Reports suggest the IAF has chosen the C-17 Globemaster III as its Very Heavy Transport Aircraft (VHTAC). It plans to order ten.
Shiv, They look like some presentation slides provided to you by boeing(or what ever company that makes c-17).Anyways what are the +ve points about c-17 over An-124. And what are the -ve ones??
wastage of money
india isn't buying c17 but our govt being forced to buy as payment of nuke dealindia could get nuke deal with russia,france instead of US,even pakis have nuke deal with franceamericans offering india those thing which are not even needed c17 will cost hefty 350 million a piecebut india never looked at S400 system,china spent 500 million in this and chinese will get better SAM in 500 million and we even after spending 2.5 billion in MRSAM still be doomed how many S400 SAM systems can be bought in the same amount of money going to be used in buying c17 making everyone's house safer just 2 S400 are capable of protecting entire north east/eastern provinces.F**K OFF ANTONY
Nothing wrong with the aircraft, but look at the infrastructure and runways that IAF and India has. The two outboard engines will be pulling in bits of plastic, grass and other junk at 95% of the airports.Buy the aircraft, but fix the airports first.
Shivcan we have some updates about Arjun, Kaveri and LCA? Whats the latest news?
Good move,1st time we are thinking about huge machine.
Eat it Russia bakhts!Expect more Boeings, LMs, EADS, IAI, Dassault, etc equipment in the Indian forces... And less and less of your precious Russian crapola.
no doubt that c17 is currently the most advance and versatile millitary cargo aircraft.Hope the indian army will have some luck in getting there hands on equally advance howitzer....
Finally American defence firms entering in a big way... Beware of delays in Tejas and other projects due to the sanctions by US...
why is that people have to abuse some person.if you think that u are capable in running the defence ministry pls do so. you can save us from the pakis.
something which was needed badly, especially to transport tanks in battlefield ready conditions
To anon @9.00 a.m. - I share your feelings regarding the Russia fans and the Russian crap. But we have to see both sides... what's the use of purchasing all the hi-tech Yankee stuff if we have to ask Uncle Sam's permission before using the stuff in war?Whereas in the case of the Russian crap we need no one's permission to use the stuff like we want to - heck, we can even use the MIGs to bomb the MIG plant! So we need to bargain hard with the yanks and not try to swallow all the burgers they try to shove down our throat no matter how big & tasty these might be.
I hope atleast now no one will cry that they can't transport MBT Arjun. They are ligter than american ones.
Eat it Russia bakhts!---------------------------------\u western a**hole u are shouting for LM,BOEING,IAI,EADS,dassualt all these going to arm pakis as well
our country can buy 6 c130j for 1.2 billion means 200 million per aircraft but can't buy an il78 for 80 million idiot air chief was shouting for il78 doesn't meet requirements
we can even use the MIGs to bomb the MIG plant!------------------------------be serious,even americans won't even dare to do this
Andrew you sucker take the s400 down your a**.
My my my, so much abuse and foul wording! A plane is being bought and all the so called "experts" have to let their emotions a free run. And then there are even real stupid comments like "what's the use of purchasing all the hi-tech Yankee stuff if we have to ask Uncle Sam's permission before using the stuff in war?" Really entertaining i must say.
is it possible to load two trucks side-by-side in C17 ? it may be possible theoretically....but on a practical note , i have apprehensions .....since I don't think the loading/unloading ramp is wide enough to allow two trucks to drive in/out simultaneously...In all my life I have only seen trucks loading in a single file to even very heavy lifters such as C-5...the only instance where i have seen simultaneous loading is onto an An-124.
is it possible to load two trucks side-by-side in C17 ?That depends on the type of trucks. The typical Actros, Scanias, Volvos in EU/NATO inventory yes. The खटारा "no-specification" Tata or Hinduja-Leyland assembled in a cowshed by desi bodybuilders, no.
You can load small trucks and Humvees in 2 rows side by side in the C-17's cargo hold.
Bobby this link differs from you..http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Excavators_in_a_C5.jpg
To the smartass Anon @5:39 p.m.: I was speaking figuratively, what I was trying to say that Russian military equipment doesn't come with 'End Use agreements', whereas U.S. equipment does.To the smartass Anon @11:52 p.m.: I guess you are related to the smart ass anon @5.39 p.m. that is why you too don't understand about 'End Use Agreement'. So do yourself a favour, go google 'End Use Agreement'.... you will find it "Really entertaining".
cost of taking trucks to siachen or kargil by air will cost too much that too only 2 trucks in one aircraft, so it will be better to drive trucks to these places and this would be much cheaper only food goes by air because it has to be freshmeaning cost of each flight to transport just 2 trucks to a place is much more than driving trucks to that place
cost of taking trucks to siachen or kargil by air will cost too much that too only 2 trucks in one aircraft, so it will be better to drive trucks to these places and this would be much cheaper what a half-baked and spineless comment ! pls go back to the madrassa for enlightenment
if loading of two trucks is possible simultanously then is unloading them possible in shortest duration of time? or do they have to resort to something like this everytime ?check out from 0:57 to 1:13http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok97aeTkLWo&feature=related
Sorry post it here But i found article and it not complete"In 2003 Pakistan Navy order F-22P Frigates order from China and there were comment like"China will be selling us four Jaingwei II (F-22p) Frigates and we can upgrade those ships as well."The Advantages,1. No need of buying costly ships.2. It will not too much money.3. F-22p ships armed with YJ-91 missiles and stealth technology will be able to counter any stealth ship and in this way we will be having four stealth ships in our fleet.And they are being given to Pakistani Navy but there no such upgrade .Today Pakistan Air Force is get JF-17 From China And there Talks about Subsequent modifications to the JF-17 design will be made, such as: * Greater use of composite materials in the airframe to decrease weight and increase thrust-to-weight ratio. * Internal Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) system, possibly the Type Hongguang-I Electro-optical Radar developed by Sichuan Changhong Electric Appliance Corporation (currently the IRST must be carried externally). * More powerful engine, potential options include the Chinese WS-13 Tianshan and Russian RD-93B turbofans, giving 10% greater thrust than the current RD-93. * Minor airframe modifications to reduce the aircraft's radar cross-section by adding stealthy features. And These Upgrade Are Yet to be seen both ship and aircraft.Pakistan Ship and aircraft can be bought from china but Upgrade is going happen for least 10 year . Which means India"
Having seen numerous pics of F-22p I am still trying to determine from which angle it is stealthy.JF-17 is still a third generation airframe. Future modifications, sure everything changes with time and so does threat.
Its a good aircraft , but india seems to be depending totally on USA , it may worse friendship with russia . To save our bases of three services india hardly needs S-400 SAM in massive , it is one of the best in world with 400 km range hitting target( it works against cruise , aircraft & ballistic missiles).
The 400km range inteceptor is basically an endo atmospheric ABM inteceptor used at much shorter ranges. 400km horizontal range against aircraft is only of marketing value. An aircraft fired upon from that range has all the time in the world to dive below radar coverage. It is made easier by the fact that radar coverage at 400km distance is above 33,000 feet(10km). Any aircraft diving below this altitude(this should be a cat walk) will become invisible to S400 ground based radars.
to anon at 11:38 PM The 400km range inteceptor is basically an endo atmospheric ABM inteceptor used at much shorter ranges-----------------------------------what are those ranges? and its pretty obvious that no radar has 400 km range for low level detection range 215NM,130NM range missiles with 40km altitude is basically to shoot incoming ballistic missiles,JSTARS,AEWACS,TANKERS,bombers not fightersand to deter low flying targets like fighters,PGM s400 has 40km short range missile agile missile,and other missile has 120km range with 30km altitude as medium range missile
JSTARS,AEWACS,TANKERS fly at 30,000-40,000 feet. They can easily duck below radar coverage to escape incoming missiles. This is why 400km range is useless because radar coverage at that distance is only above 33,000 feet. AEWACS and all aircraft under their coverage will have plenty of advanced warning when a mammoth 400km missile is fired against them.40km altitude and 400km range cannot be simultaniously achieved. Therefore when engaging BM at high altitude, range is limited to less than 100km.9M96 missile of S400 has 40g agility as against 80g of Barak 8 which uses pif-paf thrusters. It significantly increases the size of the frontal cone a supersonic Kh-31/41 must be approached from for interception. Barak 8 can therefore guard a much bigger area against supersonic threats.
9M96 missile of S400 has 40g agility as against 80g of Barak 8 ---------------------------------tell me that which ballistic missile,cruise missile or fighter aircraft ever cross 15 g.and you are saying that as if there will be no other source except ground based radar to know whether awacs,jstars are there or not so that 215NM missile can be firedand 215NM range missile is not only to shoot big aircraft but ballistic missiles as well while barak8 with 70 can go 20km altitude against 400km range with40 km altitude of s400 SAM and ballistic missiles fly much higher than 40000 feet and they are easily visible to s400 radar and 215NM range missile can be fired to engage those missiles or other thing may be that by using 215NM,130NM,120km range missiles with brak8 and MFSTAR radar will fill up the gap of not having long range SAM
To Anon@6:19 PM: Your ideas on SAM operations are half fried. How old are you?Anyways here we go...Take a piece of paper and try this. With a BM and ABM approching each other along a line, if the faster BM makes a 10g maneuver how many g the slower interseptor should pull to engage the BM? Now it the two are not approaching along a line then what is the maximum angle of approach interseptor can have to engage the missile? Does it require even more g? Just becaues the interseptor can see the incoming BM does not mean that it can be intersepted. The interseptor must approach its target from within a specified cone infront of the BM or supersonic cruise missile. S400 therefore cannot intercept a BM falling hunderds of km away because its too off angle.Barak 8 with its high agility increases the possible angle of approach against the target. Therefore it increases the size of the cone and accordingly the area defended when compared to 9M96 missile(smaller component of S400).As for the big S400 missile its better to have exo-atmospheric interseptor like THAAD, land based SM3 or Arrow 3. Its range is useless against aircraft and it can be only guided by its ground based fire control radar and not by any third party like AEW&C(in case you are wondering).
if the faster BM makes a 10g maneuver how many g the slower interseptor should pull to engage the BM? ----------------------------------tell me which BM ever crosses even 5Gsand aweacs can give contineous updated information to ground based radar or ground station for whole picture scenerio.
or probably russian claiming is fake according to you that s400 can engage BM which have range of 3500km
Post a Comment