Never-seen battle in Indian skies (Mig-35 vs Super Hornet)

**1947** · 14 May 08,, 10:58

Originally Posted by Knaur Amarsh

Duh,they are the ones in power!

win over their support base
sure they are powerful but once they do get out of power denying the commies the right to be an active political party will help indain democracy and on the plus side will give commies a taste of their own medicine

**Knaur Amarsh** · 14 May 08,, 11:07

Originally Posted by 1947

win over their support base
sure they are powerful but once they do get out of power denying the commies the right to be an active political party will help indain democracy and on the plus side will give commies a taste of their own medicine

If you would have read about the on-going spat between the CRPF DIG and the commie MP,you'd know that winning over the support base is immaterial.It doesn't matter who the voters want elected,they will have to vote for the commies,they simply DO NOT have the choice to vote for anyone else,the Red will certainly win the elections,by hook or by crook

**Tronic** · 14 May 08,, 22:22

Originally Posted by gamercube

There is a need to conduct nuclear tests if we want to have a credible nuclear deterrent. It has been stated time and again that our nuclear deterrent at the moment has not reached a level of sophistication comparable to the N-5. To have a credible deterrent, our draft nuclear policy calls for a triad of air, land, and submarine based systems. Now these systems are practical only if we manage to reduce the size and improve the yield of our nuclear warheads. Even for MIRV use, our warheads need to be reduced in size.

Unless we test, all these technologies that are dependent on the quality of our warheads will count for little. At the same time, if we are denied spares for 200 planes because of nuclear tests, it will be a disaster.

If we test a nuclear bomb; not getting the 200 planes will not be the disaster. Economic sanctions will be the disaster! That is why, the nukes will not be tested in the near future. Growing economically and feeding the impoverished child is far more important then conducting a nuke test. And no, there is no need to conduct nuke tests to build a nuclear triad; which India is already doing right now. Merely having a nuclear deterrent is a huge thing itself. Secondly, India has all its potential enemies adequately checked; what makes you think that China will risk an Indian nuke landing in Shangai or Beijing? Testing a nuke right now will put the brakes on the country's progress; something which the Indian communists desire to do (they benefit from keeping the people poor; as that is where their votebank and power lies; among the poor).

**kuku** · 15 May 08,, 06:10

The Super hornet is a carrier based plane made to withstand the harsh conditions at sea and of taking off with a controlled explosion and landing with a controlled crash.

Does it have too much weight that is really not required for a land based platform, or does all of this provide a Air Force with a solid platform that will last longer while based on land?

How much is super agility and planes that take sharp turns at high speeds a factor with AFs in a age of missile that state their ranges in 60-100 kms and have equally agile missile that use helmet mounter displays?

**sohamsri** · 15 May 08,, 14:14

Originally Posted by Tronic

If we test a nuclear bomb; not getting the 200 planes will not be the disaster. Economic sanctions will be the disaster! That is why, the nukes will not be tested in the near future. Growing economically and feeding the impoverished child is far more important then conducting a nuke test. And no, there is no need to conduct nuke tests to build a nuclear triad; which India is already doing right now. Merely having a nuclear deterrent is a huge thing itself. Secondly, India has all its potential enemies adequately checked; what makes you think that China will risk an Indian nuke landing in Shangai or Beijing? Testing a nuke right now will put the brakes on the country's progress; something which the Indian communists desire to do (they benefit from keeping the people poor; as that is where their votebank and power lies; among the poor).

just for increasing my knowledge...... which nuclear triad do you refer to ??

**sohamsri** · 15 May 08,, 14:15

is the gripen carrier capable ??

which all are carrier capable ? i know rafale and super hornet are. Any other one ?

**Tronic** · 16 May 08,, 01:00

Originally Posted by sohamsri

just for increasing my knowledge...... which nuclear triad do you refer to ??

land launched nukes (Agni and Prithvi series of missiles), air launched nukes (Mirages, Mig-27s and Jaguars??), and sea launched nukes (ATV project).

**BenRoethig** · 16 May 08,, 02:29

Originally Posted by sohamsri

is the gripen carrier capable ??

which all are carrier capable ? i know rafale and super hornet are. Any other one ?

Carrier as it stands is not carrier capable, but it is strengthened for use on unprepared airstrips. A carrier capable version would be easier to produce than most land based aircraft. That being said, the only real potential customers would be spain, Brazil, and Argentina and none of them are in any position to fund such an aircraft. As for Rafale, only the Rafale-M is carrier capable.

**sohamsri** · 16 May 08,, 08:58

Originally Posted by Tronic

land launched nukes (Agni and Prithvi series of missiles), air launched nukes (Mirages, Mig-27s and Jaguars??), and sea launched nukes (ATV project).

oh....that way. thank you.

**Doomarias** · 16 May 08,, 14:53

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Carrier as it stands is not carrier capable, but it is strengthened for use on unprepared airstrips. A carrier capable version would be easier to produce than most land based aircraft. That being said, the only real potential customers would be spain, Brazil, and Argentina and none of them are in any position to fund such an aircraft. As for Rafale, only the Rafale-M is carrier capable.

Why would a carrier based be easier to produce, do you mean the deals available to India or just in general.

**BenRoethig** · 16 May 08,, 22:51

The Gripen is already strengthened to operate from unprepared runways. It also has larger flaps to help it operate from runways under 800m. These techniques are similar to those used by carrier aircraft. The airframe and landing gear would require additional strengthening, but it wouldn't be near as extensive or add as much weight as normal land based aircraft.

**BD1** · 17 May 08,, 07:39

Interestingly, pilots using the Gripen flight simulators have performed simulated carrier landings, without an arresting hook; it seems a bit unlikely that this will ever be done in practice, though no doubt some Gripen pilots would give it a shot if they got the chance.
The SAAB JAS 39 Gripen
wow..

**Maxor** · 17 May 08,, 14:28

Not that its really relevant for anything but U-2's have taken off and landed on carriers in testing and practice. Just because its thoretically possible in a tight near emergancy situation doesn't mean its really a good idea. With some aircraft the issue of landing is less of a problem than getting it back off the deck again. The f-15 and f-16 as well as some other older USAF fighters also have tailhooks, they aren't really carrier capable though since the landing gear and plane airframe can't really stand up to the sudden stop as well as the navalized planes can (Its used for engine testing and emergancy landing on land you could probably get a carrier landing or two out of them without really damaging the plane but its strongly not recommended sorta like turning on your car and taking it immedately to redline or overclocking your computer significantly).

You are looking at about 15% extra structural bulk frame wise over a non-carrier capable airplane with everything else being equal. The land version of the hornet was actually almost 30% lighter but that was also a fairly extensive redesign including changing the fuel system signifcantly. It makes for an interesting question about how much weight could be easily saved by making a land only version for export, and how that would effect cost/handeling. I think it would have to be something of a half measure because it simply wouldn't be worth retooling the entire airframe but lightening the landing gear and chaning the tailhook to the lighter AF version might be worth it and be doable cheaply.

**sohamsri** · 19 May 08,, 12:01

Originally Posted by Maxor

Not that its really relevant for anything but U-2's have taken off and landed on carriers in testing and practice. Just because its thoretically possible in a tight near emergancy situation doesn't mean its really a good idea. With some aircraft the issue of landing is less of a problem than getting it back off the deck again. The f-15 and f-16 as well as some other older USAF fighters also have tailhooks, they aren't really carrier capable though since the landing gear and plane airframe can't really stand up to the sudden stop as well as the navalized planes can (Its used for engine testing and emergancy landing on land you could probably get a carrier landing or two out of them without really damaging the plane but its strongly not recommended sorta like turning on your car and taking it immedately to redline or overclocking your computer significantly).

You are looking at about 15% extra structural bulk frame wise over a non-carrier capable airplane with everything else being equal. The land version of the hornet was actually almost 30% lighter but that was also a fairly extensive redesign including changing the fuel system signifcantly. It makes for an interesting question about how much weight could be easily saved by making a land only version for export, and how that would effect cost/handeling. I think it would have to be something of a half measure because it simply wouldn't be worth retooling the entire airframe but lightening the landing gear and chaning the tailhook to the lighter AF version might be worth it and be doable cheaply.

Thank you for the information sir.

Does that mean that India is getting the non-navalized version of the super hornet ?

**Maxor** · 19 May 08,, 14:06

No they will not be getting non navalized superhornet. There is no non-navalized version of the superhornet just the base hornet (really two different planes with a superficial structural resemblence and some electronics in common) and the non-navalized version never really entered production just had prototypes built by one the junior partner in the design of the hornet program. If India asks and would be putting in a large order they could probably get a varrient with signficant lightening of the really heavy navalized parts (wing folding and landing gear tailhook) though the airframe would be the same. Thats probably fairly unlikely.

KuKu What controlled explosion on take-off? A jet engine isn't really a controlled explosion and you have that in all modern fighters weather land or carrier based. A steam pistion catapault is not in anyway an explosion. I want to find out where this explsion is?

Most carrier landings aren't really that damaging/ hard on aircraft either, there is just alot of force being suddenly allipied in unusual directions for an airplane so that the airframe needs to be stronger to do it repeatedly without problems.

Personal feeling is that the indians should probably get the Grippen. The only reason I can see for prefering the S-Hornet would be if the russians ever manage to actually deliver on that carrier that is on order (I wish you all well on that).

On the politics side of things I had no idea you guys were that divisive on your politics wow I might actually have to look at indian politics sometime.