On Nov 3, 3:24 am, Tiger > wrote:
> Industry sources say the Russian-built MiG-35 and MiG-29 aircraft and
> the Lockheed Martin F-16 and Boeing F-18 are front-runners.
>
> Also in the race to replace India's ageing MiG-21s are Eurofighter's
> Typhoon, Saab's Gripen and Dassault's Rafale and Mirage.

OK, it's a tie. Industry sources voted for the "proven" legacy
fighters from the first line, and internet voters favored the mostly
newfangled ones from second line. It's left to me to break the tie,
and I say to leapfrog a generation and go UCAV.

If "unmanned combat air vehicle" sounds too bleeding-edge, then go for
the MiG Skat which retains the option of a cockpit
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MIG082307.xml&headline=First%20Look%20At%20MiG%20Skat%20UCAV%20% 5BUpdated%5D&channel=null

If mainstream is desired (something that should be sort of a cousin to
Saab Gripen) go for the Dassault nEUROn http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/neuron/

But best of all may be the EADS Barracuda, which apparently doesn't
work due to software problems. India's strength in that area might
bring it back to life and furthermore conquer the problem of making a
drone effective in interception as well as strike or spy mode.
http://www.air-attack.com/page/75/Barracuda.html

* dumbstruck:

> OK, it's a tie. Industry sources voted for the "proven" legacy
> fighters from the first line, and internet voters favored the mostly
> newfangled ones from second line. It's left to me to break the tie,
> and I say to leapfrog a generation and go UCAV.

UCAV still can't fully replace manned aircrafts.

> If "unmanned combat air vehicle" sounds too bleeding-edge, then go
> for the MiG Skat which retains the option of a cockpit
> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MIG082307.xml&headline=First%20Look%20At%20MiG%20Skat%20UCAV%20% 5BUpdated%5D&channel=null

Settling on a project that even doesn't have reached the stage of a
flying prototype probably isn't a good idea.

Besides the fact that this means being fully dependent on Russian politics.

> If mainstream is desired (something that should be sort of a cousin
> to Saab Gripen) go for the Dassault nEUROn
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/neuron/

Did you even *read* the text?

"Neuron is the European Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator
for the development, integration and validation of UCAV technologies and
is not for military operational deployment."

> But best of all may be the EADS Barracuda, which apparently doesn't
> work due to software problems.

Nope. EADS Barracuda doesn't work because they sunk the thing into the
Sea. Barracuda llike Neuron also was a demonstrator and not a finished
product ready for prime time. The next EADS UCAV demonstrator project is
already in the planning stage but will be a multinational project with
France and Italy. If this project doesn't get dropped it will probably
take 5+ years until we see some results and probably a decade until
production.

Then it's probably better to wait for results from the BAE Taranis UCAV
program.

> India's strength in that area might
> bring it back to life and furthermore conquer the problem of making a
> drone effective in interception as well as strike or spy mode.
> http://www.air-attack.com/page/75/Barracuda.html

This won't happen for obvious reasons.

Benjamin

On Nov 8, 7:26 am, Benjamin Gawert > wrote:
> * dumbstruck:
>
> > OK, it's a tie. Industry sources voted for the "proven" legacy
> > fighters from the first line, and internet voters favored the mostly
> > newfangled ones from second line. It's left to me to break the tie,
> > and I say to leapfrog a generation and go UCAV.
>
> UCAV still can't fully replace manned aircrafts.
>
> > If "unmanned combat air vehicle" sounds too bleeding-edge, then go
> > for the MiG Skat which retains the option of a cockpit
> >http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/MIG082307.xm...
>
> Settling on a project that even doesn't have reached the stage of a
> flying prototype probably isn't a good idea.
>
> Besides the fact that this means being fully dependent on Russian politics.

You are still in denial of the original article, which was the serious
part of my post. Maybe you are right or maybe wrong. However, how
about some engagement on why your pronouncements of good vs less good
candidates were the EXACT REVERSE of the sources in article?!

I have a minor anecdote about the India/Russia engagement. Long ago we
had hosts in India who seemed euphoric to be taken off of "Russian
duty" (escorting/schmoozing); they seemed to honestly think that
Russian culture as epitomized by (MiG?) visitors was less bearable by
Indians than visitors of other western cultures. They had little
reason to flatter us, and anyway both of us had taken the trouble to
learn the Russian languange. By their particular complaints about
visiting wives, I would guess the Swedish and thus SAAB might have an
edge :) . And happiness of bureacracy can trump Indian national
interests; they appear ready to give up the US nuclear deal in order
to preserve a few months of perks according to
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10026472

But I wouldn't stick my neck out to say Russia was out. You HAVE, in
spite of the article calling it a frontrunner. Has Russia yanked India
around... during it's long history with MiG so far?

> > If mainstream is desired (something that should be sort of a cousin
> > to Saab Gripen) go for the Dassault nEUROn
> >http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/neuron/
>
> Did you even *read* the text?
>
> "Neuron is the European Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator
> for the development, integration and validation of UCAV technologies and
> is not for military operational deployment."

Why be so harshly literal? There are many examples of rapid
advancement from a demonstrator to something productive when
motivated. Think WW2 or Pakistan as a motivator. Think of P-80 being
developed in 90 days. Think of the Indian telephone system leaping
from 1930's era landline to 21st century cell phones overnight. And
don't be so tone deaf to slight tongue in cheek - the original post in
this thread sat idle for almost 2 days until I provoked it a bit (and
fixed a typo in the distribution options).

> > But best of all may be the EADS Barracuda, which apparently doesn't
> > work due to software problems.
>
> Nope. EADS Barracuda doesn't work because they sunk the thing into the
> Sea.

BECAUSE OF SOFTWARE PROBLEMS! Indians have a proven track record for
excellance in software, and might more than "fix" bugs but in time
bring things to unexpected heights of capability.

sez http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/2786/EADS-to-give-nod-for-replacement-Barracuda-UCAV.html
:

''The first Barracuda demonstrator had been planned for use as a major
trials asset in the Agile programme, but was lost on its second test
flight in September 2006 because of software errors.

The proposed Barracuda II would be identical to the first
demonstrator, says Dr Peter Becher, vice-president autonomous airborne
systems for EADS Defence & Security. "We will rebuild. It will be the
same configuration as the Barracuda I," he says''

* dumbstruck:

> You are still in denial of the original article,

You mean the article linked by the OP?

> which was the serious
> part of my post. Maybe you are right or maybe wrong. However, how
> about some engagement on why your pronouncements of good vs less good
> candidates were the EXACT REVERSE of the sources in article?!

I don't know and honestly I also don't really care. Yahoo News isn't
known to be always right, and the article sound very much like a press
release from LMCO. As to the statements that are contrary to mine: well,
I don't know Yahoo's nameless "industry sources", but after almost two
decades working in the fighter business I take freedom to draw my own
conclusions instead of relying on some news articles.

> I have a minor anecdote about the India/Russia engagement. Long ago we
> had hosts in India who seemed euphoric to be taken off of "Russian
> duty" (escorting/schmoozing); they seemed to honestly think that
> Russian culture as epitomized by (MiG?) visitors was less bearable by
> Indians than visitors of other western cultures.

Sounds familiar to me ;-)

> They had little
> reason to flatter us, and anyway both of us had taken the trouble to
> learn the Russian languange. By their particular complaints about
> visiting wives, I would guess the Swedish and thus SAAB might have an
> edge :) . And happiness of bureacracy can trump Indian national
> interests; they appear ready to give up the US nuclear deal in order
> to preserve a few months of perks according to
> http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10026472

Don't underestimate political independence from "superpowers" like
Russia and the US.

> But I wouldn't stick my neck out to say Russia was out. You HAVE, in
> spite of the article calling it a frontrunner. Has Russia yanked India
> around... during it's long history with MiG so far?

Well, times changed a bit since India bought their MiG-21s from Russia.
India isn't the 3rd world like country it has been regarded then
anymore. There is money, and there is increasing activity in the high
tech market. India now can afford to stay independent of Russia, and it
very likely will think twice if it replaces Russian dependency with US
dependency.

>>> If mainstream is desired (something that should be sort of a cousin
>>> to Saab Gripen) go for the Dassault nEUROn
>>> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/neuron/
>> Did you even *read* the text?
>>
>> "Neuron is the European Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator
>> for the development, integration and validation of UCAV technologies and
>> is not for military operational deployment."
>
> Why be so harshly literal?

Simply because it's a fact. Neuron is just a demonstrator and nothing
else. Results out of the Neuron program will probably lead to a
sales-ready product some time. Neuron definitely will never be a
sales-ready product.

> There are many examples of rapid
> advancement from a demonstrator to something productive when
> motivated. Think WW2 or Pakistan as a motivator. Think of P-80 being
> developed in 90 days. Think of the Indian telephone system leaping
> from 1930's era landline to 21st century cell phones overnight.

I prefer to think about how development cycles for military equipment
are working today and stay with the facts, thanks.

>>> But best of all may be the EADS Barracuda, which apparently doesn't
>>> work due to software problems.
>> Nope. EADS Barracuda doesn't work because they sunk the thing into the
>> Sea.
>
> BECAUSE OF SOFTWARE PROBLEMS!

Nope. Software was only one part of the problem.

> Indians have a proven track record for
> excellance in software, and might more than "fix" bugs but in time
> bring things to unexpected heights of capability.

Yeah, right. If they can fix a bug in some VisualBasic program than they
can easily fix software problems in a UAV demonstrator aircraft ;-)

Hint: it requires much more than just "excellance in software" to get
mission-critical flight operation software ready for prime time.

Besides the fact that there is much more to fix than software, and even
if it gets fixed India would end up with a UAV demonstrator aircraft
that still isn't useable as a combat-ready system.

> sez http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/2786/EADS-to-give-nod-for-replacement-Barracuda-UCAV.html
> :
>
> ''The first Barracuda demonstrator had been planned for use as a major
> trials asset in the Agile programme, but was lost on its second test
> flight in September 2006 because of software errors.
>
> The proposed Barracuda II would be identical to the first
> demonstrator, says Dr Peter Becher, vice-president autonomous airborne
> systems for EADS Defence & Security. "We will rebuild. It will be the
> same configuration as the Barracuda I," he says''

As I said I don't care what some articles say. But I know that it is
very unlikely that the Barracuda program will be revived any more,
especially with the very limited foundings not only of EADS but also of
the GAF, and also because another totally different multinational UAV
demonstrator program is in the works already.

Benjamin