vikasrehmanSo you have no evidence to back up your claim that ‘the planes were in trouble’, thought not.
How disappointing.
Here i am, eagerly awaiting for your deep knowledge of this matter. And look what you gave us. Come on. Dont be shy. Im sure many others will be looking forward to your detailed revelations.:)
vikasrehmanYou probably don’t know that in the late 90’s (1998 IIRC) Turkey threatened Syria with military action if it continues to back PKK.
No i did not.
But we are about to enter 2008, and i cant imagine Turkey launching strikes on Syria under poresent circumstances. Can you???
vikasrehmanOf course I have noted Russian reactions, I was the one who bought them up. That was over false claims about their systems being ineffective, nothing else. Unless you can provide evidence that the tanks were dropped becouse the aircraft ‘were in trouble’ stop making claims that you can not back up. The fact that the tanks were dropped in Turkey, if anything undermines the idea that they were dropped becouse the aircraft were in trouble and may even suggest that it was planned.
Could you please clarify who is making any ‘claims’? Why would i be using words such as ‘assume’ and ‘might’ if i was ‘making any claims’. I am merely talking about speculation/possibilities.
Anyway, forget about this. I raise my hands and admit im totally wrong and cant back up my so called claims. Now lets talk about what you have stated. Please enlighten us with your knowledge about this matter. Why did they jettison their tanks over Turkish lands? I am sure you would back everything (that you state) with irrefutable evidence.
I would eagerly await for your reply.:)
vikasrehmanWhat you mean is what was the official defence budget for the USSR and what is the official defence budget for the PRC.
I guess so.:)
vikasrehmanWhy? What does Russia care if Israeli planes overfly Syria?Who knows wy they jettisoned their tanks, could be any number of reasons.
Well its Russia who is supplying Pantsyr systems to Syria. These systems (in theory) are only for defence against Israeli and/or American fighters…i cant think of anyone else attacking Syria in that manner. Also note Russian reactions to the whole saga…when Pantsyr AD was mentioned. Finally you might have noted the way Russians recently supplied nuclear fuel to Iranians when things are gradually heating between Russians and Americans.
While i totally agree that there could be a number of reasons for Israeli fighters jettisoning their tanks, i think its ‘quite reasonable’ to ‘assume’ that those fighters might have been in some sort of trouble if they did so (in Turkey) during an aggressive operation (in Syria). You might be able to give us a few reasons as to why they were forced to do so, an action for which Turkey demanded official explanation.
vikasrehmanThe problem with that is that the Syrians did not have the Pantsir system at the time. This has been something that has really been angering the Russians, a whole bunch of people running around saying their AD systems dont work when in reality they were not there.
I guess Russian (after all this saga) may now want to ensure that Syrians do get those systems in operational service ASAP. One question is if these systems were not in service, why did Israeli fighter jetison their tanks? Are old syrian systems still effective against newer ECM capabilities of Israeli systems?
vikasrehmanA more telling comparison between the Tu-22M3 and the H-6K would be development and operating costs. Designing a Backfire-type airframe from scratch, particularly the engines, would be prohibitively expensive for the PRC.
Cost prohibitive? What is the ‘official’ defence budget for Russia and PRC???
vikasrehmanit was in bvr that most f-16s were hammered in exercises. in wvr, with HMDs and off boresight missiles it stands a good chance.
If so, then i guess Israeli AF (regarded on of the best, if not The Best) will be at an inherent disadvantage against her Arab adversaries, once the latter notices the advantages of flying Bisons vs blk 50/52 Vipers. All these Arabs/Iranians have to do is to get their older mig-21s and other russian systems upgraded on Bison lines, and there goes the Israeli qualitative advantage with the former having a quantitative advantage. With regard to WVR, well with a decent HMD/off boresight missile, even a Mig-21 could possibly hold its own even against F-22, let alone F-16/F-15.
I wish they just choose the system and hurry up or just cancel the damn thing and carry on with the fifth gen russian or MCA
I second that.
With Bison and better machines already serving in IAF and Viper/Hornet being the pieces of junks as they have been described, IAF is more than capable of handling anything and everything in her vicinity…at least for the forseeble future. So why waste so much money on MMRCA? Recently I came across an article about some Indian aircraft tender stating that all the bids were at least 1.5-2 times as much as what MoD had estimated. Same thing goes with Eurocanards…cost prohibitive…as ToT (the sort which India is looking for) could increase the unit price by 60% (according to an executive of one of the aviation firms…a recent article in Defense News).
vikasrehmanNow that Akash is available, by when can we expect an ‘official’ order from IAF/IA for this system? Any idea how many would be on order??? What effect (if any) this would have on indian decision to purchase spyder???
vikasrehmanEveryone was against F-16 as far as I have heard.A friend said that some Bison pilot said tongue in cheek “no use getting something our Bisons can handle”
Well accroding to a former IAF chief Krishnaswammy back in 2004, Americans considered Indian Mig-21s and their operational capabilities equivalent to USAF F-15s. With my limited knowledge, i think of F-15 as a rather capable fighter, and if Bisons are equivalent to F-15s, i guess only JSF/F-22/PAK-FA would satisfy this Bison pilot.
PS. I dont think anyone had any tongue/s in cheek/s here.
vikasrehmanWith regard to Pakistan having done any work on MIRVs, a news report back in 2002 did state that Pakistan was to start its MIRV programme in near future. However, im not aware of any further developments.
vikasrehmanWhat may be clear from these recent BMD tests by India is that India’s BMD systems are next only to Russia’s in Asia. They will atleast guarantee the defence of major Indian cities and installations against most Chinese and Pakistani ballistic missiles for the forseeable time.
While ABM systems are improving, so are the missile technologies. There is no ABM system as of yet (at least to my knowledge) that could ‘guarantee’ the safety of anything, though it surely could ‘reduce’ the threat posed by enemy missiles.
vikasrehmanFor an effective ABM system, first step is to find and track the incoming threat before any defensive action could be taken. A number of countries are incorporating RCS reduction measures into their missile systems so that these missiles could take advantage of the gaps that would then exist between overlapping coverage of enemy radars. So, what sort of radars do present ABM systems use and what sort of capabilities do they have to track missiles with lower RCS?
vikasrehmanThat is happen in the moment already near Moscow, when outside expertise is bought to bring the Tejas/Kaveri on track. Why so many years of delays to learn that simple lesson.
Simply poor project management.
Although some here might not agree with me, but to start with India did not have the expertise to initiate a mega project such as LCA on her own. Indian aviation industry was still in its infancy, and young indian aviaition experts under constant push by GOI for more indigenisation probably felt that they could deliver LCA within those timeframes on their own. Although some foreign expertise were brought in from the beggining, but probably not enough which has haunted the project to the day. Although more foreign consultation is being sought now, i think its probably too little too late. As i have always said i dont think anything would force LCA project to be cancelled (that’s almost inconceivable), the delays in LCA project have forced IAF on a number of times to reconsider its modernisation plans. While the project has slowly improved and they have realised the importance of expert consultancy, i still feel the process is a bit too slow. With time, IAF’s ASR would increase and LCA would have to play chase unless it can catch up in near future.
vikasrehmanWhile im of the view that LCA would most definitely be inducted into IAF service, i have couple of questions which don’t have much to do with current discussion.
Being one of the lightest fighter on the planet with (probably) all sorts of measures taken to save weight, what sort of growth potential does this little fighter have in terms of future upgrades. For example, we have seen ealier flnakers being turned in SU-35, F-16 turned into Block F machine, and even Gripen going through its upgrade. Being an extremely compact fighter that LCA is and still waiting for the engine around which it was designed, where do you LCA’s growth potential.
While many would argue that IAF is fully backing LCA, i personally am not fully convinced. First IAF has only placed an order for 8+20 (another 20 only optional yet) Tejas..and even that order of 20 took considerable time. Although IAF has reiterated on numerous times that the requirement is for 200+ machines, it would have been a lot better to actually demonstrate its commitment by allocating funds for more machines. Having said this, could anyone here elaborate on the relationship between DRDO/subsidiaries and IAF. The way i look at it (and i may be wrong) is that DRDO has promised IAF a lot in the past and not delivered in time forcing the latter to reconsider its plans on more than one occasion. Is it possible that IAF don’t have the sort trust in DRDO that is required in such a project, and hence the lack of further committment???
Sign In
