- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 31,122
- Likes
- 41,042
Old by good stuff..
I would rather stick with the SU 34. It is new and a bigger aircraft..and more combat load along with more commonality of parts to the largest fleet of aircraft we are going to have.An aircraft with 1000 pounders and fuel tanks will not supercruise. The writer makes sense. Rafale has always had the best chance at MRCA and perhaps for SFC too.
x2 the cockpit offers greater comfort to crew for long range strike mission coupled with greater payload,range as you mentioned. Plus "The Su-34 can also fly in TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching) mode, bypassing unexpected obstacles and streaking through ground air-defense zones"I would rather stick with the SU 34. It is new and a bigger aircraft..and more combat load along with more commonality of parts to the largest fleet of aircraft we are going to have.
SU 34 fits the bill perfectly..and the 40 SU 30s already on deputation to the SFC will be freed. And we already have a huge training programme running with the SFC in Sukhoi..so SU 34 will be a wise choice.
The 40 MKIs for SFC is still a speculation.I would rather stick with the SU 34. It is new and a bigger aircraft..and more combat load along with more commonality of parts to the largest fleet of aircraft we are going to have.
SU 34 fits the bill perfectly..and the 40 SU 30s already on deputation to the SFC will be freed. And we already have a huge training programme running with the SFC in Sukhoi..so SU 34 will be a wise choice.
Yes I always wanted a growler version of the SU 30 MKI...but IAF does not want something like that...we need dedicated ECM aircraft...and we also have some and our IAF is tight-lipped about it.The 40 MKIs for SFC is still a speculation.
I would like it if SFC uses the same aircraft that has been purchased through the MRCA competition or continue using MKIs if we pick Gripen.
If SFC gets an aircraft that's not in IAF inventory, then the enemy will know for sure what the Su-34 is about to do. It would become a highly vital target for the enemy. So, it's not worth the risk. If we get Su-34s for SFC, then I would like to see some Su-34s in IAF as well.
Also, the SFC will most likely use only 1 nuke per plane. So, the commonality of parts and large payload will make little difference for a nuke carrier.
Get a Growler version of MKI and we won't even need Su-34.
Hmm. Stand off jamming is a great asset. What have you based it on though? Is Israel involved or will it be part of Russia's EW package with SAP 14?Yes I always wanted a growler version of the SU 30 MKI...but IAF does not want something like that...we need dedicated ECM aircraft...and we also have some and our IAF is tight-lipped about it.
No arguments there. I would still prefer SFC going for a proven platform over an unproven platform. So, only Rafale or SH fit the bill. Perhaps MKI for force commonality. I am expecting SFC will wait till IAF is sure what aircraft they want in the MRCA.And coming back to Rafale vs Su 34...the SU 34 has a larger payload and is going to be Russia's short range bomber. Its side-by-side seat gives it a good advantage for a better vie...or else the Su 34 will make an awesome ECM platform.
What about US B-1,B-2 or Russian Tu-160,Tu-95? the Su-34 gives you if i'm not mistaken not another logistic nightmare given we have Su-30Mki plus its cheap and more rugged compared to Rafale,the SU-34 can also be used to patrol the Indian Ocean i would say a radius up to Mauritius and up to Malacca StraitsThe 40 MKIs for SFC is still a speculation.
I would like it if SFC uses the same aircraft that has been purchased through the MRCA competition or continue using MKIs if we pick Gripen.
If SFC gets an aircraft that's not in IAF inventory, then the enemy will know for sure what the Su-34 is about to do. It would become a highly vital target for the enemy. So, it's not worth the risk. If we get Su-34s for SFC, then I would like to see some Su-34s in IAF as well.
Also, the SFC will most likely use only 1 nuke per plane. So, the commonality of parts and large payload will make little difference for a nuke carrier.
Get a Growler version of MKI and we won't even need Su-34.
Well Russian aircrafts crash...and so do American if they are old. anything that flies has to come down and you need to blame it on gravity...be it American, Russian or India...even Alien.This maybe a dumb question. But given the history of Russian aircrafts and the propensity to crash a lot. why do you guys have so much confidence in purchasing them?
also what do you envision a war being in today's times- for India , where it would need long range capabilities? i.e. I see war's being short and decisive and then all parties pulling back after one has got say 200 miles of the others land tops.
The world will jump in and exert pressure for all parties to disengage. I don't see an Indian flag over Islamabad and vice versa ( including China). I don't see India, Pakistan nor China having that appetite to rule the others country.
If IAF chooses Rafale, then who are we to argue. Anyway, Rafale isn't what you could call a one shot pony considering it's only been in competitions as an underdog.Is the Rafael not an aircraft that nobody other than France maintains? and that too the company is bankrupt and can't be propped up by French govt anymore? if so, if they don't win this- they are doomed, yeah?
Why risk a one shot pony when you have F 18 out there and you don't really need to spend a lot on a 4th gen aircraft- save the purse for 5th gen purchases? and get that AESA that I keep reading you die hards love a lot
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Rafale in Croatian Air Force | Military Aviation | 6 | ||
W | Rafale and F 18 super hornet shortlisted by Indian navy | Indian Navy | 21 | |
Indian Navy more likely to select F 18 than rafales | Indian Navy | 164 | ||
Greek Rafale vs Turkish EF 2000 Who has the Technolocal Edge | Military Aviation | 5 |