I think the issue was the original MKI deal did not include an in-India overhaul facility for some reason, which exists for aircraft like Mirage 2000 and MiG-29.
Apparently the follow on spares and support contracts were not negotiated properly, you can’t tell me Irkut would not produce and sell spares if contracted to.

Given the publicity of Su-35S issues in VVS, I’d expect we would hear if their Su-30SM or the navy’s K/KUBs were having issues as drastic as these. But there is nothing……hmm.

Some of the availability issues also reflect the MKI having components sourced from outside Russia, makes single stream support and spares impossible. However, the last two crash investigations did fault the FBW if I’m not mistaken. Can’t entirely blame India for the engine issues either as the engine problems surfaced in the initial batches of Su-30MK and MKI.

Valid points but I don’t think you are fully aware of the magnitude of kinetic energy an AShM have. Lets compare from another point of view;

https://youtu.be/BvigKyp_hcs?t=1m17s

Second Anti-ship missile (probably of P-500 type) hits the ship from the bow, penetrates hull and every bulkhead and walls ship has and exits from the stern. Ship is probably (judging from the size comparison with P-500) slightly over 80 meters long. If we look at the path missile follows within the ship there is way greater mass of steel than a 40-50 cm armor would have. Worse, its arranged like a “spaced armor”, so it has much greater effectiveness than a single bulk of metal.

Can an 16/18 inch AP shell penetrate an unarmored 80 meter long ship in similar fashion the missile in the video?

Yes, impressive. Obviously a shell would not be able to replicate that trajectory. There are many instances of a large AP shell passing through both sides of a destroyer sized ships with ease and not exploding.

I don’t know, I could be wrong but the answer seems obvious to me. A 2,700lb projectile with a hardened steel tip moving at 1,743 km/h striking an area of a few square inches Vs. a several ton missile (most of which is soft- fuel, electronics, engine) moving at 2,400 km/h hitting an area of several square feet. The missile is going to break apart dissipating some of the energy. Most AShM are going to explode after breaking into the ships hull and kill by explosive force sending molten jet of metal, unburnt fuel through the ship, very effective for today’s warships which might have a few inches of kevlar around vitals. But penetrating 1.5″ of STS then 11.5″ of class A armor at a 19* angle?

We are not talking about explosive force, for those commenting before. As I’ve said, there is no contest there a missile like the Oniks carries the explosives of several shells. A hit would blow a massive hole in the side for sure, and a hit on the upper structure would do catastrophic damage without question. What I am not so sure about it a AShM being able to penetrate the armor belt. I still feel the comparison I made on the previous page to be accurate. Comparing the two is like comparing a sabot round of a tank to a HESH round. Both may disable the tank, only one is penetrating the armor plate.

Edit- put a 2 instead of a one in for the AP shell velocity

No, that was based on the old emperical formula by Nathan Okun that is no longer valid. Here is his updated analysis, and based on email I’ve had with him it takes over 2 inch of STS to decap a 15 inch AP shell. The current 1.5 inch STS will only decap if strike angle is greater than 15 degrees.

No, I’ve read his as well. 15* angle would be a fairly short range engagement (depending on muzzle velocity, ex. around 17,000 yards for the 15″ mark I), as I said, that was where the armor scheme of the Iowa’s was inferior. (Bismark V. PoW and Hood started at around 24,000 yards, Hood was killed around 14,000 yards). Other engagements in WWII: USS Massachussets V Jean Bart ~24,000 yards, HMS Duke of York V. Scharhorst 12,000 yards , Rodney V Bismark 20,000 yards initially, Second naval battle of Guadalcanal was the outlier due to it being a nighttime engagement- 8000 yards, yet the only direct 14″ hit on the S. Dakota (barbette) did not penetrate.
Even prior to radar directed fire, the battle of Jutland saw the fleets engage each other roughly 15,000-13,000 yards apart.

Iowa’s armor also tapers below the waterline, so I’m not sure what point you’re making here. The Hood is essentially an upscaled version of the Queen Elizabeth battleships, and in any case it’s the thin deck armor of the Hood that was it’s undoing.

If you have any of the old Jane’s fighting ships you will see the point. The 12″ belt was narrow, with 7″ below and above and tapering to 5″ and 4″ fore and aft. There was a gap between belt and deck armor of the Hood as well. The shell that killed the Hood still had to go through the upper 7″ or 5″ belt into the magazine.

That’s the muzzle velocity. Actual striking velocity on deck will be much lower since the projectile is plunging.

Already addressed that, was still writing when you posted this.

A modern supersonic AShM will mission kill any WW2 battleship, if not outright wreck it.

Already addressed this, no if you are considering a measurement of armor penetration, not even close. If you are considering a hit on the superstructure, sure a modern AShM would cause massive damage. Much larger warhead than a shell or AP bomb. During the Gulf War, the USN was not as worried about the Iowa’s taking a hit from a silkworm as they were from mines for good reason.

ANW, what do this piece do in a thread named “Enhanced Eurofighter”??? (Not talking of Rafale, absolutely non related, sigma4/BMD)

It was a response to a poster bringing up an old story with an attempt to be inflammatory. You are correct, nothing to do with the topic at hand, then again if we are enforcing these standards…… half the posts on every thread need policing.

The F-16IN that was offered to India featured the APG-80 AESA radar, similar to the F-16 Block 60, not the SABR that the F-16V is supposed to have. There was a program known as CARTS for mid-air refueling using a probe and drogue system on CFTs that was also a feature meant to feature on the F-16IN. That wasn’t on the F-16 Block 60 or the F-16V as far as we know. This was specifically aimed at Israel and India

All true, but both the F-16IN and V are based on some of the modifications of the block 60 without the UAE specific equipment like: Falcon Edge, AN/ASQ-28, and both feature the new mission computer and cockpit. Using the block 60, any prospective buyer would have to pay UAE royalties. The F-16IN proposal included the APG-80 and -132 engine as well as ground avoidance and recovery systems of the block 60.

The cockpit was to be modernized with newer displays and a new mission computer. The IN was to have a dedicated IRST in place of the AN/ASQ-28. The F-16V grew out of the F-16IN proposal, keeping the new cockpit and mission computer, replacing the APG-80 with the -83 and keeping the -129 or -229 engines in commonality with most of the worlds F-16 fleet as the F-16V is marketed as a rebuild or upgrade path for existing F-16’s.

They basically put a F-16IN sticker on a F-16 Block 60 and flew it at Aero India

Sure, same airframe, engine, CFT, and radar, perfect for the flight testing portion of the MMRCA contest too. The F-16IN would have new cockpit displays, computer, and not have included the UAE specific equipment.

F-16/AGILE was the pre-Mitsubishi F-2A large wing F-16. The F-2A retained the wing, but went with a new front section for their indigenous AESA radar. plus Japan had different standards for aircraft front windscreens. That is why the nose and canopy had to be redesigned for F-2A. The F-16 Block 60 derivative using the F-2A wing would be a nice platform from which to build an Indian specific F-16.

True on first part, but F-2 is a bad starting point. The F-2 was the AGILE project gone wrong. Larger wing area, reduced sweep, larger tail and vertical stab, and increased weight with the same power as a block 50/52. In the end, inferior to the latest falcons, with added structural issues, all for a price tag north of 110 million.

The F-16IN offered to India would have been similar to the F-16V, without having to pay for the block 60 variants additional equipment and fees to UAE.