MRCA News and Discussion - March 2011

MarcH · Post by **MarcH** » 18 Apr 2011 03:28

NRao wrote:Even the AMCA is "just a pawn".

However, I would think that the AMCA would draw more from the FGFA effort than the MMRCA. The only thing I can see that the MMRCA brings to the AMCA is supply chain. My feel is that the AMCA has technologically shifted over the past few years. The MMRCA contribution has therefore relatively declined. Technologically the MMRCA has remained somewhat constant, while the AMCA has moved further up the tech ladder.

MRCA and AMCA are in the same weight class. Basically I think the fastest way to get the AMCA in service is to use MRCA subsystems (with some improvements) and build a new stealthy airframe around them. India is clearly in the backseat wrt PAK-FA/FGFA. Remains to be seen how much tech input the programme brings.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Apr 2011 03:37

Perhaps you missed the memo. AMCA is supposed to be better than any of the 5th Gen of today. And, considering what is out there in open source, the AMCA has to be a brand new effort, with reliance on processes and very little dependence on prior sub/systems. Just the idea of using FbL will toss most of the current systems out of the door. And those that could be used will have to be redesigned (for speed and weight).

However, if what you say sticks, the no better AC for the MMRCA than the F-16IN.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Apr 2011 03:45

On the FGFA, IF I understand it well, the way the details have been written up, India should have far more access than to mere newer techs. IF the two mixed teams interact seamlessly, then there should be a huge amount for India to gain simply because Indians will now have access to how and what the Russians think. I suspect some of it will still remain hidden because of Russian insistence that the PAK-FA will be the base to start with. Even then the FGFA should be far ahead of ANY MMRCA vendor's obligations. MMRCA will provide newer technologies. FGFA should provide newer thinking. I will take the latter.

And, I doubt that the PAK-FA is any podunk plane.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Apr 2011 09:17

Typhoon being a strong air superior, and by 2018 establishing a fine multi-role, sounds like a good plan to have to vote for lowering cost by moving the production setup to India. Let us say, if we have share of the profits, then all that we have to do is sell this puppy to ourselves.

What is the offer? by the way Katrina is watching Mallika going ground-less!

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 18 Apr 2011 09:54

SureshP wrote:
Viv S wrote: £126 million includes development costs which were indeed very high. But if you factor in the same for the Rafale, you'll find the French aircraft is still a more expensive option. Not that its known how much of the dev cost was carried over to their MRCA bids.

When manufactured at HAL, the EF and Rafale should cost roughly the same, with the SH being somewhat cheaper.

Here is a pithy article on costs

Eurofighter Typhoon: It's EVEN WORSE than we thought

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03 ... page1.html

The author of the article (and many other similar ones) is a former Royal Navy officer and avowed critic of almost all RAF programs. And his convoluted reasoning on the EF just illustrates that. Frankly one can empathize with him given the condition of the Fleet these days (no AC until 2016, no fighter aircraft for the same until 2019).

But the argument that the EF costs more than the F-22 is just plain ridiculous. First off its far from confirmed that the EF numbers will be cut from 160. And secondly thats like saying - if tomorrow god forbid the LCA program was cancelled, it would put the 8 LSPs at about $300 million each, therefore making a case for hyper inflation and thereby justifying the cancellation.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Apr 2011 10:23

I agree the cost part hyperbole is wrong.

but the weak program management, upgrade pipeline and current status sounds true to me. figures like just 8 A2G pilots and 50% fleet uptime can be easily caught if false. EADS chief has been pleading in the media for member nations to fund the vital captor-E program more to compete in export mkts like india.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Apr 2011 15:46

RAF Typhoon strikes Libyan battle tank
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7AkFc47Q2I

Footage shows an RAF Typhoon aircraft destroying Libyan regime main battle tanks. This was the first ever operational air to ground strike by Typhoon.

On the evening of 12 April 2011, an RAF Typhoon patrolling with a Tornado GR4 aircraft over western Libya was able to positively identify Gaddafi regime main battle tanks to the south of Misurata.
The two aircraft attacked and the Typhoon successfully engaged two tanks with Enhanced Paveway II precision guided bombs (one of which is shown in this clip), while the Tornado hit another tank with a Paveway IV bomb.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 18 Apr 2011 16:48

You are right about the captor-e, and the very poor program management, and the former a more top priority risk for EADS rather later one, imho. Even under Indian management, we could be facing similar pilot training and fleet uptime issue if they are directly related to independent supplies from Europe/USA. We could face similar issues as we are facing with Russia is what the current thoughts point to. On the operational and spares issue, I guess France may have a better hand, but they where very clever to escape media blitz or never under a time to market pressure [or is it because they are well managed?].
--

But the Rafales also have another tank-killer: a 30-mm cannon whose high rate of fire can cut through armor. The post-battle images show a rout: tanks with their turrets blown apart and smaller vehicles burned, and Benghazi still in opposition hands.

Read more: Rafale Fighter - Libya No-Fly Zone - Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... r#fbIndex8

Very important to note that our T72 tanks gets kanchan armor/nera /{Tank-EX upgrade}

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Apr 2011 04:49

OT alert

In Japan, its F-35 Vs F/A-18 Vs EF!

Japan To Choose Between 3 Fighter Jets

TOKYO (Nikkei)--The F-35, the F-18 and the Eurofighter are in the running for the next-generation fighter of the Air Self-Defense Force, with the backers of these aircraft expressing their interest ahead of the Defense Ministry's Monday deadline.

The U.S. government is suggesting that the Air SDF adopt the F-35 stealth fighter, now under development by a group centering on American firm Lockheed Martin Corp. It is also pushing the F-18 from U.S. aircraft giant Boeing Co. Meanwhile, the British government, U.K.-based aerospace firm BAE Systems Plc and Sumitomo Corp. (8053) are backing the Eurofighter.

Japan is planning to introduce 40 or so next-generation fighters to succeed the F-4. Its defense guidelines for the five years through fiscal 2015 call for 12 new fighters.

The ministry intends to make its selection as early as this year after receiving proposals for the three aircraft by the end of September. It says it will take a variety of factors into consideration, including performance, cost, and the extent of participation by domestic firms.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Apr 2011 04:54

Sounds like it was an intentional OT. What is your point there to bring it to this thread? Japanese requirements and doctrines don't match ours in the first place.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 19 Apr 2011 11:20

It is noteworthy that F-35 is on offer to Japanese Air force and not to IAF. That is indeed a sorry state of affairs.

Pandav · Post by **Pandav** » 19 Apr 2011 11:27

It's on offer to IAF but We already have our hands full.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 19 Apr 2011 11:39

SaiK wrote:Sounds like it was an intentional OT. What is your point there to bring it to this thread? Japanese requirements and doctrines don't match ours in the first place.

Well for starters, that the EF is in the competition with the Japanese. If EF does make it into our air force and wins the Japanese contract, our participation in consortium will help bring costs down and obtain a share in the profits from any international sales. It is also worthy to note that unlike the Indians, EADS has not proposed Japenese participation in the consortium (not yet at least) but just exclusive jet sales.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 19 Apr 2011 11:41

The only way JSF be integrated would be on the lines of some Joint Squadron force under IAF CnC, where respective participating forces, maintains and sends their squadron to desh, where India specific CISMOA and equipments gets installed.

We dont pay for the men and equipments, but we shall pay for facilities and desi-cismoa platforms.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Apr 2011 11:47

other than the saudi and indian deals, where else can EF hope to strike a major payday in the future ? imo there is no other place. rich clients like SG, Soko, japan are firmly in the american camp and will pick JSF or F15Silent in due course. australia gets a orgasm when someone mentions f22...they will plump for JSF or F22-lite.
Israel is subsidized by americans. so too Egypt. south africa went gripen. norway is JSF. denmark again JSF. brazil probably rafale. mehico and canada are kept well fed munnas. UAE is F16 and maybe F18 now.

imo one should not keep hopes on further sales of EF; its a struggle for partner countries to buy up what they already promised!

Kronop · Post by **Kronop** » 21 Apr 2011 17:36

^^ Norway parliment is looking to go over the cost of JSF purchse again since it has become apparent that the cost stated by the Minister of defence at the time of the decison about two years ago, will be doubled.

Initially it was stated thar JSF would be 375 million Norwegian Kronor (NOK) per aircraft compared to 425 million NOK for the Gripen (including training and maintenace). It has now become apparent that the real pricetag is closer to 800 million NOK per aircraft.

The Canadians are raising the same kind of questions regarding the pricetag of the JSF as well.

Dont forget that Hungary, Czech Republic and Thailand has all gone for Gripen in addition to South Africa.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Apr 2011 18:08

which supports my point - EF has no potential large future contract India can benefit from. *India* is the large future contract potentially

people are either going Gripen , JSF or F-anything.

I am afraid Gripen-NG and Rafale are two EU choices and F-18 the american. the race is down to 3 horses.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 21 Apr 2011 18:31

Boeing has hands full with Indian defence deals of $14 billion

Boeing has pitted its F/A-18 in the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) deal against US firm Lockheed Martin's F-16, Russian United Aircraft Corporation's MiG-35, French Dassault's Rafale, European consortium EADS' Eurofighter Typhoon and Swedish SAAB's Gripen.

The likely winner of the MMRCA contract is expected to be known in a month or two, with the deal being signed before March 2012.

"We are really excited about the opportunity that still exists in MMRCA. In the months that have gone by in the competition, we have a viable offering, because the F/A-18 Super Hornet provides the right capability at the right cost with fairly low risk. In addition it gives the right life cycle cost," said Chadwick, who was here to review his company's campaigns for these deals.

He said Boeing had worked "closely" with its Indian industry partners, particularly with the public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Limited , "not just to provide work but also to enhance their abilities" by holding classes and programmes in management and manufacturing.

If India chose F/A-18 in the MMRCA contest, Chadwick said, Boeing was willing to offer the "rapid production concept" that will allow accelerated delivery of the planes into the IAF force structure to "alleviate some of the challenges" that it has had lately.

SureshP · Post by **SureshP** » 21 Apr 2011 19:30

I have taken the liberty to convert NOK to USD for comparison. Though I have no time for Gripen salesmen who have become BR members like Hendrik and others.

Kronop wrote:^^ Norway parliment is looking to go over the cost of JSF purchse again since it has become apparent that the cost stated by the Minister of defence at the time of the decison about two years ago, will be doubled.

Initially it was stated thar JSF would be 375 million Norwegian Kronor (NOK)(70.1 USD) per aircraft compared to 425 million NOK (79.4 USD)for the Gripen (including training and maintenace). It has now become apparent that the real pricetag is closer to 800 million NOK (149.5 USD)per aircraft.

The Canadians are raising the same kind of questions regarding the pricetag of the JSF as well.

Dont forget that Hungary, Czech Republic and Thailand has all gone for Gripen in addition to South Africa.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » 21 Apr 2011 19:35

SureshP wrote:I have taken the liberty to convert NOK to USD for comparison. Though I have no time for Gripen salesmen who have become BR members like Hendrik and others.

Kronop wrote:^^ Norway parliment is looking to go over the cost of JSF purchse again since it has become apparent that the cost stated by the Minister of defence at the time of the decison about two years ago, will be doubled.

Initially it was stated thar JSF would be 375 million Norwegian Kronor (NOK)(70.1 USD) per aircraft compared to 425 million NOK (79.4 USD)for the Gripen (including training and maintenace). It has now become apparent that the real pricetag is closer to 800 million NOK (149.5 USD)per aircraft.

The Canadians are raising the same kind of questions regarding the pricetag of the JSF as well.

Dont forget that Hungary, Czech Republic and Thailand has all gone for Gripen in addition to South Africa.

Interesting that you accuse me of being a "salesman" for Gripen.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Apr 2011 20:20

"rapid production concept

kudos to their brilliant plan.

which comes first? marketing or money?

marketing came first, but money comes first. $14b?

Kronop · Post by **Kronop** » 21 Apr 2011 20:27

Well... I will not take the bait or will I, since the comment on "others" seems to be aimed at my recent post.

Sure I am Gripen biased, its a wonderful product in many respects an some of us Swedes (shocking isnt it) are actually proud of the achievement that is Gripen (we are probably not in majority in Sweden though).

* Is Gripen is a good product? - Yes its affordable to buy and operate and has capabilities that would be good enough for most customers.
* Is it the best fighter in the world? - Probably not.
* Is it the best choice for India? - Impossible to say.
* What is the best choice for India? - It all depends on what India wants out of the MMRCA deal but nobody "in the know" would ever reveal such a detail level on BR.

To be honest I do not think Saab and Sweden has the polotical weight to pull off any big deal such as MMRCA or Brazil. The most likely customer is small contries that are or want to state their independence from Uncle Sam or his equivalents. The current customer base reflects this very well.

I would go so fas as to say that Gripen mainly comes into play for a customer that is looking to buy 40-50 aircarfts at the most or more likely no more than 30 birds. This is where low cost of aquisition and operation really can swing the vote in Gripens favour.

I think its unfortunate in some ways since I would say that Saab ToT offers vould be very good for any potential customer, now I am basing this soley on the knowledge and personal experience on how Swedish companies normally honour theese kinds of business agreements as opposed to American, British and French companies.

Sad but true for Saab/Sweden they do not have the eco/political weight to pull of big deals imo... or perhaps its not a disadvantage at all in the long run.. there are plenty of small countries in need of replacing their aging fleets reday for some Gripen action

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Apr 2011 20:44

To be honest I do not think Saab and Sweden has the polotical weight to pull off any big deal such as MMRCA or Brazil.

While that is very true, the flip side is also true. EF will be mired in constant petty disagreements between diverse partners. France will not care for end results and will want flesh + blood + perhaps grand children too. Russia has still to recover (note that India seems to have a FAR larger need for FGFA than Russia currently has for PAK-FA!!).

These are only data points. One can discard them if need be. Only thing that happens is the graph will change. So, what else is new?

I would not count the Grip out. It, IMHO, fulfills a need rather well.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 21 Apr 2011 21:43

Super bug haters can eat this

US Navy inducts 500th Super Hornet and Growler

What struck me was "The F/A-18E/F and EA-18G is scheduled to operate from U.S. Navy aircraft carriers through 2035 and beyond."

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Apr 2011 22:07

any latest status on Gripen NG?

malli · Post by **malli** » 21 Apr 2011 22:28

I am happy that somehow some sanity and logic has returned to this esteemed forum. what I've observed is that now no one seems to be questioning the advantage that the american birds will bring to the IAF. Everyone seems to be concentrating on the negatives. There aren't too many except for the conspiracy theorists. Are we going to fight against the Americans in the foreseeable future?? will the Americans cut a deal with the Chinese before the Russians or the Europeans do?? These are the questions.
Frankly whatever said or done the American Military Industrial Complex remains the most efficient and the most cutting edge. At least for now. the challengers are not the Europeans or the Russians but the Chinese. BRICS notwithstanding, does anyone seriously think that we will be jointly developing military hardware with the Chinese??? From an economic angle does anyone also think that the Chinese will overtake the Americans?? in the next two decades at least?? by then the Indo-American bloc would be the biggest economic entity in the world.
Now coming to the competitors. we have a curious spectacle of a majority of the forum supporting either the Gripen or the Euro or the Rafale. Is it really justified?? The bare bones specs tell me that the F-16IN is the best single engined bird and the Hornet is simply the most cost effective and also the most evolved platform.
I just hope everyone smells the cofee and supports the right choice and does not hide under conspiracy theories.

malli · Post by **malli** » 21 Apr 2011 22:30

SaiK wrote:any latest status on Gripen NG?

There is no Gripen NG. It will happen if commit 10 billion dollars.

malli · Post by **malli** » 21 Apr 2011 22:34

There is no Gripen NG. It will happen if we commit 10 billion dollars.

Kronop · Post by **Kronop** » 21 Apr 2011 23:33

^^ The Gripen NG technololgy demonstrator (Gripen Demo) should be evolving nicely, adding more and more of the final Gripen NG configuration as th eproject progresses. It will however never be a true NG as it is based on a modified Gripen C/D airframe.

One of the latest "bids" regarding the Gripen NG is that Volvo Aero, who are responsible for the RM12 derivative of the GE F404 engine currently used in the Gripen, claims to have managed to squeeze the same performance out of a new development stage of this engine as a F414G. No small feat especially as they say that at the same time thy managed to improve fuel economy and reduced the maintenance effort needed.

The track record for the current RM12 is pretty good considering the level of performance of the engine with 150.000+ flight hours without any major engine related mishap or malfunction.

From a ToT point of view it may be interesting to know that Volvo Aero claims that the RM12 in this state is modified to such a degree that it is now a Volvo Aero design to which they hold the IPR and not GE.

Swedish Parliment will decide on purchase of Gripen NG for the Swedish Airforce in 2013 at the earliest.

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 22 Apr 2011 01:21

Wasn't sure if this was ever posted, but the EPE is included in the baseline SH offer to India

At yesterday's roll-out of the 500th Super Hornet/Growler, Boeing program vice-president Kory Mathews confirmed that the F414 Enhanced Performance Engine would be the baseline for the company's offer to India. The idea of the engine has been around for some time, but GE is clearly ready to commit the funds necessary to make the engine a reality.

More details of the engine have been disclosed. It has a new core, based on demonstrations conducted with US government funds in 2004 and 2006, and a redesigned fan and compressor. A third test engine was run in 2010. All the new components use three-dimensional aerodynamics -- that is, more swept, twisted blades -- using technology that has been used on other engines since the F414 was designed 20 years ago.

GE rates the new components at a technology readiness level (TRL) of 6 (indicating successful prototype testing) and notes that it has developed 17 new or derivative engines successfully from the same TRL.

The new engine offers up to a 20 percent thrust boost. That would take the EPE up to 26,500 pounds of thrust, giving it the best thrust/weight ratio of any fighter engine -- almost 11:1. Alternatively (an option understood to be attracting interest at Saab) the EPE could be delivered with a 10 percent uprate and very generous temperature margins, extending its life and reducing fighter life-cycle costs.

The EPE "will not make much difference at an air show", says Boeing chief test pilot Ric Traven, but dramatically improves the fighter's performance at high speed and altitude, halving supersonic acceleration times. For the Gripen, the extra thrust would translate into further-improved supercruise (supersonic level flight without afterburner) capability.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2011 03:12

At least for now. the challengers are not the Europeans or the Russians but the Chinese.

Challengers .... to India. (I guess.)

Nope.

The challenger to India is India.

China, IMHO is the least of the factors. Outside of the fact that they are (currently) the world's best xerox shop, they have made enough countries sit up and take notice of their waging tail. I understand that they are investing very heavily in research, etc, etc, etc...... but it takes about 35 years to figure out if what they are researching will have validity and another 15 to make it worth their while - else they will follow the Soviet route.

They at best will become a royal nuisance. And, more than likely collapse under their own weight. Today Chinese money is welcome but not Chinese. Their willingness to purchase or steal will ensure their own demise.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2011 03:14

GeorgeWelch wrote:Wasn't sure if this was ever posted, but the EPE is included in the baseline SH offer to India

Ouch that hurts.

So, the F-18 is not the one that put in an engine as a late bid? This engine has been there all along?

This CAS chatter is getting too confusing...............

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 22 Apr 2011 03:22

It was mentioned earlier in an AW&ST article too, that the EPE engine was on offer to the IAF as part of the F/A-18 Block 2+ offer.

With the EPE, the improved supersonic acceleration, the new FLIR under the nose, the CFTs and stealthy weapons pod will really make a SHornet Block III a very potent multi-role fighter. And we already know that its APG-79 AESA is one of the best and most mature AESA sets anywhere in the world. performance wise, being able to reduce one's supersonic acceleration time by 50% means a stupendous performance boost for any fighter and will address one of the main complaints about the SHornet.

I do hope that in the future, additional Tejas Mk2+ or Mk3 batches are procured with this F414-EPE engine that can push its performance to even higher levels than with the F-414 INS6.

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Apr 2011 03:56

Kronop wrote:Well... I will not take the bait or will I, since the comment on "others" seems to be aimed at my recent post.

Sure I am Gripen biased, its a wonderful product in many respects an some of us Swedes (shocking isnt it) are actually proud of the achievement that is Gripen (we are probably not in majority in Sweden though).

* Is Gripen is a good product? - Yes its affordable to buy and operate and has capabilities that would be good enough for most customers.
* Is it the best fighter in the world? - Probably not.
* Is it the best choice for India? - Impossible to say.
* What is the best choice for India? - It all depends on what India wants out of the MMRCA deal but nobody "in the know" would ever reveal such a detail level on BR.

To be honest I do not think Saab and Sweden has the polotical weight to pull off any big deal such as MMRCA or Brazil. The most likely customer is small contries that are or want to state their independence from Uncle Sam or his equivalents. The current customer base reflects this very well.

I would go so fas as to say that Gripen mainly comes into play for a customer that is looking to buy 40-50 aircarfts at the most or more likely no more than 30 birds. This is where low cost of aquisition and operation really can swing the vote in Gripens favour.

I think its unfortunate in some ways since I would say that Saab ToT offers vould be very good for any potential customer, now I am basing this soley on the knowledge and personal experience on how Swedish companies normally honour theese kinds of business agreements as opposed to American, British and French companies.

Sad but true for Saab/Sweden they do not have the eco/political weight to pull of big deals imo... or perhaps its not a disadvantage at all in the long run.. there are plenty of small countries in need of replacing their aging fleets reday for some Gripen action

Sweden is known for high quality defence products, and our own experience with Bofors howitzers has been very good - the army still swears by it, even though our bungling beurocrats and politicians have been running scared of any thing Swedish after the Bofors bribery allegations - even though the alleged bribe givers have been allowed to get away by our own chief investigative agency, while no Indian politician has been convicted of / or will be - for taking the alleged bribe !

The same political party which is accused of taking these bribes is in power, and has scuttled all attempts of the Indian Army to acquire more Bofors guns, (and even to acquire technology through transfers agreed in the original deal of the 80's) - even when they have emerged to be clear winners in all trials. While this regime is in power, Swedish products IMO have a bleak chance in any Indian requirements, which in my opinion is very unfortunate for us as we are missing out on some very good products - Gripen NG, Archer howitzers, CV90120 gun, Gotland class subs being just some examples, not to talk of the technology transfers and joint product development that can follow.

I have my fingers crossed for now, and even though my first choice is not Gripen NG, I would be very happy to see it win. We bet on SU30's when they were at the same stage and can sure bet on Gripen NG MKI to be a good jointly developed product too if India were to go for it.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2011 04:17

Kartik wrote: I do hope that in the future, additional Tejas Mk2+ or Mk3 batches are procured with this F414-EPE engine that can push its performance to even higher levels than with the F-414 INS6.

What of the Kaveri, Sir? (A noble thought tho'.)

My impression was that the F414 replacement, even in the LCA MK1 was the Kaveri (French core granted). (My spell checker KNOWs French, no matter haw badly I miss spell it!!!!!! God, these French are everywhere!!!!!! Wonder if india is stuck with the rafale.)

malli · Post by **malli** » 22 Apr 2011 04:19

NRao wrote:
China, IMHO is the least of the factors. Outside of the fact that they are (currently) the world's best xerox shop, they have made enough countries sit up and take notice of their waging tail. I understand that they are investing very heavily in research, etc, etc, etc...... but it takes about 35 years to figure out if what they are researching will have validity and another 15 to make it worth their while - else they will follow the Soviet route.

with due respect money talks. again with utmost respect the Chinese are far ahead in their indigenous capabilities than we are. we are deluding ourselves when we think that the MKI's are better than the MKK's or that that the Sovremenny's are inferior to the Talwars. FGFA is a pipedream as of now but the MIG MFI is flying on chinese teritory. similarly the Shilang will sail before the Vikramaditya. Isnt it amazing that the russians delayed the delivery of the IL-76's for the AEW program till the chinese prototype flew?? Isnt it also amazing that another AEW is flying in China that bears a close resemblance to the SAAB array??

The Chinese are not only investing in focused R&D but also buying out tech and manufacturing plants. it would be safe to say that they would leave Europe behind in a couple of decades.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2011 04:30

Malli ji,

I am not sure you read my earlier post.

It takes 50 years to realize a research project. What China (or India or the US or the UK) invests today MAY come into existence in 50 years.

Do any of us have a crystal ball?

With all due respect.

China is FAR behind the US. FaR behind the Russians and Far behind the aggregated EU. I would take Indian thinking, when it come to research, even though Indian stuff is retarded.

We can see it in the J-20. It is limited thinking. At best it serves Chinese purposes. But, are they agile enough to re-think/ I doubt that. China is stuck. Trillions - sure. Not much beyond that. They are predictable. Can model them.

enough said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Apr 2011 04:32

IF I can model you, you cannot hide.

NO way.

buying out tech and manufacturing plants

Absolutely nothing original about that.

In fact, it is, very, very predictable.

(Compare that to Indian AMCA or even the LCA. See the amount of riskS that "India" took. Or is willing to take.)

malli · Post by **malli** » 22 Apr 2011 04:52

NRao wrote:IF I can model you, you cannot hide.

NO way.

buying out tech and manufacturing plants
Absolutely nothing original about that.

In fact, it is, very, very predictable.

(Compare that to Indian AMCA or even the LCA. See the amount of riskS that "India" took. Or is willing to take.)

good luck then. i hope the sand doesn't get between your ears in the interim.

malli · Post by **malli** » 22 Apr 2011 04:54

50 years for a research project???? It would make sense if you you were a manager in HAL. it wont for anyone else.