i did not get your point. IMO the PESA multi mode radar will be optimised for A2A role and the craft will carry A2A ordinance. i don't see any issues here unless you have something that i am not aware of.
Witness: Col. Fornoff's assessment of the Su30 MKI during Red Flag. You can optimize avionics and ordnance, but what do you do about
structural limitations? What do you do when your nose pivots, you lose tremendous altitude and fall vertically out of the sky in thrust-vectoring attempts?
this i agree. infact my own 1st choice is the Dassault Rafale which carries better load. however SH is no less with it's "electronics" being by far the best. the fact that it has the best operational AESA radar with decent A2A BVR ordinance will 'dissuade' the enemy coming close to it.
"Electronics" and "avionics" can always be "optimized" and retrofitted. Not so with structural integrity, and in the case of the Super Hornet, the modifications to improve those have only proved to be problems of their own.
point is SH can do without escorts while carrying higher load both A2A & A2G. the fact is while AESA on SH is operational rest are yet to put them on in an "operational" sense.
I think the point is what the best fighter is to fulfill a structurally integral, sound, capable and cost-effective combat aircraft for the IAF, not what the SH can or cannot do, for that role can be fulfilled by several others.
however i respect your opinion regards Rafale and agree too on that. Rafale is supposed to have an AESA sometime around 2012 or thereabouts.
I'm confident it will, particularly since it is supposed to be an enhancement to the radar installed on the Naval Rafale, is already in production engineering, expects to start series production by late 2010, and will be delivered to the French Navy and Air Force by 2012.
though i said pakistan but i include China too in the list.
why i temper my opinion regards China is because they are not as irresponsible and recalcitrant like our western neighbours. also they know India is not the same they faced in 1962 and are pragmatic about it.
but i do agree and factor in the chinese angle too.
The Chinese angle, IMO, not merely needs to be factored. It needs to be
heavily factored. Because we certainly won't have the numbers to match them, and given the procurement delays that are a part of our system, our core competency will need to be maintained qualitatively, which I see increasingly difficult to do in the generations ahead.
I don't think the Chinese threat ought to be discounted at all, or its perception otherwise "tempered". Pragmatic opinion would require that we be prepared for any eventuality, particularly against an adversary with whom we have already fought a war, indeed the worst plausible scenario: a two-front war, for only then could be call ourselves fully prepared.
agree but this will change with the radar upgrade under way. they will be much more capable both in terms of Radar and range (which was it's perrenial problem).
but i have to say they will be secondary to the overarching SU 30MKIs.
ppgj, I'm assuming the
Baaz as our secondary fighter
with all the "radar upgrades", fuselage conformal tanks, increased ordnance, HOTAS controls, RD-33 ser.3 engines and the like. The present Mig-29's are verging upon obsolescence, and cannot hold a fig up to our requirements, and most essentially, qualitative competencies. The radar upgrades were needed not merely as an enhancement of range, they were needed because of tropical-adaptability problems in several of our original radars.
I hope I've made the point that reluctant reliance upon the
Baaz, even as a secondary-fighter, stems from a reliance only upon its upgrades.
this was more a maintainence issue. FYI IAF did not suffer that. infact it says a lot about how well IAF takes care of it's birds. even Malaysia was geting it's Mig 29s serviced in india and not in Russia!!! :happy_2:
I don't know about that.
Let me point you to an article from defenceindustrydaily:
The MiG-29's biggest weaknesses were short range, engines that produce telltale smoke (very bad in air combat) and lack of true multi-role capability; the MiG-35 largely fixes these issues, and may even add an AESA radar of its own if Phazotron-NIIR can have its new Zhuk-AE ready in time. Technology sharing and co-production are also considered to be strengths; as one Indian officer put it: "Russians have their problems of delayed projects and unreliable spare supply but they give access to everything, unlike the Americans." He's referring to the IAF's not-so-great experience with India's existing MiG-29s, which have had maintenance problems in addition to their other deficits.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ndias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/
Let me also point you to an even more detailed article about the Indian Mig-29 experience, this time with inputs from our own Comptroller&Auditor General,
The Indian Air Force was already having '...extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend. (*2)
http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/MiG-29-2b.htm
A further browsing of the url:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/fta/MiG-29-2b.htm, will reveal some even more detailed tidbits about technical OH.
In addition, the RMAF have also experienced problems with their Mig-29's and their maintenance. I don't know if you've ever been to an ADA facility, but its not pretty. I tend to think this is more of an airframe-issue, given that Singapore has fairly decent maintenance facilities.
I also want to quote to you a relevant section about maintenance facilities:
While the aircraft was inducted in June 1985, the facilities in India for its repair/OH were completed only by 1996 and till then the repair arisings would continued to be sent to the manufacturers abroad for repair. In the absence of indigenous repair/OH facilities, the Air Force had entered into three different repair contracts for repair of assemblies, sub-assemblies and live repair units for which Rs 67.62 crores had been paid to the manufacturers till December 1993. Further, by the time the repair facilities would be completed, nearly 40 per cent of the total technical life of the aircraft would be over.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/baaz.htm
when this was done only Mirage 2000s had limited A2G role due to it's radar and laser designator pod. the rest all were A2A except Mig 27s and jaguars (without both Radar and LDP and only capable of dropping dumb bombs). however later even jaguars have been optimised for the nuke role. regards Mirages it was a natural choice then. not any more.
now any aircraft in IAF with MMR would be able to do this subject to it's "useful load" carry capability.
You've missed the point. The point being that the Mirage-2000's have been optimized for their role as A-2-G aircraft, and were designated the Nuclear Strike Squadron. The premise is not
which aircraft will fullfil this purpose, but what the Mirage-2000H has been geared to particularly in its role within the IAF in the Kargil wars.
There is a certain level of institutional memory, I believe, that has geared the fighter more toward an
A-2-G, and post-Kargil, toward a multi-role fighter, not toward a dedicated dog fighter which is my premise.
this is no stop gap. the Mirages will get an additional 20yrs uptime post the upgrades similar to Mig 29s.
Stopgap certainly, Figuring into consideration both the length of time for signing of the MRCA contract and production rates for both the Mirage-2000HT and the MMRCA victor. Infact, that's what France called it when they upgraded their Mirages to 2000-5 standard in 1993:
Dassault needed an order from the ADA to help promote foreign sales, and after some lobbying, in 1993 the ADA decided to upgrade 37 of their existing Mirage 2000s to 2000-5 specification as a stopgap before the arrival of the Rafale in ADA service. The upgraded aircraft were redesignated "Mirage 2000-5F", and became operational in 2000.
* Dassault then extended the improvements a bit further with the "Mirage 2000-9", which features an "RDY-2" radar, the high-power "Modular Data Processing Unit (MDPU)" designed for the Rafale, and an improved countermeasures suite with a new lowband jammer. The RDY-2 is similar to the original RDY, but features two new air-to-ground modes, including a high-resolution "synthetic aperture radar (SAR)" imaging mode.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avmir2k.html
inspite of MMRCA IAF squadron strength will be still be short when you envisage the retirements due on Mig 21s, Mig 27s and some older jaguars which will be partly addresses by our LCAs.
Exactly, but a stop-gap does not need to plug
all the requirement. It could just as well be partial, which is what I believe the Mirage-2000H upgrade is, and to another degree, the Mig-29 SMT.
unfortunately our forces also need to answer this state of affairs. IAF never showed the same enthusiasm they are showing now. probably they found value when DRDO labs could manage the DARIN and Mig 27 upgrades. i have discussed these on the LCA thread some time back. 17 years is what it took when the programme "kick started" only in 1993. very comparable to even the established players worldwide.
I'd hate to go into the saga of the LCA, because this is not the place for it. The fact remains, that from inception to launch to prototype production, the programme has been grossly over schedule. And I extrapolate that development timeline to its full-production status. It may be a conservative estimate, but I think it is the right one.
J-10B's carry russian engines as of now and most of the capabilities are unknown. it is difficult to summarise any chinese a/c.
i doubt their AESA capability. heck their radar on JF 17 is being refused by Pakistan!!! even Russians, French are struggling to put an operational AESA. it would be a miracle if chinese can boast of them. no.. not in 10 years at least IMO.
I'm assuming the worst case scenarios <for us> in all these situations: Which includes a fully developed, stable chinese engine, an AESA capability that is atleast as competent as the Zhuk AE, and an aiframe that says it can do all it can do, in the backdrop of the need to maintain technological competency, because of the absence of parity in numbers. In the absence of any ful information, would you assume anything else?
