+Typhoid 231 Posted August 30, 2007 Should probably adjust the air units in SF/WOE campaigns to reflect that. More squadrons, lower chance of each showing up. but with random availablity. Sometimes, more of them would show up. One of the key indicators for us was their 48 hour standdown. Then all $#@% would break loose. So with their advanced planning they could surge for a short time. Hard to replicate that variability in SF/WOE. We still see that today when they deploy to a forward base and standdown for 48 hours before they fly the exercise or operation they had planned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nicholas Bell 117 Posted August 30, 2007 Should probably adjust the air units in SF/WOE campaigns to reflect that. More squadrons, lower chance of each showing up. Pretty sure that the lower supply level squadrons are assigned in the campaigndata file to Soviet squadrons ensures a lower availability rate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gocad 26 Posted August 30, 2007 (edited) as a case study - the Luftwaffe inherited a rather large supply of Migs and Su's. They could not afford to operate them because they cost so much more per flight hour than the other aircraft they had. So they kept just a handful for opposition training and junked the rest. Hmm, not quite. The Luftwaffe had simply no need for the MiG-21s and Su-22 of the former East German airforce. The only aircraft that were taken over into regular service were the few MiG-29s that had been delivered to East Germany in the late 1980s. Edited August 30, 2007 by Gocad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 30, 2007 Hmm, not quite. The Luftwaffe had simply no need for the MiG-21s and Su-22 of the former East German airforce. The only aircraft that were taken over into regular service were the few MiG-29s that had been delivered to East Germany in the late 1980s. my point was that they only kept one squadron in operation because of the high cost of maintaining them and their low availabilty compared to the western aircraft they also have. (My ref for that was a direct quote by the Luftwaffe commander on a tour of Cheyenne Mountain some years ago.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted August 30, 2007 Wasn't there an African nation that bought something like like 10 or so Mig-29s recently, sometime around 2001 (I'm pretty sure it may have been Sudan or Eritrea), to use in a war against their neighbours but found almost immediately how labour intensive maintenance they were and were only able to keep a couple flight worthy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 31, 2007 Wasn't there an African nation that bought something like like 10 or so Mig-29s recently, sometime around 2001 (I'm pretty sure it may have been Sudan or Eritrea), to use in a war against their neighbours but found almost immediately how labour intensive maintenance they were and were only able to keep a couple flight worthy. yup. I recall that too but I don't remember which country fell for that particular sales pitch. :yes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 31, 2007 Eritrea and Ethiopia both got Russian fighters. One got Fulcrums and the other Flankers, but I don't know offhand which got which. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Redddevil911 0 Posted August 31, 2007 I can't pick a clear winner but i bet it comes down to the Euro and the MIG 35! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ghostrider883 526 Posted September 1, 2007 hard choise... :|kinda confusing you call the Indian Air Force as IAF... usually means Israeli Air Force :) true, but both nations have a common enemy..a neighbouring Islamic nation hell bent on destruction of our countries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ghostrider883 526 Posted September 1, 2007 The contract going to a US comapny(Boeing/LM) depends a lot upon the Indo-US nuclear deal. The Indian government is facing a lot of flack from the Indian Commie parties and the opposition over the deal. I would like to see the contract being split between the MiG-35 and Rafale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ghostrider883 526 Posted September 1, 2007 (edited) The IAF has always been the IAF as far as I remember...since before Israel had one. India's Air Force has been known as the IAF since 1932. The Force was bestowed with the prefix "Royal" after IAF's contribution in the Burma campaign and was known as the Royal Indian Air Force uptil 1950 . Not sure If the US will agree for complete ToT for the F-16 or F-18. Who knows what sort of sanctions they might impose later. After India's nuclar tests in 1998, US sanctions forced a large number of Indian Navy Sea King helicopters and some Sea Harriers to be grounded. The Russians have done complete ToT and license production in the past and the French will willing to do so in the 80s when the Mirage 2000 was selected by the IAF to counter PAF F-16s. I wouldn't be surprised if the MiG-35 is selected with the Israeli EL/M-2052 AESA radar. It is rumoured that the first batch of India's home grown LCA will be fitted with Israeli Radars. With new MiG-29Ks due to arrive in India later this year, a comprehensive Upgrade for IAF's MiG-29s and Russia's flexibility with the MiG-35 productions, I would say MiG has a great chance of winning this contract , or atleast a part of it. The French too have proposed to upgrade India's Mirage 2000 to 2000-5 standards at favourable terms. Edited September 1, 2007 by ghostrider883 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted September 1, 2007 Without meaning to sound anti-US, but in regards to India, and speaking historically, Russian and France have been much more reliable when it's come to arms deals and tech transfers with India. Plus considering the speculative price of the Typhoon, I'm thinking India would want a next generation fighter if they're going to hand over that amount of cash! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUFF 8 Posted September 1, 2007 You can bet that the French will be doing everything possible to get this - iirc they haven't a single export customer for Rafale yet & that in itself makes it harder to get any. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ghostrider883 526 Posted September 2, 2007 You can bet that the French will be doing everything possible to get this - iirc they haven't a single export customer for Rafale yet & that in itself makes it harder to get any. Yeah, considering that India was the first export customer of the Mirage 2000 and eventually many nations ordered the Mirage 2000. The Su-30's success with the IAF also prompted many nations to order the Su-30 ina configuration similar to the MKI's. The French will be hoping for something similar to happen with the Rafale. When the IAF first floated the idea of acquiring new fighters to replace the MiG-21s and 23s, IAF pilots showed a clear and specific preference for the Mirage 2000. Meanwhile interesting news coming in.... India begins talk with Russia for 2nd nuclear submarine According to this,it is confirmed that a Akula class submarine is being built for the Indian Navy. Still no news of three Tu-22M3 bombers that were supposed to have been leased to the Indian Navy "soon". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted September 25, 2007 Any aircraft as long as it's not the F-16 or the Super Hornet will be a good choice, personally would love to see Gripen but who know's what will be the outcome of this fiasco. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted September 25, 2007 Any aircraft as long as it's not the F-16 or the Super Hornet will be a good choice, personally would love to see Gripen but who know's what will be the outcome of this fiasco. why is it a fiasco? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ghostrider883 526 Posted September 26, 2007 why is it a fiasco? Its turning out to be a fiasco because its been been more than eight years since the IAF notified the government about the urgent requirement of 126 jets to replace the ageing fleet of MiGs. The BJP government at that time assured the IAF that as soon as they get elected in the next elections, they would order 126 Mirage 2000s from France. But in the elections, they lost, new government came in and the whole "dance" began. It won't be until 2012-13 till the new jets arrive, whichever jet is selected. The govt seems least bothered, the country's air defence can be shot to hell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mannie 21 Posted September 26, 2007 The govt seems least bothered, the country's air defence can be shot to hell. Hey Ghost. Arn't you geting a little paranoic? The way I see it, war is not somthing that should bother you in the near future. And in any case, 2012 is not so far. About the same time that Israel will get the first shipment of F-35 lightning. (JSF) Cheers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted September 26, 2007 And in any case, 2012 is not so far.About the same time that Israel will get the first shipment of F-35 lightning. (JSF) Cheers. I thought you guys got the boot from the JSF program?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ghostrider883 526 Posted September 26, 2007 (edited) Hey Ghost.Arn't you geting a little paranoic? The way I see it, war is not somthing that should bother you in the near future. Cheers. Not really. In 2002, after the attack on the Indian parliament, the centre-piece of our freedom and democracy, by Pak terrorists, we almost went to war with Pakistan. Army division were moved close to the border. Fighters moved to forward air bases.Navy was put on alert and the whole operation was named "Operation Parakram". Pakistan did the same. It was almost like 1971 war situation. Sadly, we did not go to war with Pakistan as i felt that we had a valid reason to strike them and avenge the loss of lives of so many fine young men of the Army & Air Force during the Kargil War. IF war would have taken place, it would have meant the debut of the Su-30 in a full scale war. The No. 24 Sqdn flying Su-30K/MKs was put on standby as well. The point is the MiG-21, 23s and to some extent 27s are outdated in today's threat environment and these fighters form the backbone of the IAF. The loss of the MiG-21 and MiG-27 in the 1999 Indo-Pak Kargil War back this up. The MiG-21 pilot lost his life after being executed by Pakis on the ground sadly. The MiG-29s, Mirage 2000s and Su-30s form a small part of the IAF fleet. The fact that Pakistan is modernising rapidly by acquiring 55+ F-16s from the US and 100+ JF-17s from China should give IAF reasons to worry. Bulk of Air Defence is still being perfomed by MiG-21s Hey, Mannie, do you know about this? Acc. to Pakistanis and some Indian sources, Israel had requested refuelling and landing permission for its F-16s in India after a planned strike on the Kahuta Nuclear Plant in Pakistan in the 1980s. Edited September 26, 2007 by ghostrider883 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mannie 21 Posted September 26, 2007 (edited) Hi again Ghostster. About the last part, well I don't know anything about it. worth looking into. About the first part, well I knew about it, but since the invasion of the US to afganistan, I think that the US would not let another fire start in the region, taking into consideration the good relation thay have with the pakistan president Musharef. Hi SayWhat. Well I guess nobody gives us the boot. Just for one, The JSF doesn't have a HUD for one reason. The Israeli/American HMD. Cheers guys. Edited September 26, 2007 by MannieB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted September 26, 2007 I'm positive I had a G.I. Joe that looked like this! The story I remember (and it's vague) had to do with the US continuing to foster the Mid-East Peace Plan back in 2004 and had something to do with the high casualties from Israeli retaliatory strikes or something along those lines. I don't want to get into the politics between Israel and it's neighbours but was a sanction from the US. I don't know, it might have been at a delicate time in the MEPP negotiations or something. There was definitely an article in Air Forces Monthly about it. Does anyone know about this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mannie 21 Posted September 26, 2007 I'm positive I had a G.I. Joe that looked like this! The story I remember (and it's vague) had to do with the US continuing to foster the Mid-East Peace Plan back in 2004 and had something to do with the high casualties from Israeli retaliatory strikes or something along those lines. I don't want to get into the politics between Israel and it's neighbours but was a sanction from the US. I don't know, it might have been at a delicate time in the MEPP negotiations or something. There was definitely an article in Air Forces Monthly about it. Does anyone know about this? One thing I can say about this SayWhat. Don't believe everything you hear on the media. There are things you don't know of until its too late for them to be changed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ghostrider883 526 Posted September 26, 2007 Hi again Ghostster. About the last part, well I don't know anything about it. worth looking into. About the first part, well I knew about it, but since the invasion of the US to afganistan, I think that the US would not let another fire start in the region, taking into consideration the good relation thay have with the pakistan president Musharef. Cheers guys. The Pakis may be good friends of the US but still US can't influence Pakistan's decision of going to war against India. In the 1965 and 71 war, Paki dictator generals were good friends of the US, yet the US wasn't able to do anything when Pakis crossed the border and attacked Indian land and airbases. So if Musharraf gets up on the wrong side of the bed and decides to attack India either covertly or openly, the US will not be able to anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mannie 21 Posted September 26, 2007 (edited) Well there's nothing much that I can say about it except hope for good. Kashmir as a place worth writing songs about, not fighting wars. [ Led Zeppelin / Kashmir (one of my all time favorites)] Back to the topic itself. A wild guess? Mig 35. Edited September 26, 2007 by MannieB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
