour most of which was fuel costs…and this was when oil was around $30 mark.
The MiG-29K and the PAKFA will keep that Russian dominated ratio for some time to come at all. The whole MRCA competition is for show only, to get the most from that. The opportunity with the Mirage 2000 is missed already and the Typhoon/Rafale will surpass the MKI. The Gripen is too close to Tejas in general and the USA has no real intrest to bolster India too much.
If the whole MRCA thing is for show only, i think you’d have some very disappointed people around the world…especially those who might lose. With regard to USA’s interest in bolstering India, i beg to differ with you there. US is so very much interested in aquiring a very close strategic partner in this part of world…for obvious reasons. Only question is if that would be in India’s interests. Recently India placed sanctions on some Iranian bank, same Iran whose president was the chief guest on an Indian National day not too long ago.
vikasrehmanso ankush21 is absolutely right in his statements about what the iaf wants. ultimately, we’ll see some 12 mki squadrons, 6-7 squadrons of the lca, plus a few additional for lift, navy or whatever, and some 6-8 squadrons of mrcas. these will be followed by pak-fas and hopefully, a few mca squadrons over time as well.
Nick, I make that 5 different types. How many other airforces around the world are planning to operate so many types in future?
vikasrehmanThis is the same military that rounded up thousands of boys in the cities, took them to the Iraqi front, gave each one a plastic key on a string to hang around their neck (the key to heaven) and had them run through Iraqi minefields as human minesweepers. The only damage the Iranians will do is to use up the meager American ammunition stockpiles.
Strange.
I had heard of cattle being used in such manner in other wars. But this was something new:(
vikasrehmanNew American strategy in Iraq seems to be working with violence coming down gradually. It was, however, not only a surge in number of troops on the groun, but perhaps more importantly the deals which Americans have made with Sunni tribes. Any US/Israeli attack on Iran, and the latter would undoutedly try its best to stir up the shiite population in Iraq. Imagine if only half of that population responds, it would be a massive head ache for US. Its better for US to come to grip with things in Iraq, increase its influence/control…perhaps the reason for NIE???…before confronting Iran in an open manner.
PS. NK knew well that US is stuck, and they are a nuclear power now. Iran is a few years behind, but they also appear to be following the same philosphy.
vikasrehmanRespect has to be earned…….
Please don’t confuse respect with manners:)
Why do you insist in asking the same questions over and over, you have already been told on more than one occasion that the nuclear theory is from completely indendent sources, not mossad or the CIA. Seriously learn to read, this ceaseless repetition is just pointless.
Let your comments be the last in this indeed pointless discussion.
vikasrehmanLets see how quickly moderators clean this forum and ‘WARN’ culprits.:)
Where are you SOC???
vikasrehmanFrom older Google Earth images the facility was being built over a number of years. There might have been no radioactive material present at the facility. The Israelis might have chosen to disable the project before it ever even reached that stage?
There has been no update on the IAEA October statement in regards to Syria and the ‘undeclared’ site. Even if the IAEA visited the site then the structure has gone. They have probably dismantled the small building on the river bank too? It must be so frustrating for Syria? They lose their project in an air strike and have to go to the expense of erasing the remains and cleaning up the site in order to keep the IAEA off their backs.
Who is saying it was a nuclear facility? Mossad? CIA? What do we have as evidence? Their word and few images, which don’t tell us much.
You can not talk at all, as you have displayed time and again you have no idea what you are talking about.
That may be the case. But go through your own posts and judge for yourself if anyone ever taught you the manners of civilised discussion.:)
vikasrehmanThank you for that post Sens. Indeed this whole saga is multi-faceted, and contrary to the beliefs of some, we cannot talk in ABSOLUTES.:)
vikasrehmanLets let it remain a thread about Indian missiles and tech.
Sign In
