The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: India takes a hit over Russian fighters
Softwar    5/23/2007 11:25:27 AM
link

South Asia
May 24, 2007

India takes a hit over Russian fighters
By Sudha Ramachandran

BANGALORE - India's relations with Russia have hit an air pocket, with the Russians seeking to renegotiate the terms of a US$8.5 billion deal to supply India with Sukhoi fighter aircraft. The new pricing terms that the Russians are proposing would require India to fork out another half-billion dollars.

Under the deal to supply the multi-role combat aircraft to India, Russia's Irkutsk Corp has already supplied 60 Su-30s. Russia is willing to deliver another 40 fighters at the cost escalation of

2.55% per annum as agreed under the original deal. However, for the remaining 138 Su-30s to be assembled by the Bangalore-based Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Russia wants the cost-escalation rate to be hiked to a minimum of 5%.

India and Russia both need the deal, so a compromise is likely, such as settling for a cost-escalation rate of about 4%, above the current 2.55% but below the 5% now being demanded. Or India could pay in euros. But a bitter taste will remain.

Russia is also considering increasing the cost of the 44,570-tonne aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov (renamed by India as INS Vikramaditya) that it was to make available to India by August 2008. The proposed price rises were conveyed to a delegation of top Indian officials that was in Moscow last week.

This has injected a perceptible chill into India-Russia ties. Except for a few years following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, when relations cooled, India's relationship with Moscow has been close. For decades, India has viewed Moscow as a reliable friend that backed its development priorities and provided its defense forces with most of its hardware. While trade and economic cooperation were important parts of the bilateral relationship, it was the military component that constituted the backbone of the friendship.

The friendship has survived despite India's warming relations with the United States in recent years. It is Russia that remains India's top military partner, notching up annual sales worth $1.5 billion, and it is with the Russians that Delhi's cooperation has more depth.

The multibillion-dollar Sukhoi program is said to be the largest in Indo-Russian military cooperation, which has contributed immensely to India's indigenization efforts. In another example, the BrahMos missile, which has been co-produced by India's Defense Research and Development Organization and Russia's NPO Mashinostroyenia, will be jointly exported by the end of this year.

The Indian Air Force loves its Sukhois for their domination of the skies. The Sukhois have replaced the Russian MiG-21s as the mainstay of India's fighter fleet. Four contracts have been signed since 1995 for the supply of Sukhois; the first provided for the purchase of eight Su-30K and 40 Su-30 MKI, the second of 10 Su-30 K, the third for licensed production of 140 Su-30 MKI, and the most recent in March for 40 Su-30 MKI.

What has irked India now is not only the hike in the cost of the fighters but also the suddenness with which the Russians raised the issue. As recently as March, the Russians had not indicated any problem with the cost-escalation rate of 2.55%, complain officials.

The Russians attribute the higher costs to the depreciation of the US dollar and the strengthening of the ruble, as well as double-digit inflation in Russia.

As for the Gorshkov, it seems that the aircraft carrier will arrive only around 2010 instead of next year. Refurbished at a cost of $1.5 billion, which includes 16 MiG 29K aircraft, the Gorshkov project is now going into a cost overrun of more than $113 million - and there were no provisions for this in the contract.

Last week, the Russians told the Indian delegation that the delivery of Gorshkov is being held up by a funds crunch at the Sevmash shipyard in northern Russia, where the carrier is being refurbished. They said the shipyard had grossly underestimated the length of cabling the carrier needed. The Russians told India that if it wants the carrier delivered on time, Delhi will have to cough up more. India is concerned with the delay as its other aircraft carrier, INS Viraat, is due for retirement soon.

Indian officials point out that much has changed in Russia's dealings with India. In the past, Moscow might have indulged India with "friendly prices" and allowed a foreign-exchange-strapped India to pay for purchases in rupees. But today things are different: Moscow wants to hike rates after contracts are finalized.
Yet Russia says little has changed in its approach to India. With regard to the cost escalation for the Sukhois, it says that as a special gesture to India, it will consider reducing the proposed rate of 5% to 4.5%. It has also said it will continue with the current 2.55% annual escalation rate if India is willing to pay with the more stable euro.

The Sukhoi and Gorshkov troubles come close on the heels of a spat over allowing each other's civilian aircraft into their airspace. When Russia decided to ban Air India and Jet Airways from its airspace this month, India hit back by barring Aeroflot and Transco. An open collision was avoided with the two sides agreeing to maintain the status quo of an earlier bilateral civil-aviation agreement.

Officials say that while India remains appreciative of the Russians for providing it with military equipment when the West had been reluctant to do so during the Cold War years, India nonetheless has had problems with Russian military supplies.

Indian military officials have been irritated for some time with the severe shortage of spare parts and the huge delays that dog delivery of Russian equipment. Delivery of the Sukhois, T-90S main battle tanks and Talwar-class stealth frigates have been delayed by years. It is not just with regard to supply of new acquisitions that the Russians are running late, but repair and overhaul of past acquisitions are also behind schedule, complain officials.

India has also been concerned with the unreliability of some Russian weapons systems. The Defense Ministry has reportedly expressed its unhappiness to the Russians over the reliability of the Appassionata navigation systems for the 10 Kilo- or Sindhugosh-class 877EKM submarines as well as the large number of Uran subsonic anti-ship cruise missiles in the Indian inventory. India wants more solid assurances from the Russians on maintenance of delivery schedules of contracted weapon systems, uninterrupted supply of parts, and life-term product support.

Indian defense officials say the country's problem with purchasing weapons systems from its new allies (read the Americans) is that the latter have no qualms about selling the same systems to India's adversaries. In this regard, the record of India's "old friend" - Russia - is much better, though not completely clean.

India is looking to buy 126 multi-role combat aircraft, and several aviation companies are in the race for the $6.5-billion-to-$10-billion deal - one of the single largest fighter plane contracts in the history of aviation. The ongoing spat over the Sukhois will be keenly watched by companies such as Saab, Dassault, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which are among the fierce contenders for the deal.

In February, during Aero India 2007 in Bangalore - India's answer to Britain's Farnborough air show - the Russian campaign to seal fighter deals with India focused on the long-standing defense relationship between the two countries. "The pride of being with India for 44 years," screamed billboards put up across Bangalore.

India insists it remembers this decades-long partnership, especially Moscow's support for India during troubled times in the past. But India has become more demanding of this partner. It wants Russia to remain the reliable partner it once was and to stand by its promises, whether with regard to prices or punctuality. Or India might just go elsewhere.

Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
mithradates    the problem   5/23/2007 1:03:52 PM
is that they don't have a robust industrial/technology base to build their own modern 4th generation fighters.  In fact there are major technical/project management issues encountered by HAL even in the assembly of Russian provided kits with 2 assembled SU-30s delivered after 6 years.    The LCA, if it is eventually deployed(~2012), represents an early 4th generation aircraft whose basic performance is outclassed by the JF-17, which itself is a lower-end, made-for-export fighter.  Thus, the IAF ends up being dependent on supplier nations, but the country isn't always loyal to the supplier nation.  When India cozys up to the U.S, Russia sees that and acts appropriately.  If the IAF wants a robust supply of adequate fighter aircraft it needs to do one of 2 things:
 
1.  Become an obediant vassal state to one of the supplier nations(doesn't matter which one, just stop playing around)
 
2.  Build up a robust and independent military industrial base for itself and become a power in it's own right.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       5/24/2007 4:53:34 AM

is that they don't have a robust industrial/technology base to build their own modern 4th generation fighters.  In fact there are major technical/project management issues encountered by HAL even in the assembly of Russian provided kits with 2 assembled SU-30s delivered after 6 years.    The LCA, if it is eventually deployed(~2012), represents an early 4th generation aircraft whose basic performance is outclassed by the JF-17, which itself is a lower-end, made-for-export fighter.  Thus, the IAF ends up being dependent on supplier nations, but the country isn't always loyal to the supplier nation.  When India cozys up to the U.S, Russia sees that and acts appropriately.  If the IAF wants a robust supply of adequate fighter aircraft it needs to do one of 2 things:

 

1.  Become an obediant vassal state to one of the supplier nations(doesn't matter which one, just stop playing around)

 

2.  Build up a robust and independent military industrial base for itself and become a power in it's own right.

 

 

 

 


3. Stop playing Brahmin politics in DRDO and listen to the quite talented engineers.
4. Privatize.
5. Never become anyone's stooge not America's, or especially the PRCs. Better the logistics chaos now than dependency on ANYONE.
6. Remember that India gets more out of its working Russian and Indian designed gear than any Pakistani  stooge or PRC ever got out of PRC junk, or even the American gear which he is equipped or stole. I put my money on the well trained Indian pilot in a Mig 21; that he has a better than even chance against a PRC, or a Pakistani in a piece of PRC junk like the JF-17.
 
And of course understand that advice from a PRC bandit is worthless. 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Opportunity   5/24/2007 11:15:53 AM
 
If France could ever get their Rafale 100% into multi role mode this could be a place where they could get some business. Grippen would be a great choice.
 
As I understand it western firghters are more expensive to aquire but their quality and warranty is much better making them less expensive over time.
 
I would love to see Sukhoi crash and burn over this.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

blitZ    Are you Kidding me ??!!   5/24/2007 12:59:09 PM
Ok Myth, time to bust some more of your myths. Some basic research is a pre-requisite before you state speculation as facts.

LCA is not only more advanced than the JF-17, but its technologically more advanced than the PLAAFs new pride, the J-10 as well.

LCA outclasses J-10 in everything, and i mean everything except the Payload and Range.
link
link

link
link

Now you will argue with, oh Wiki and FAS are public sources, not everything is known about the J-10 etc etc.
Well genius, show us something better, if you have it.

 
Quote    Reply

blitZ    Are you Kidding me ??!!   5/24/2007 1:02:15 PM
God why dont the links ever work on SP ?
Well anyways, go to any open source military websites and compare J-10 and LCA. I don't even need to post the links.

 
Quote    Reply

blitZ    Are you Kidding me ??!!   5/24/2007 1:07:50 PM
Myth, as for your building better weapons in house, DRDO might be a slow behemoth, but it produces weapons that are anyday superior to the reverse engineered PLA copies.

Example: LCA > J-10
              Arjun > Type-99

I will not post links for any of these, because your ignorance and lack of BASIC research before posting BS is irritating me now. Its everywhere on the net, go find out yourself.

 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    Reply to Blitz   5/24/2007 2:26:13 PM

Myth, as for your building better weapons in house, DRDO might be a slow behemoth, but it produces weapons that are anyday superior to the reverse engineered PLA copies.

Example: LCA > J-10
              Arjun > Type-99

I will not post links for any of these, because your ignorance and lack of BASIC research before posting BS is irritating me now. Its everywhere on the net, go find out yourself.


Ok, I would like to respectfully disagree with your opinions. 
 
In the matter of the Arjun, a simple statement like Arjun > T-99 makes no sense.  A more clear assertion to make would be
"the Arjun fits the IA's specific requirements better than the T-99 fits the PLA's requirements"
And it would be a false assertion at that.
 
Arjun:
  h!tp://www.indianexpress.com/story/16589.html
h!tp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/arjun.htm
h!tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_MBT
h!tp://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Articles/Article46.html
h!tp://www.hindu.com/2007/04/30/stories/2007043003261300.htm
 
I'm not an expert in armour, but there are some glaring shortcomings of the Arjun(some common to all tanks, some to India's local environment).  To go over the more obvious problems:
 
1.  Dependence on a obsolete custom modified imported german engine whose production line(in germany) has to be restarted and retooled.
2.  Dependence on an Ukranian imported FCS that was custom modified by the French(Indigenous FCS not ready for mass production yet).
3.  The Tank is too heavy to cross most bridges across India.
4.  The Tank is too heavy to travel effectively across much of southern India without bogging down.
5.  The Tank is too wide for current railroad/railcar transport infrastructure.  Custom railcars had to built an enormous cost just to haul around the prototypes 
6.  Dependence on Israeli LAHAT with uncertain supplies
7.  70% of the tank's cost is still foreign imported components (down from 90% 10 years ago which is good)
 
The following statement was made by an IA Brigadier D K Babbar 5 months ago concerning the Arjun:
 
"The Arjun tank has no future. It still cannot fire straight. The T-90, a far superior tank, can kill the Arjun. We would not cross any border with these tanks. "
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Your links don't seem to work, but I can provide some working references:
 
 
 but would like to contradict your statements.


 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       5/24/2007 3:34:29 PM
Arjun is the Sherman, or maybe the T-34/76 short barrewled gun model of of the Indian armor line of development.
 
It has powerpack and FCS issues. Mythn who reads this site vorciferously has regurgitiated the usual pap that he was spoonfed by his betters. Thus that information was substantially accurate.
 
What he did not address was that India tried in one leap to build a tank equivalent to the best Western tanks. They fell short, but not by much.
 
The Indian army needs tanks NOW. There is a violent dispute going on inside the Indian Army over what to buy because the old T-72s and Vickers tanks are reaching the end of their useful running lives. The T-90 is a working model that India could buy and use. The Arjun I is a tank that needs a lot of work to turn it into the Arjun II and would in US hands be either field modified to rectify engineering defects or would be put into limited procurementm for training while building the Arjun II which could take up to three years.
 
India's current decision to buy a couple of brigades worth of Arjuns opens up an Indian tank plant and gives shopfloor experience in building a native design tank. It makes sense along with the current buy of T-90s. Why? because for all of its weight and all of its inherent design defects the Arjun at least IS an Indian design. Now that the engineers know what they did wrong, they can tweak the tank design to install an air conditioner for the computer and rework the powerpack to move the tank across the ground better.
 
As for how the Arjun stacks up against a Type 99? If DRDO ever gets the ARJUN fire control to work, the Chinese monkey copy T-72/80 knockoff will be scrap metal. The Chicom tank has the usual engineering and manufacturing defects that one associates with NORINCO monkey copy imitations of Russian equipment. the armor package is substandard and the gun is a joke. Looks good in a parade though!
 
The T-99 should tip its hat quite nicely even to the T-90s that India is purchasing.
 
LCA
 
link
 
The article prewsents the case that the Kavieri engine is a roadblock. I see it as an indian opportunitym to do what the PRCs cannot, design and build a military rated jet engine. Once you have the first one under your belt, it becomes a skillset thatn you can keep.
 
The LCA should be about as good as the Mirage F1. That makes it far better than any PRC garbage flying. The Indians will still be confronted with integrating avionics, bombs, and missiles. That should prove to be interesting. Its something that THALES, MBDA, and EADS has shown a remarkable recent history in fubaring, so whether DRDO can figure it out without Israeli help should prove most interesting. Of course there is always Raytheon and Boeing...............
 
Herald    
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    additional reply   5/24/2007 4:00:42 PM
Why is the T-96/99 better for the PLA than Arjun is for the IA?  It's simply a much better fit for our army's specific needs:
 
h!tp://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type99specifications.asp
h!tp://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type96.asp
 
Cost:  T-99 is 2 million USD each, T-96 is 1.4 million USD each ( Arjun is 4 million USD)
 
Logistics:  70% components of T-99 share with T-96.  T-99/96 weight compatible with bridges/road/rail across all of China.  100% domestic manufactured.  Can be built quickly (280 T-99s, ~2400 T-96s in 7 years).
 
Operating Environment:   Operates effectively in all environments ranging from Tundra to Sub-tropical.  Weight range is effective (43 to 54 tons) is most Eurasian combat environments.
 
Performance:  Comparable general performance to early 3rd generation(T-96)  and to mature 3rd generation(T-99) world class tanks.
 
The T-96/T-99 is an economical, domestic, and flexible family of tank with acceptable combat performance. Designed with the PLA's needs in mind.  The Arjun is an expensive, significantly non-domestic tank with a very heavy logistical footprint.  It will however have better than acceptable combat performance if all the bugs have been worked out.
 
Now, I'm not an armour expert by any means, but it strikes me that the following capabilities are good to have:
 
1. Large numbers of tanks
2. Average/adquate firepower and armour protection
3. Having the means of quickly transporting large numbers of the tank
4. Having enough spare parts/munitions for those tanks 
5. The tank must be able to fight in all terrain suitable for armoured warfare.
 
These are all very important design considerations for a tank.  It would make very little sense to compromise 1,3,4,5 to just enhance 2.  This is why the T-96/T-98 is better for the PLA. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       5/24/2007 5:07:17 PM

Why is the T-96/99 better for the PLA than Arjun is for the IA?  It's simply a much better fit for our army's specific needs:

 

h!tp://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type99specifications.asp

h!tp://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type96.asp

 

Cost:  T-99 is 2 million USD each, T-96 is 1.4 million USD each ( Arjun is 4 million USD)

 

Logistics:  70% components of T-99 share with T-96.  T-99/96 weight compatible with bridges/road/rail across all of China.  100% domestic manufactured.  Can be built quickly (280 T-99s, ~2400 T-96s in 7 years).

 

Operating Environment:   Operates effectively in all environments ranging from Tundra to Sub-tropical.  Weight range is effective (43 to 54 tons) is most Eurasian combat environments.

 

Performance:  Comparable general performance to early 3rd generation(T-96)  and to mature 3rd generation(T-99) world class tanks.

 

The T-96/T-99 is an economical, domestic, and flexible family of tank with acceptable combat performance. Designed with the PLA's needs in mind.  The Arjun is an expensive, significantly non-domestic tank with a very heavy logistical footprint.  It will however have better than acceptable combat performance if all the bugs have been worked out.

 

Now, I'm not an armour expert by any means, but it strikes me that the following capabilities are good to have:

 

1. Large numbers of tanks

2. Average/adquate firepower and armour protection

3. Having the means of quickly transporting large numbers of the tank

4. Having enough spare parts/munitions for those tanks 

5. The tank must be able to fight in all terrain suitable for armoured warfare.

 

These are all very important design considerations for a tank.  It would make very little sense to compromise 1,3,4,5 to just enhance 2.  This is why the T-96/T-98 is better for the PLA. 

 

 

 

 

 


In that pack of lies is onwe exceedingly obvious glaring one. The Type 99 is as depenmdent on RUSSIAN support or more so, than the Arjun is on German technical help.
The PRCs could no more claim domestic tank production than they can claim to be able to design a TV set without considerable foreign technical help and outright theft.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    to Blitz   5/24/2007 5:24:52 PM
"The LCA should be about as good as the Mirage F1.....Herald"
 
It's interesting that Herald is comparing India's 4th generation LCA to a 3rd generation French fighter.  And then the comparison made that a 3rd generation fighter is better than our export and proprietary 4th generation fighters is very entertaining indeed.  Still, in his mixture of insults, personal attacks, and general propaganda, there exists a small glimmer of truth.  The LCA's airframe design(especially delta wing configuration) really is reminiscent of mid to late 3rd generation aircraft designs such as the F-1C, J-8M, and Su-25s.  Nevertheless, I contend that the LCA is definitely an early 4th gen aircraft, and when it is eventually fielded in 2012, India should justifiably be proud of it.
 
Now, with that said however, the LCA when it finally is introduced would still be generally inferior in performance to the made-for-export JF-17.
 
h!tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas
h!tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder

Specifications (HAL Tejas)

Performance

 

 Specifications (JF-17 Thunder)

Performance

 

What is immediately apparent is that, the JF-17 is superior to the LCA in speed, range, wing-loading, and service ceiling.
What is less apparently is that the baseline JF-17 currently costs 15 million USD each, the LCA is projected to cost between 21-24 million USD each if all goes well.
 
Now, this disparity is still assuming that the LCA team overcomes the range of technical issues for IOC by 2012.  While the export varient of the JF-17 is already in IOC now.  I don't doubt indian engineers, but I do doubt the industrial base and funding agencies that supports those engineers.  2012 IOC is acheivable but the following set of the more serious issues must be solved first:
 
h!tp://www.indianexpress.com/story/16658.html
h!tp://indianaerodef.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/gtre-issues-rfps-for-kaveri-engines-for-lca-tejas-fighter-jets/
h!tp://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/lca/
 
 
1.  The integration issues of an imported radar to the aircraft needs to be resolved
2.  Domestic radar will not be ready by 2012
3.  Integration of a weapons suite needs to be resolved(dummy missile trials hardly counts)
4.  FBW issues needs to be resolved so that the aircraft prototypes can surpass the 5G turn limit in current trials 
5.  Ensuring a steady supply of engines(Kavari will not be ready, U.S suppliers are far from reliable in this area).
6.  85% components of LCA is imported from supplier nations, this needs to be reduced drastically.
7.  Indigenous airframe needs rework to increase the Fighter's operational lifespan.
 
 
As you can see, the LCA design team has some more ground to cover.  The JF-17 is better performing, and it's already on the market.  Now the LCA can be redesigned to have superior performing specs, but until re-design happens, the JF-17 is technically a superior fighter.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    to Blitz   5/24/2007 5:28:30 PM




Why is the T-96/99 better for the PLA than Arjun is for the IA?  It's simply a much better fit for our army's specific needs:



 



h!tp://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type99specifications.asp



h!tp://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type96.asp



 



Cost:  T-99 is 2 million USD each, T-96 is 1.4 million USD each ( Arjun is 4 million USD)



 



Logistics:  70% components of T-99 share with T-96.  T-99/96 weight compatible with bridges/road/rail across all of China.  100% domestic manufactured.  Can be built quickly (280 T-99s, ~2400 T-96s in 7 years).



 



Operating Environment:   Operates effectively in all environments ranging from Tundra to Sub-tropical.  Weight range is effective (43 to 54 tons) is most Eurasian combat environments.



 



Performance:  Comparable general performance to early 3rd generation(T-96)  and to mature 3rd generation(T-99) world class tanks.



 



The T-96/T-99 is an economical, domestic, and flexible family of tank with acceptable combat performance. Designed with the PLA's needs in mind.  The Arjun is an expensive, significantly non-domestic tank with a very heavy logistical footprint.  It will however have better than acceptable combat performance if all the bugs have been worked out.



 



Now, I'm not an armour expert by any means, but it strikes me that the following capabilities are good to have:



 



1. Large numbers of tanks



2. Average/adquate firepower and armour protection



3. Having the means of quickly transporting large numbers of the tank



4. Having enough spare parts/munitions for those tanks 



5. The tank must be able to fight in all terrain suitable for armoured warfare.



 



These are all very important design considerations for a tank.  It would make very little sense to compromise 1,3,4,5 to just enhance 2.  This is why the T-96/T-98 is better for the PLA. 



 



 



 



 



 




In that pack of lies is onwe exceedingly obvious glaring one. The Type 99 is as depenmdent on RUSSIAN support or more so, than the Arjun is on German technical help.

The PRCs could no more claim domestic tank production than they can claim to be able to design a TV set without considerable foreign technical help and outright theft.

 

Herald


Design does not equate to production.  I said very clearly 100% indigenous production of the tank(all subsystems and subcomponents).  Something that we have acheived with the T-99 and the T-96.  You argue that we had Russian help in the design of the tank, I say that is not the point of the disucssion.  The point is, we don't need to buy our entire engines or munitions from the Russians now do we?
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    to Herald   5/24/2007 5:32:13 PM
Bottom line:
 
If we were all cut off from Russian/European/Israeli imported parts/subsystems:
 
We can build complete T-99 and T-96s right now.
 
You Americans can build complete M1A2 Abrams right now.
 
India can build 1/5th of the Arjun right now.
 
It's cannot be made any clearer.
 
Quote    Reply

blitZ       5/25/2007 2:48:32 AM

LCA

General characteristics


Performance

Myth, in your exuberance you forgot the ferry range. LCA is also the only aircraft in the world which has a 95% of its surface area made from composites. Composites = lower RCS, lower weight. Lower weight = lower size = lower RCS.
It is also the smallest 4th gen fighter in the world = lower RCS. Did it ever occur to you that the LCA was specifically designed for this ? A B-52 will dwarf any JF-17 or J-10 in the specs that you have used, range, payload, ceiling. etc etc.
What matters is what the aircraft was designed for and its avionics and aerodynamic performance. The entire avionics package of the LCA is available in the public for comparison, but unfortunately, not much detail about the J-10 is available except what they will buy next from the Russians or the Israelis, which ofcourse gives our internet PLA warriors the ability to make any claims they want about their latest Death Star. An LCA will not only see the opposing J-10&JF-17 first, but also shoot first.

"The LCA is constructed of aluminium-lithium alloys, carbon-fibre composites (CFC), and titanium-alloy steels. The Tejas employs CFC materials for up to 45% of its airframe by weight, including in the fuselage (doors and skins), wings (skin, spars and ribs), elevons, tailfin, rudder, airbrakes and landing gear doors. Composites are used to make an aircraft both lighter and stronger at the same time compared to an all-metal design, and the LCA's percentage employment of CFCs is one of the highest among contemporary aircraft of its class.[30] Apart from making the plane much lighter, there are also fewer joints or rivets, which increases the aircraft's reliability and lowers its susceptibility to structural fatigue cracks."

India is miles ahead of China in composite fabrication tech.

LCA
  • Eight external stations: three hardpoints under each wing, one fuselage centreline hardpoint, and one station beneath the port-side intake trunk for a pod (FLIR, IRST, laser designator, or reconnaissance)."
Now can you please tell me how many hard points does a JF-17 have ? I really dont know.

We must remember that the J-10 and LCA were designed for differing roles. LCA's main role is an air defense fighter, while J-10s primary role is supposed to be a strike aircraft. But its quite evident that the LCA is over all a more technologically advanced piece of kit than a J-10 [i have deliberately not included the JF-17 in here, because its a 3rd gen aircraft]



 
Quote    Reply

blitZ       5/25/2007 3:10:23 AM
Myth, i just found out, JF-17 has 7 hardpoints. So you have been basically lying when you stated that the JF-17 has more hard points than the LCA. You also very skillfully omitted the Ferry range of the LCA and compared its 'combat radius' with the JF-17s 'ferry range'. So you are resorting to deception as a means to argue. Wow. Enlightening indeed.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy