Viv S wrote:Please revise your figures. Our contract was for license assembly of 140 aircraft (augmented by a later order of 40 more). Of those almost half (Phase I-III) have been built from SKD and CKD kits. It wasn't until Phase IV that the production was indigenized. Even assuming a more aggressive effort for the Rafale, at least a third of the 108 aircraft we're manufacturing will be kit-built. Tejas Mk2 production will be in full swing well before the Rafale's indigenous production begins.
My apologies .. I confused your initial comment as off the shelf.
The F-22 can do what it can do primarily because its fields a VLO airframe. And while the Chinese will progressively upgrade their J-31s with newer avionics, no amount of French investment in the Rafale will alleviate its lack of low observability.
A progressive upgrade which will take a decade to realize and not 4 years.
How many Rafales are actually in Indian service at the moment? None.
However by the time Rafale deliveries begin, the list of countries operating 5th gen aircraft will include -
9. South Korea
By the time domestic production of the Rafale begins, those countries will be joined by -
(With 16. Belgium and 17. Finland right behind.)
Since Rafale is not being selected in 2018 and bulk of all airforce will continue to be 4th gen till 2040 (except US), my point stands. Also I expect India to be in 11-15 for 5G also. We will either sort out FGFA problems or go in as JSF partner.
UK/Germany - Eurofighter
US - F-15
US - F-16
The Gripen entered service in 1997 (2002 for the C/D). So the 'within a decade' part doesn't hold water either. Bottom-line the presence or absence of carrier capability is no reflection on the aircraft's performance.
US already had Tomcat and Hornet, PRC doesn't. UK hasn't had a ship capable of operating anything other than Harriers since before Falklands.
US, India, Russia, France have real carrier abilities today and all have either a carrier version of their indigenous aircraft or a seperate indigenous aircraft all together. Even our Navy wants an N-LCA which is more unproven compared to J10. PRC doesn't inspite of supposedly having a 'superior' aviation industry. So J10 is not a 'cornerstone' essentially because the design is not Made in China.
Credit nothing. Nobody who's using an Apple is particularly concerned about value-for-money. No even moderately budget-conscious person anyway. And every Chinese brand mentioned delivers better value per dollar than your Apple. (So do both Indian brands for that matter.)
I will reply when I stop
(You do know that its quite cheap to get an Apple in actual 4G countries)
Don't believe everything you find on google.
This is from the Swiss evaluation
of the Gripen E -
Not google ... Janeshttp://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes
Rafale is $16,500, and lower than Typhoon.
That's absurd. The USD-INR exchange rate has no effect whatsoever on the dollar value of the contract.
I was joking. We have agreed long back that Rafale is a costly deal. There is no need to keep bring up the cost again and again. I am tired of replying to your cost posts.
Reliable source is Jean-Michel Guhl
. The PESA's range is about 100km. Same as the MMR's.
This link also says that Rafale is designed to be LO. If you are taking this link as the Amrit/Holy Grail of information on Rafale then it essentially throws your LO J31 > non-LO Rafale out of the window.
w.r.t radar, Rafale's radar meets the requirement and per recent news we will get full source code of the same and are free to do what we want to. Irbis was not in MMRCA competition and we will never get full source code of APGs. Typhoon also did make it to final round and was beaten on cost not quality. If their costs were equal we would have been having this discussion today on Typhoon.
I don't have to assume that the PRC's plans will go like clockwork to know that the J-20 & J-31 are LO designs (even if not VLO like the F-35), they will be cheaper than the Rafale, will be produced at far higher rates and will feature avionics that are constantly upgraded. The J-10 already scores on three out of four aspects and while it may not field an EW suite as sophisticated as the Rafale's, it still delivers far better value for the same budget.
1. They aren't going hold back their strength in a conflict against India. To say nothing of a two front war.
2. The US and allies will collective have more than enough numbers to face off China (it'll be much tougher if the air war takes place over/around the Korean peninsula). Probably not enough for power projection though. Same doesn't apply to the IAF, which will be inducting 4th gen fighters at less than half the pace of their 5th gen fighter induction.
3. 'Substandard' with the F-35 as the benchmark perhaps. The Rafale for all its maturity is still lugs around an airframe very observable to enemy air and ground based radars.
4. The PAK FA hasn't flown that many more sorties. It goes into production in 2016.
5. Ten years ago, the very idea of a Chinese stealth fighter was met with derision on this forum viz. 'won't happen'. And the problem with operating in Tibet is air density, which can be overcome with greater excess thrust. Infrastructure is arguably better than in the Indian NE. And for all the talk of it being a third pole, fact is temperatures in Tibet aren't quite that low (north of the Himalayan ranges). Its colder in Chicago today, than it is in Lhasa.
Of course you are assuming that. Its the cornerstone of all your J31 vs Rafale points. Even though J20 is still prototype and J31 had problems flying without weapon at Zuhai, yet PRC aviation industry will overcome all problems to have them ready for mass production in 4 years. That's what your posts are saying.
With regards to your remaining points
1. So what we need 2000 fighters now?
2. You think they can iron out all their problems and produce 60 5th gen fighters a year from 2018/19 onwards? Operational costs of 5G are nearly double/triple compared to 4G for a well developed aviation industry like US.
3. If J31 5th gen, then yes F35 should be a benchmark. If no, then J31 is not 5th gen.
4. PAKFA sorties were at 450 in 2013, they should easily get to 1000 by 2016. PAKFA also had achieved 40 min flight in 2011. Still its taking 6 years, and you expect PRC to do that faster considering where they are now?
5. The only way they are going to go from Zuhai airshow level to Tibet operational in 4 years is if they find Alladin's genie.
Fine we'll stick to aerial radars. The KJ-200 and KJ-2000 are both AESAs and have been in service for about a decade. The first DRDO AEW&C will be delivered next year. The first fighter AESA was delivered with the J-16 last year IIRC, while the J-10B/C will receive it in 2015-16. The Uttam AESA will be delivered with the Mk2 post-2020. Like it or not, fact is they have a lead in it.
KJ2000 was Mainstay (possibly even TSP style painting). Its either that or accepting that PRC developed an AESA AWACS in 3 years. Balance of probability says former.
KJ3000 was their first actual indigenous AESA radar and we had DRDO AEWC ready a cpl of years later, which is not bad if you look at the budgets. Yes, realistically, as a whole, their aviation industry is ahead of ours, but not in all subsets, which is good to know
'Good learning experience' has been thrown around since the first MiG-21 went into production in 1966. The FGFA will employ the same airframe, same avionics and same propulsion as the PAK FA. Our 'design inputs' will consist of integrating a non-Russian HMDS, LDP, MFD, refueling pod and Indian datalink & IFF.
How many Migs were actually 'Made in India'. Compare this with Sukhoi and yes, it's because of these experiences we have made LCA.
The delays and developments in the deal are owed less to political interference and more to IAF overreach and bureaucratic apathy in the MoD. Neither of which have changed with the swearing of the new govt. All the same, lets see.
How was RFP expansion/modification allowed to include Rafale and Eurofighter? This is the single biggest reason for the delay. MoD, far more than IAF is responsible for current state of affairs of MMRCA.