'For heaven's sake, don't buy Russian MiG-35'

For heaven's sake, ultimately whichever aircraft you finally choose, please, please do not buy the Russian MiG-35 is the plea from strategic affairs expert Ashley Tellis to the government of India with regard to the $11 billion deal for 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft that the European, Russian and American manufacturers are vying for.

Both in his report released recently titled 'Dogfight! India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft Decision,' and during the interaction that followed its release, Tellis -- Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace -- pilloried the Russian aircraft saying it was the "weakest of the contenders".

"It does not have the sensor suites that the Indian Air Force would like to see," he said, adding, "It brings no new weapons to the game from an Indian Air Force point of view."

While acknowledging that 'it is a decent airplane, where the aerodynamic effectiveness is concerned', Tellis argued, 'there are no order of magnitude improvements and its mission performance in terms of readiness, maintenance, traditionally has been horrible.'

"And, I am not sure that the Russians have figured out how to build a machine that is really efficient in terms of spending more time in the air rather than spending more time in maintenance," he said.

Thus, Tellis predicted confidently that "the Indian Air Force is unlikely to think of the MiG-35 as essentially the answer to its problems."

In his report, the erstwhile Bush Administration official, who is well plugged in to both the Obama administration and the Manmohan Singh government, noted that the IAF had told him that the MiG-29 like its predecessor the MiG-21, "though a forgiving airplane, has poor handling qualities and terrible cockpit ergonomics."

Thus Tellis argued that "whether the new engines and digital engines controls on the MiG-35 will liberate it from the angle of attack limitations that handicapped the older platform remains to be seen, but the IAF appears less-than-enthusiastic about the MiG-35 for many reasons, not least of which is its lack of 'break the mold' capabilities the service wants for its MMRCA acquisition."

Tellis wrote that the MiG-35 does not bring any new advanced armament to the table either.

Prev Next Tellis pointed out that 'all weapons that it carries are already in the IAF's arsenal. Not only do they not represent the increased potency that the IAF seeks through its MMRCA acquisition, some weapons are not even compliant with the Indian Request for Proposals. Moreover, they are also now challenged by many newer systems available in the West on offer with the MiG-35 competitors."

"The biggest problem characterising the MiG-35 as a MMRCA entrant is that it is still an airplane in development," and had not yet even "been purchased by the Russian Air Force. Thus, it violates yet another stipulation of the Request for Proposals -- that the aircraft be in the operational employ of the producer country's air force," Tellis added.

He predicted that "since Russia is desperate to secure the MMRCA contract in order to protect its hitherto dominant position as India's principal supplier of combat aircraft and to sustain its domestic aviation industry, it is certain that Moscow will offer New Delhi a more generous technology transfer package for the Mig-35 in comparison to its competitors."

Tellis argued that "a more generous package, however, does not mean it is a generous package all told: although Indian commentators routinely assert that Russia is committed to 'complete' technology transfer, these claims are suspect, if the Russian record in regard to past licensed production in India is any indication."

"Perhaps the ultimate detraction from the MiG-35's allure is that it provides no particular political advantages for India," Tellis said, and pointed out, "New Delhi is already a significant buyer of Russian aviation products. Russian-Indian military ties are almost entirely commercial anyway."

Thus, according to Tellis, "the purchase of one more Russian airplane is unlikely to advance India's goal of investing in transformative political relationships in any serious way. Consequently, even if all the technical shortcomings of the MiG-35 are overlooked, the political benefits of this buy for India are minimal."

I cna try and answer (although it would be best to ask a person like Sukhoi30MKI, who knows more since it is his nation, to respond). Looking at past wars between India and Pakistan and India and China, a lot of ground has literally been won/lost based on the ability of one country to ingress vs the capability of the other country to defend territory with some measure of efficiency/efficacy. Looking at the most recent - Kargil (which was fought on very high, and difficult, terrain) - the Pakistani armed forces (buttressed by Jihadi elements) moved across the boundary and took over several key (and advantageous) positions on the Indian side. It was tactically brilliant, because they pulled off the surprised ingress (I believe it was some villager or herder who told the Indians there were some 'interesting' chaps mucking about), as well as having taken the high ground ...but it was strategically foolish because it appears the Pakistanis hadn't thought much of what they would do once they took positions (they obviously thought they could force the Indians to negotiate, and they knew it would be hard for the Indians to retaliate, particularly before the snows started coming, but I do not think they had calculated for a massive Indian response). To cut a long story short, the Indians retaliated, there was all sorts of political and media influence (including Pakistan running to Clinton for help and getting rebuffed - as well as the Civilian leadership in Pakistan claiming that they didn't know what the military was up to - plus some rumors of Pakistan threatening to use tactical nukes as the war progressively went against them) ...but the point I want to bring out was the use of Indian MiG-21s and Mirage-2000s against the dug-in Pakistani forces. Without them, it is quite possible that the Pakistani forces would have been able to hold (they had the high ground after all, and it is quite the inhospitable place), and India may have been forced to the negotiating table ....or .....that the war would have become a major conflict with Indian hitting back against Pakistan proper, and the Pakistanis doing something stupid. Thus, the ability of MiGs and Mirages to effectively strike at the high altitude dug-in positions quite literally averted either the loss of Indian territory, or a major war.

Thus, while a Typhoon may not stop one lone nut with a nuclear weapon, it will give far greater capability than that which the Indians used at Kargil, which would make 'good allies' like the Pakistanis think twice or thrice before acting the fool. As for China, while it is true they can throw at India many older version planes to soak up defenses, and then move in with their fewer advanced planes, it would not be prudent for them. India may not win that war, but neither would China. Also, China would have to find a different way of having a fast growing economy after that. However, if all India was armed with is 'cheap Indian viagra,' then the Chinese wouldn't have as much to be concerned about, and they may decide to go after some of that territory that is still disputed between those two countries.

A crude example is you with your Mossberg ...if 9 thugs armed with Kalashnikovs decide to pay you a friendly visit, there is literally not much you would be able to do with that single shotgun. However, if those thugs know you have the gun (even if instead of the shotty it is a small revolver), they will think it more prudent to go down the street to the old lady who only has a walking cane and good intentions.

Now, imagine if instead of a revolver or a shotgun, those 9 AK-47 wielding thugs have to contend with 6 G-36 totting guards (6 guards vs 9 thugs to try and portray an India-China scenario) ....if the shotgun gave them pause, I think 6 guards with G-36s will really make them decide to drive over to the next county and see what's up at the local 7-11.

That is what the advanced weaponry is for.

I agree with most of your points
But a few fine points.
Having been on the ground working with F4 PJ’s, they can be handy and helpful, yet their time on target is a very small number and the number of passes and available ordnance is also small.
For close air support Cobra and Puff, updated versions available and perhaps the A-10. If you are familiar with the mechanics of the old Puff they are almost as frightening to friendly’s as enemy’s, more so close in at night!

The A-10’s did a nice job on the Ol’ Highway of Death. Yes I remember that an army is always ready for its last battle.

The Viagra comment was noting my opinion that most, but not all fighter aircraft purchases are just expensive political penile extensions.
And yes sometimes a cigar is...

...the use of Indian MiG-21s and Mirage-2000s against the dug-in Pakistani forces.

Given the relatively inhospitable terrain in the areas they are likely to be fighting over... I'd be looking for a fighter capable of doing supply-line interdiction, what the USAF used to call "deep strike" in their plans to interdict Soviet supplies headed into western Europe. Getting supplies forward would seem to be the weak link in any attack plan, and thus a prime candidate for the defender to go after.

So I'd be looking for a multi-role with good ground attack capabilities that could defend itself or be configured for the escort mission. I don't know where airbases are in relation to likely areas of conflict, so I don't know how much the combat radius/range figures in. The other consideration would be how much do you want to go truly deep strike and maybe retaliate by going after an attacker's bases...

Contrary to legend, most of the damage on the Highway of Death was done by a single Spectre named Azrael - the Muslim angel of death.

Lockheed AC-130A Spectre

The AC-130A Spectre is a C-130 converted to a gunship, primarily for night attacks against ground targets. To enhance its armament's effectiveness, it used various sensors, a target acquisition system, and infrared and low-light television systems. The versatile C-130 Hercules, originally designed in the 1950s as an assault transport, was adapted for a variety of missions, including weather mapping and reconnaissance, mid-air space capsule recovery, search and rescue, ambulance service, drone launching, mid-air refueling of helicopters, and as a gunship. The C-130 could transport up to 92 combat troops and their gear or 45,000 pounds of cargo. Where facilities were inadequate, the Hercules could deliver cargo by parachute or by a using a low-altitude parachute extraction system without landing.

The crew of this AC-130A Spectre gunship, named Azrael (Azrael, in the Koran, is the angel of death who severs the soul from the body) displayed courage and heroism during the closing hours of Operation Desert Storm. On Feb. 26, 1991, Coalition ground forces were driving the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Azrael was sent to the Al Jahra highway between Kuwait City and Basrah, Iraq, to intercept the convoys of tanks, trucks, buses and cars fleeing the battle. Facing numerous enemy batteries of SA-6 and SA-8 surface-to-air missiles, and 37mm and 57mm radar-guided anti-aircraft artillery, the crew attacked the enemy skillfully, inflicting significant damage on the convoys. The crew's heroic efforts left much of the enemy's equipment destroyed or unserviceable, contributing to the defeat of the Iraqi forces. On Feb. 28, 1991, Iraq agreed to a cease-fire.

The aircraft on display was assigned to the 919th Special Operations Wing and was retired to the museum in October 1995

Indian pilots are more or less recognised to be professional and capable, while the Chinese pilots have a reputation for crashing into propeller-driven planes.

Here's the thing - could an Indian pilot have successfully pulled off the maneuver that ended Wrong Way and crashed the P-3? Unprofessional, yes. Bad losers, yes. Gutsy? Also yes. Hate to drag ancient history back into this, but the outside world's experience of Chinese Communist Forces (CCF) is that they've always performed well above the limitations of their equipment. In Korea, Chinese infantry operating with no air cover fought their way from the Yalu River to the 38th parallel. In China's border war with India, Chinese infantry overran technologically superior Indian forces and took 15,000 sq miles of Indian territory. Add in the fact that no one except the Chinese themselves know whether their stuff is inferior to the Russian stuff (which they have in their inventory), and it's clear that India has much to be cautious about. Hate to have to find out in the heat of battle - via frantic calls for reinforcements - that that Chinese equipment is good enough, and the pilots are about as good, whereas Chinese fighters outnumber Indian fighters 3 to 1 (yes - the Chinese are still making big equipment buys, and the ratio is increasing even as India dawdles).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.