tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post3711382535599377981..comments2024-02-10T23:32:15.095-08:00Comments on TRISHUL: Where Is The MiG-35?Prasun K Senguptahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-4251899419478615602009-11-06T00:42:47.884-08:002009-11-06T00:42:47.884-08:00To Ju²: The F-16IN Super Viper is the cheapest of ...To Ju²: The F-16IN Super Viper is the cheapest of all the M-MRCA contenders at the moment, and is being offered with the kind of on-board sensors and avionics architecture that only the Russians have promised to deliver (with israel's help) on the MiG-35. I wouldn't bet much on Europe's ability to deliver as promised, since the EF-2000 is mired in political problems, while the Rafale continues to be financially unviable even for the French, as a result of which till today the Rafale is not even qualified for usage of helmet-mounted dispkay and cueing system. I will elaborate further on this in my next posting tonight. <br />As for the types of aircraft in service with the IAF, I agree there's a lot more belt-tightening required and it is for this reason that I have consistently opposed the upgrading of Mirage 2000s and MiG-29s and instead invest that money into the procurement of additional Su-30MKIs and into the FGFA, and accelerated procurement of tandem-seat Tejas Mk1s (the same standard as the LSPs) for being employed as lead-in fighter trainers.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-24658532100386493712009-11-05T17:05:11.197-08:002009-11-05T17:05:11.197-08:004 VARIANTS OF ADVANCED FIGHTERS TO BE DEVELOPED BA...4 VARIANTS OF ADVANCED FIGHTERS TO BE DEVELOPED BASED ON SU-27:<br />http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2009/11/4-variants-of-advanced-fighters-to-be.htmlbloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10913050275279009787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-74600241752021274942009-11-04T16:42:47.085-08:002009-11-04T16:42:47.085-08:00Hi Prasun,
Thanks for this point of view. Actually...Hi Prasun,<br />Thanks for this point of view. Actually, I wouldn't have bet on the F-16IN. It is only my opinion, but if the Super Viper in an evolved version of the Block 60, it will also be more expensive... and Block 60's unit cost is VERY high for a single engine 3++Gen aircraft. Nearly the price of the Rafale. Dunno if it would be a good deal... it will depend on the commercial and industrial package.<br /><br />Concerning the choice of "superior products" in Singapore and South Korea, I'm not sure. Singapore and Korea chose the F-15 instead of the Rafale for political reasons, clearly. In terms of technology, the Europeans are not lagging far behind the US. But in terms of Marketing efforts and diplomatic power, they do, indeed.<br />I recently saw an article in the German press where the German defence attaché in India said that the Europeans have credible political and technological alternatives, but they don't have enough punch. As you said, the "packaging" is crucial, and the US is really the boss in this field.<br /><br />Concerning the meaning of the MMRCA program, I would like to know your mind. Actually, I do not really understand what is reasonnable in it: IAF alraedy has Su-30MKIs, Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s and Jaguars, i.e. 5 types of aircraft. Tomorrow, it will have FGFAs and probably upgraded Mirages. Today, modern countries have harmonised aircraft fleets. And imagine the government succeeds in negotiating UAE's M2000-9s, that would delay again M2000H/THs upgrade program... and also would increase the number of jet models into service! Not a good point for taxpayers... In this perspective, do you think that ToTs are the true 'reason to be' of the MMRCA program, beyond the MiG-21s replacement issue?Ju²https://www.blogger.com/profile/05719181790720199977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-21417909336040151452009-11-04T11:42:20.799-08:002009-11-04T11:42:20.799-08:00What appeared in AFM regarding the MiG-35 was more...What appeared in AFM regarding the MiG-35 was more or less identical to what my blogposting above is all about. The article by Pyotr Butowski too questions the existence of the single-seat and tandem-seat variants of the MiG-35, and also lists out in detail the financial debts of RAC-MiG.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-85760579195173488922009-11-04T11:17:37.677-08:002009-11-04T11:17:37.677-08:00Great! Thanks for your comments.
Anyway, since so...Great! Thanks for your comments.<br /><br />Anyway, since some people cannot view (including me) Mr. Piotr's article on MiG-29, could you summarize what he wrote about this plane?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-10051567108293591482009-11-04T11:04:59.698-08:002009-11-04T11:04:59.698-08:00The PLAAF and PLA Naval Aviation did evaluate both...The PLAAF and PLA Naval Aviation did evaluate both the MiG-29 and Su-27 back in 1989, but opted for the Su-27SK/UBK as both operators wanted a heavy MRCA, and not a M-MRCA (since the indigenous J-10A/B was then being developed as the M-MRCA). <br />In Malaysia's case, given the rather small number of aircraft ordered (be it the MiG-29, Su-30MKM, F/A-18D or Hawk Mk209), it would have cost a lot more if Malaysia were to set up the industrial infrastructure required for servicing all these aircraft in all four levels. Therefore, Malaysia has no choice but to restrict its aviation MRO activities to only two levels of maintenance, i.e. squadron-level and intermediate-level. In India's case, given the much larger aircraft inventories, it makes economic sense to have dedicated Base Repair Depots specialising in a particular aircraft-type. In addition, since HAL licence-assembles the aircraft, it then becomes economical for it to progressively achieve import substitutions of a large number of fast-moving components (rotables and consumables). And finally, it also makes economic sense for Russian companies like Rosoboronservice India Ltd to be created on a JV-basis that is responsible for stockpiling spares in bonded warehouses within India. In Malaysia's case (or for that matter even in Indonesia or Vietnam) all such industrial investments are not economical since the number of aircraft to be serviced is quite small, hence tere are no appreciable returns on such investments.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-87693492475443288522009-11-04T10:46:16.586-08:002009-11-04T10:46:16.586-08:00Thanks Prasun for the quick comment.
I wonder why...Thanks Prasun for the quick comment.<br /><br />I wonder why China did not opt for MiG29? I am not sure whether China negotiated with Russia for MiG29. But anyway, it preferred Su-30 over MiG29. <br />Moreover, Malaysia said it is returning its MiG29 because of high maintenance bill. I guess the same things apply to India too. Why to buy a fighter which is very expensive to maintain? Is it the same reason why PLAAF preferred Su-30 over MiG29?<br /><br />Once again thanks in adv for your commentsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-2399168097722497432009-11-04T10:39:45.218-08:002009-11-04T10:39:45.218-08:00It is AIR FORCES MONTHLY, a magazine published by ...It is AIR FORCES MONTHLY, a magazine published by UK-based Key Publishing. The story referred to is called FULCRUM FUTURE written by Pyotr Butowski.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-69691567794328730132009-11-04T10:23:32.826-08:002009-11-04T10:23:32.826-08:00Hi,
What is AFM mentioned by one of the anonym in ...Hi,<br />What is AFM mentioned by one of the anonym in his/her comment "... October 2009 AFM issue detailing Mig-29 by Pitor.."<br /><br />Could anyone tell me what magazine is this? AirForce Magazine?<br /><br />ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-90838103345407398662009-11-04T09:58:58.562-08:002009-11-04T09:58:58.562-08:00To Anon@1:51AM: How can you accuse me of being ign...To Anon@1:51AM: How can you accuse me of being ignorant about the MiG-35 when you yourself have not yet posted any weblinks showing the single-seat and tandem-seat MiG-35s flying inside Indian airspace over the past 90 or 120 days? Do take the trouble to do your homework and post those weblinkls, just as you posted those for the Rafale. And if you can't, it would only mean that you and your Bangalore-based 'friends' are smoking something that I for one would definitely desist from!!!<br />As for being able to or unable to spot any difference between ‘TRIALS’ and ‘technical paper evaluations’, it depends on what the question posed to the IAF CAS was. Can you contact the reporter (writer of the story on which you're basing your misinterpretation of the news report) concerned and ask him/her what exactly was the question that was asked? Because when one hears the words "we finished the trials" no one can discern whether the remark refers to one aircraft, four aircraft, or six aircraft. And that's also the difference between you and me. You like to presume and assume, while I prefer to be far more discerning. Now here's your one and final chance to prove me wrong: guide me and other fellow bloggers to the weblinks showing the single-seat and tandem-seat MiG-35s flying inside Indian airspace over the past 90 or 120 days. If you can't, then the least you can do is admit that you're rather presumptous and gullible in such matters.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-81103522283737478322009-11-04T09:46:33.629-08:002009-11-04T09:46:33.629-08:00To Ju²: Regarding your Point 1, I don;t think Indi...To Ju²: Regarding your Point 1, I don;t think India needs to prove any kind of neutrality in the post-Cold War era. Those days are long over and even in those days (in the early 1980s) India had procured several high-tech systems of US-origin such as variable depth sonars and submarine sonars and combat management suites (for the four Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs). <br />2) Regarding Point 2, US export-control regulations are the same for everyone and India won't be an exception. If you were to do a comparative analysis of technology-driven cut-throat competitive bidding in countries as demanding as Singapore and the UAE, you can only conclude that superior products and packaging won the day, with the Europeans and Scandinavians lagging far behind. I don't think the F-16IN Super Viper is old, neither is it a legacy design since, just like the F-15SE, it has evolved steadily over the past three decades and even today, these two designs are in the forefront when it comes to introduction of cutting-edge technologies. Therefore, based on these points, I will be more inclined towards the F-16IN Super Viper. ToT isn't a problem at all since the winner will convert an entire existing IAF Base repair Depot to handle all 4 levels of MRO and through-life product support.<br />Boeing IDS, I'm afraid, is trying to both both leags in different baskets: in countries like Malaysia the F/A-18E/F has tried to compete against the Su-30MKM heavy-MRCA while in India it is being offered as a M-MRCA! I'm afraid one contradicts the other and this will disastrous. In Brazil, on the other hand, the Rafale has as good as won the contract.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-32534826293603157492009-11-04T01:51:27.186-08:002009-11-04T01:51:27.186-08:00To Prasun K Sengupta comment@11:20:00AM: Looks lik...To Prasun K Sengupta comment@11:20:00AM: Looks like your ignorance is not limited to the Mig-35 only but encompasses everything non-American. Probably that is why you are inclined to believe that the teens were definitely here while you seek photo proof for others. Guess what? I am in no mood to disappoint you! Here are photo proofs of Rafale in Bangalore- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dbanik/3943349701/<br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/dbanik/3943349505/<br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/dbanik/3944127588/<br />Now don’t tell me that these aren’t definitive proof coz it is impossible to discern the environment from these photos. Here is an article from ‘The Hindu’ which too confirms that the Rafales were in Bangalore- http://www.thehindu.com/2009/09/26/stories/2009092655470500.htm<br />Now coming to the ACM’s comments; you believe that his comments were with regards to the technical paper evaluations? We all know for a fact that the technical paper evaluations for all six aircrafts are OVER and this was confirmed by no less than our ex-ACM Fali Major last year! Now use you common sense and tell me why the current ACM will pick out just four out of the six aircrafts and say they are going ‘neck to neck’ based on the evaluations completed last year that too when specifically questioned about the ‘field evaluation trials’? Also he says- “We finished the TRIALS”, don’t you see any difference between ‘TRIALS’ and ‘technical paper evaluations’?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-6480785732008306312009-11-04T01:47:47.548-08:002009-11-04T01:47:47.548-08:00Hi Prasun!
Yep, I totally share your points of vie...Hi Prasun!<br />Yep, I totally share your points of view concerning the Russians, as well as the US.<br /><br />But concerning an M-MRCA deal given to the US, I wonder 2 things:<br /><br />1) With this symbolic contract (given such as high cost!), it could be understood by the World as: "We, Indians, decided to trust the US to protect our airspace". It could sound like "we subcontract a part of our defence to the US and their technology". Maybe is it idiotic, but I think this huge deal will give a picture of how India perceives itself on the regional stage. If Delhi choose a Russian or a European solution, I think that could be more 'neutral' from an historical and geostrategic point of view. Don't you think?<br /><br />2) From a technological point of view, and even if dealing with the US doesn't seem to me risky, I wonder what will really be the ToTs. F-16 is old, F-18 is heavy for a 'medium' aircraft and very expensive in terms of exploitation costs (but not in terms of sale price). Moreover, US export rules are harsh and will likely cripple Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc. None of them is free to deal with India as it would like to. Once again, a European solution could be more easy to manage. I don't know which one because all of them have particular competitive advantages... and European companies such as Saab, Dassault and EADS are hungry!!<br /><br />According your own feeling and appreciation, Prasun, what would be for you the optimal choice(s)? Your short-list?<br />Personally, basically, I would bet on Rafale and SH. <br /><br />A recent interview of Chris Chadwick let us understand that Boeing sees MMRCA tender the same way as the Brazilian one. He said MiG, Lockheed and Eurofighter will be eliminated like in Brazil. In such a 3-aircraft race, I don't think that Gripen has huge chance because of its 'similarity' (maybe this word is exagerated, sorry) with the Tejas. <br />This 'Communication' approach is funny: Saab's representative tries to dissociate Brazilian and Indian deals. Boeing, which first showed it didn't want to enter in such a debate, says today the 2 deals have similarities. <br />... and Dassault, meanwhile, keeps being silent... desperately phlegmatic... Don't know what to think about this French communications strategy, definitely.<br />What's your mind?<br />(oops, sorry I made a looooong question, once again) ;)<br /><br />Have a nice day, everyone!Ju²https://www.blogger.com/profile/05719181790720199977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-38307510009362364672009-11-03T23:57:25.461-08:002009-11-03T23:57:25.461-08:00Dear Prasun , Thanks for your prompt and proactive...Dear Prasun , Thanks for your prompt and proactive response.<br /><br />If you have the October 2009 AFM issue detailing Mig-29 by Pitor can you please scan and put it up here ?<br /><br />Thanks once againAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-65999884689140216812009-11-03T16:45:42.860-08:002009-11-03T16:45:42.860-08:00To Ju²: Many thanks for your compliments. Deeply a...To Ju²: Many thanks for your compliments. Deeply appreciate them. Regarding ToT from Russia, there's really no need for them at all as they're parting with the kind of systems that no one else will even think of giving. Is there anyone else who will part with weapons like the BrahMos? Will anyone else teach India how to design and fabricate up to six nuclear-powered submarines, and even supply the raw materials and design know-how for bullding such vessels? Has any other country even offered to co-develop FGFAs or MTA tactical transport aircraft or new-generation multi-role medium-lift and heavylift helicopters? Quite frankly, the Russian plate is overflowing and they don't have to walk the extra mile with any offsets commitments. Even if the US were to win the M-MRCA contract, the Russians will bag follow-on contracts for at least another 40 MiG-29K/KUBs to give the Indian Navy the planned four functional M-MRCA squadrons. <br />Regarding the paranoia surrounding US-built weapons, it is definitely over-stated and over-hyped. At a time when the US is overjoyed with labelling India as its enduring strategic partner, I wouldn't give much credence to any kind of anti-US paranoia. Just give it the M-MRCA contract along with the contract for supplying the F515 turbofans for the Tejas Mk2 M-MRCA, buy about 60 shipborne ASV/ASW helicopters from Sikorsky, purchase a follow-on batch of eight P-8Is, and all this will score a lot of symbolic points in the barometer of India-US bilateral relations.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-31500854065072501702009-11-03T12:23:23.448-08:002009-11-03T12:23:23.448-08:00Thanks very much for your points of view, Prasun!!...Thanks very much for your points of view, Prasun!! I like your reactivity, this way your blog really looks like a conversation... with only a few minutes latency. :) Very appreciable.<br /><br />What is your feeling concerning Russian ToTs? Personally I don't think they are less credible than any Swedish offer. Both airframes are still to be finalized, both have AESA radar at completion/integration stage... but the MiG-35 has no US-made components. There is much fantasy concerning US components and possible restrictions. Do you think it is a true problem, even in the frame of commercial discussions? <br /><br />Best,Ju²https://www.blogger.com/profile/05719181790720199977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-845053952905089672009-11-03T11:55:38.977-08:002009-11-03T11:55:38.977-08:00To Anon@5:16AM: Here's something 'elementa...To Anon@5:16AM: Here's something 'elementary' for you to share with your 'informants' who you know personally and you may have claimed that they saw both single-seat and two-seat versions of the four contending M-MRCAs go to Bangalore for competitive flight evaluations: any of the six contenders going to India will have to be only tandem-seaters. Why? Simply because no IAF ETP is flight-qualified to fly solo on either of the six contending M-MRCAs (it takes a minimum of 40 flight-hours to flight-qualify and that too preceded by 40 hours of simulator flying training). Therefore, every M-MRCA contender will have to send a tandem-seater along with its own type-rated flight instructor or ETP. The same also applies to those weapons evaluation sorties that will be flown abroad by IAF flight evaluation ETPs. In all cases, tandem-seat aircraft will be used. Now please go ahead and 'personally' educate your 'friends' abiut this very basic and elementary point.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-47875527562506388472009-11-03T11:39:16.733-08:002009-11-03T11:39:16.733-08:00To Ju²: I did read the JP story and find its conte...To Ju²: I did read the JP story and find its contents to be contradictory and without any basis. Regarding the EL/M-2052 for the F-16IN, the offer was made by SIBAT, which hoped that India would mandate that this radar be offered by Lockheed Martin with the F-16IN. If this were to become reality, then it would create a precedent under which IAI would at last get the chance to qualify the EL/M-2052 on the F-16 airframe. This is clearly unacceptable to the US Defense Dept since it has been US standard policy that whatever weapons platform Israel procures from the US under military aid (i.e. 100% financed by the US), it should have 'almost' 100% US content, and no mix-and-match with systems developed in-house by Israel is allowed. Therefore, even the F-16I Soufa doesn't have the EL/M-2052 on board. It is because of this institutionalised policy that led to the Obama Administration to inform Israel that no US-origin F-16 airframe will be made available to IAI for flight-qualifying the EL/M-2052. <br />Now, coming to the AESA for F-16IN, the IAF has been offered two alternatives: Northrop Grumman's SABR, and Raytheon RACR. It is highly unlikely that the APG-80 will go on the F-16IN. Both the SAVR and RACR are also being offered for the IAF's Jaguar IS upgrade programme.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-66564448779241135612009-11-03T11:20:56.529-08:002009-11-03T11:20:56.529-08:00To Anon@5:16AM: In the weblink you've given as...To Anon@5:16AM: In the weblink you've given as the reference material, nowhere does it say that the F-16, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Rafale and MiG-35 have visited India, although it is already known that the F/A-18F Super Hornet and F-16F Desert Falcon flew in to India for Phase 1 of the evaluations. As to the alleged visit to India of the Rafale or MiG-35, kindly guide me to any weblink showing photos of the Rafale and MiG-35 flying inside Indian airspace over the past 90 days. And contrary to what you're claiming the IAF Chief NEVER said that the Rafale and MiG-35 had already been to India. All he said was "We finished the trails of F-16, F/A-18, Rafale and the MiG-35. They (all aircraft) are going neck to neck". To me this only means that technical paper evaluations of the submitted RFPs have been completed. The IAF Chief never used the words 'flight evaluation', contrary to what you've claimed. Therefore, it is not that the IAF Chief is lying, but it is you that is misinterpreting the IAF Chief's remarks. And I too never said that the MiG-35 is under production. It cannot enter production until a customer places an order large enough to commence production. And even Russia's own orders won't be placed until 2012. Now after all this exhaustive explanation, if you still don't get it, then kindly pick up the October issue of AIR FORCES MONTHLY or the MAKS 2009 show preview issue of FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, both of which contain feature-length articles on Russia's prospects regarding India's M-MRCA competition and all written by Russia-based authors. In all these articles, it is clearly explained what the MiG-29M2 (No154) is all about, why it is not the definitive MiG-35, and what is preventing RAC-MiG from rolling out the two MiG-35 prototypes. Since folks like you and those nerds at BR are more inclined to believe Russian Caucasians instead of me, I strongly urge you to buy these two magazines and find out what the 'truth' is. <br /><br />To Anon@6:33AM: As I explained above, it is impossible for anyone to engage in any guessestimates about pricing levels about a M-MRCA whose true existence has yet to be revealed by its OEM! As for te Skat UCAV, it is not being offered to India as of now. As for ToT, the only thing the IAF has mandated is that it retain full operational sovereignty over its assets in peacetime and wartime, which means unrestricted supply of spares and life-long product support, plus the ability to undertake all four levels of MRO in-country. To this end, Rosoboronservice India and Indo-Russian Aviation Ltd have already been established to provide such thorugh-life product support for the 16 + 29 MiG-29K/KUBs and the IAF's 62 MiG-29s due to be upgrtaded, and also for the 80 MiG-27Ms that will be re-engined with AL-31F turbofans.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-22299615986813882992009-11-03T07:39:58.358-08:002009-11-03T07:39:58.358-08:00Hi Prasun!
I'm quite dubitative concerning IAI...Hi Prasun!<br />I'm quite dubitative concerning IAI and the Gripen. Here is a part of the JP article: "Under pressure from the Pentagon, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has been forced to back out of a joint partnership with a Swedish aerospace company to compete in a multi-billion dollar tender to sell new multi-role fighter jets to the Indian Air Force[...] after the Pentagon expressed concern that American technology, used by Israel, would be integrated into the Gripen offered to the Indians".<br />Here is the link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443717576&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull<br />So Washington pressure directly concerns Gripen and not F-16IN!! It is difficult to know what are these "American technologies", however.<br /><br />Concerning the F-16IN, as strange as it is, the US proposes the APG-80 which was financed by the Emiratis... However, when I questionned Mr. Walsby of Northrop Grumman during the last Paris Air Show, he told me that the APG-80 has been proposed to India as a basis for study partnership on AESA technology for 3 years. If it is really the case, the EL/M-2052 has never seriously been evoked for the F-16IN! I have never heard anything about this partnership before... And you, Prasun?<br /><br />Concerning the MiG-35, things are unclear, indeed. <br />To Anon@5:16: I don't think that what Prasun said and what you heard from ACM Naik are 2 incompatible things. The aircraft indeed flew, but it is neither a serial product nor a definitive design. It is the same case as the Gripen IN: it is the Gripen Demo, a prototype, which will participate to the field trials.<br />Concerning ToTs, I wonder what the Russians will propose. Currently, the Zhuk-AE radar has 680 T/R modules and this number won't change, apparently. At least, it is what Phazotron-NIIR's production manager recently said (see Defunct Humanity blog). He precised that the radar is powerful and efficient enough with only 680 modules, and that no increase of this number is planned.<br />Do you think that Phazotron is trying to persuade India that a 680-module radar is good enough? If MoD is OK that could allow Russia to make concretely 100% ToTs with an obsolete design? No?<br /><br />Thanks for your quick answers, Prasun, you are really efficient and reactive!! ;)Ju²https://www.blogger.com/profile/05719181790720199977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-74298585119158374492009-11-03T06:33:12.609-08:002009-11-03T06:33:12.609-08:00Hi Prasun couple of questions
1 ) What will be t...Hi Prasun couple of questions <br /><br />1 ) What will be the unit cost of Mig-35 and what about its operating cost ?<br /><br />2 ) What is the level of TOT and offset is Russia willing to offer for Mig-35 MMRCA deal ?<br /><br />3 ) Can the large number of Mig-29 in the IAF now under upgrade and Mig-29K for the IN can offer logistics advantage of Mig-35 MMRCA bid and sway thing in its favour ?<br /><br />4 ) Can HAL join the Mig UCAV Skat program as part of offset ?<br /><br />Thanks in advanceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-60819824461714029232009-11-03T05:16:43.864-08:002009-11-03T05:16:43.864-08:00Hi Prasun,
You say that the Mig-35 is still under ...Hi Prasun,<br />You say that the Mig-35 is still under production. So can you please tell us which aircraft came to India for flight trials? I personally know people who have spotted both the single seat and the twin seat variants of the aircraft in Bangalore HAL airport. They came here for the flight evaluation after the Rafale and the teens. Our ACM NAik too has confirmed that the Mig has completed its flight evaluation. He further went on to say that all aircrafts whose evaluation are done (including the Mig) are "going neck to neck".<br />Here check this link-<br />http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_india-against-militarisation-of-space-naik_1303782<br />Are you claiming that the ACM is fooling the nation when he says that the Mig-35 has completed the trials? Or do you admit that your info is completely outdated?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-59351714715709476652009-11-03T03:05:49.501-08:002009-11-03T03:05:49.501-08:00To Ju²: The Israeli offer from SIBAT was not speci...To Ju²: The Israeli offer from SIBAT was not specific to any particular airframe as such. SIBAT's offer to India was to equip either the JAS-39 Gripen IN or the F-16IN Super Viper with any array of Israel-designed and developed missions sensors/avionics, defensive aids suites and precision-guided weapons. What the Obama Administration did was to object to SIBAT offering all this to any US-made platform such as the F-16IN. It never objected to all this going on board the Gripen IN. As for the Tejas Mk1 and MNk2, the entire navigation-and-attack system has been designed around the EL/M-2052 and therefore the issue of the CAESAR AESA from EADS does not arise. But on board the FGFA it will be Tikhomirov NIIP's AESA-based MIRES radar, and not the EL/M-2052. That was already agreed to last month between India and Russia simply because elements of the MIRES will also eventually find their way on to the Su-30MKIs dring their mid-life upgrades, starting 2012. <br />I don't see the US as being an invasive partner as it the US itself that never gets tired of referring to India as its long-term strategic partner and what the US wants is a level playing field to compete on equal terms, but when such a level playing field is created, the US will easily and inevitably win any contract simply because of its sheer industrial-financial clout, which enables US companies to offer the kind of direct/indirect industrial offsets that others simply cannot match.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-6222851323106607752009-11-03T01:13:40.538-08:002009-11-03T01:13:40.538-08:00Hi Prasun,
I didn't know that the EL/M-2052 wa...Hi Prasun,<br />I didn't know that the EL/M-2052 was firmly selected for the Tejas Mk.II. I thought that nothing was definitive and an EADS solution was also examined. Same thing for the M-MRCA: I thought the Isralelis were ejected from the Gripen offer by US pressure. Indeed, Washington said Israeli systems were too cheap and too competitive with US products, while radar and EW systems thought for the Gripen contained US components (cf. Jerusalemn Post). So Israel not independant on MMICs?<br />Now, apparently, the Indian market could become more difficult for Elta as the US is imposing its products with political pressure. A friend recently gave me a Middle East Newsline news showing that India is trying to help the Israelis to stay afloat in the defence market: the FGFA could be equipped with Israeli avionics and EW systems (not the radar which is being made by Tikhomirov's NIIP). The Russians are ok, at first glance.<br />Maybe it is only an interpretation but, Prasun, do you think we can say now that India and Israel are struggling together against US pressure to remain partners on the defence market? And do you think the US could be an invasive partner?Ju²https://www.blogger.com/profile/05719181790720199977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5154280302945875495.post-38947070175450485262009-11-02T16:58:08.130-08:002009-11-02T16:58:08.130-08:00To Anon@12:34AM: To my knowledge there's only ...To Anon@12:34AM: To my knowledge there's only one person from India who claims to have flown the MiG-35 and that is Vishnu Som from NDTV (he actually flew the MiG-29M2 No154). Do check out all other Russian newmedia reports on the MiG-35 and they will tell you exactly what I have above: the MiG-35's single-seat and tandem-seat variants have yet to roll out from Sokol's Nizhny Novgorod-based facility. The situation is the same with the JAS-39 Gripen IN, which is still "under fabrication".<br /><br />To Ju²: The EL/M-2052 AESA-based radar has already been selected for both the Tejas Mk1 and Mk2 M-MRCA. The selection was done two years ago. Other scalable AESA-based radars like the Northrop Grumman-built SABR to can go on the Ka-52, as can Selex Galileo's Vixen 500e. <br /><br />To Anon@10:27AM: The 'string of pearls' doctrine presently applies only to the South China Sea, and not in the Indian Ocean Region. And as Ju² says, the game is balanced between India and China at the moment. There's no reason for any alarm.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.com