, I think it is well worth the price. Chinese might even withdraw to China.Welcome to the arms industrySingha wrote:since 2010 the stock has tripled.
As per Shiv Aroor, IAF has already signed up for concurrent upgrades to the Indian Rafales once F4 achieves IOCRakesh wrote:
P.S. When the Rafale comes, get ready for the IAF to sign on the dotted line for the F4 standard (or whatever latest standard is out there at that time) in the next decade.
Block 70 not in production and will not be produced in mass. I would think the flyaway prices would be higher.Rakesh wrote:Manish: I believe you could get a Block 70 for around $45 - 50 million. Brar, please correct me if I am wrong. The Gripen E could hover around $75 - $80 million.
The IAF waited longer (a decade longer) than other operators of Mirage-2000 to do the upgrades. So there is reason to doubt that the IAF would go for an early F4 standard upgrade. From the recent MMRCA/MII competition & LCA induction requirements, the IAF seems to desire a fully operational product from the get go. That would indicate major upgrades would be less frequent and MLU to occur much later.Rakesh wrote:On the issue of growth, a point to note is that the IAF has consistently gone in for the best upgrades when possible. It would be no different when evaluating the F-16 and the Gripen. Especially considering that both aircraft will need to serve for at least 40+ years, which is the main bone of contention for the IAF wrt to the F-16. It would be foolhardy on the IAF's part to not consider viability of the platform in the decades to come.
See below;
- Mirage 2000I/TI - basically a Mirage 2000-9 which is the highest level Dassault has upgraded the M2K.
- MiG-29UPG is the most advanced MiG-29 variant as per Sergei Korotkov, the Director-General of MiG.
- Super Sukhoi has basically all the bells and whistles with AESA, BrahMos capability, AL-41F1S turbofans, etc.
P.S. When the Rafale comes, get ready for the IAF to sign on the dotted line for the F4 standard (or whatever latest standard is out there at that time) in the next decade.
Spot on! Exactly what shouldn't be done. When the Rafale was chosen,it was on technical superiority grounds,not a political gesture.THis time round,the GOI appears to want to make a political gesture instead of the best option for the IAF. Let's hope that the IAF stand firm.The Gripen is everything (and more) in what the IAF wants in a SE fighter. The F-16 is everything (and more) in what the GoI wants for the IAF. That is the only comparison and conclusion to make at this stage.
TWR of Tejas Mk.2 -> would allow supercruiseManish_Sharma wrote:Thanks Rakesh Saar, have you checked this link? It seems Tejas Mk2 beats Grippen E hands down :
http://indiandefence.com/threads/lca-mk ... ext.57465/
On paper, it sounds great - but let us see how much weight if any, can actually be shaved off! It is NOT easy to put a 1 meter plug into the length and increase the width by another meter or so and expect the weight to remain the same or expect only a marginal increase. First let us see if they can even drop the weight on the Mk1A, which seems like a pretty solid challenge even without any such major additions.Manish_Sharma wrote:Thanks Rakesh Saar, have you checked this link? It seems Tejas Mk2 beats Grippen E hands down :
http://indiandefence.com/threads/lca-mk ... ext.57465/
Manish_Sharma wrote:Thanks Rakesh Saar, have you checked this link? It seems Tejas Mk2 beats Grippen E hands down :
http://indiandefence.com/threads/lca-mk ... ext.57465/
Is that right? LCA-MK2 to *fly* by 2018-19? Like in a year from now?................. HAL has come out with a news that they can make LCA MK2 by 2018-19 and production may begin in 2020 ..............
An IAF Vice CAS stated - between 2007-2009 (need to check it out), that the need for SC is to enter and exit an engagement faster/quicker than it is possible now (actually then). Certainly the IAF - if I understood him right - is not planning on using it to go between east and west. The IAF had envisioned it as a short range tool, rather than a long range one.What is the point?
If that were the only criteria, it would win hands down and Philip Saar would be in euphoria. See picture of toilet + kitchen in Su-34 below 
Again, no funding is necessary.
Highly unlikely that's a pic of the galley in the SU-34 (or even some other military fighter aircraft). Look at all those unsecured items - in the shelves, hanging on the side walls.Rakesh wrote: Too bad the Su-34 is twin engine...because it comes with a toilet + kitchen
https://twitter.com/atomicfact/status/6 ... 4709344256
I was referring specifically to a hypothetical scenario with the F-16, not with the AMCA or any other aircraft were larger supersonic mission radius through supercruise is a requirement. A clean slick F-16 without targeting pods and bingo fuel has little if any tactical relevance. With some high rated engine it may be able to demonstrate some level of supersonic level flight in dry power (hypothetically speaking) but from a tactical point of view it means little to nothing. The F-22's supercruise requirement came with a combat load and a mission radius requirement as well and one would assume the AMCAs would too.NRao wrote:An IAF Vice CAS stated - between 2007-2009 (need to check it out), that the need for SC is to enter and exit an engagement faster/quicker than it is possible now (actually then). Certainly the IAF - if I understood him right - is not planning on using it to go between east and west. The IAF had envisioned it as a short range tool, rather than a long range one.What is the point?
The point being, he - this IAF person - expected it as part of the AMCA (or what it the MCA then?)
Su-34 strike fighterRussian Su-34 Jets Deployed in Iran Conduct Airstrikes Against Daesh in Syria © Sputnik/ Grigory Sysoyev
MIDDLE EAST
12:00 17.08.2016(
Russian Su-34 jets deployed in Iran conducted airstrikes against Daesh in Syria's Deir ez-Zor, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
tsarkar wrote:This is what happens when Finance Minister runs the show. Why invest in two similar fighters? Someone like Manohar Parrikar who could've made a case for indigenous technology to Arun Jaitley and Narendra Modi is no longer in the picture.Dileep wrote:Folks.. sorry to bring bad news again. Apparently, this MII eff-up solah has poisoned the waters terribly. MK2 injins are here, but people don't know what to do with them. Nothing is sanctioned. Nothing is moving. The only good thing that happened is, several scientists got promoted to Sc-H!!
Scientists too are kept happy by promotions.
I heard this rumor about six months back, NaMo wants to portray he has improved IAF before 2019 elections, and Rafale and F-16 are his way of doing it. NaMo desperately needs US support at NSG and now against China. IAF loves US & French logistics and comprehensive training syllabus. Sadly, the Tejas gets a raw deal.
IAF is like kids going to US Ivy League Universities vis-a-vis those going to new IIT/IIMs. Faculty/Infrastructure is not up to strength and no 100% placements, so despite a IIT label, they're unemployed. I'm sure 5-10 years down the line, these institutions would be great, but that would be of no help to the kids now.
Atleast GoI is still investing in new IITs unlike the Tejas program.
A bit like George Fernandes buying Gorshkov as TINA since previous governments did nothing after old INS Vikrant decommissioning and Kargil and Op Parakram suddenly occurred.
We never learn as a nation. Even nationalistic politicians I voted for are screwing Indian interests. Frustrating!
Bunny Rabbit?Manish_P wrote:Unless the post was intended as funny/sarcastic.. in which case i am the bunny
I was kidding Manish Saar. I knew about the toilet in the Su-34, but I am sure their ain't no kitchen in there. The Su-34 comment was meant sarcastically!Yes it will be one beautiful pigRakesh wrote:srai: you can put lipstick on a pig, but it will still be a pig
...
Understand the "larger supersonic mission radius through supercruise is a requirement" - that is the standard expectation.brar_w wrote:I was referring specifically to a hypothetical scenario with the F-16, not with the AMCA or any other aircraft were larger supersonic mission radius through supercruise is a requirement. A clean slick F-16 without targeting pods and bingo fuel has little if any tactical relevance. With some high rated engine it may be able to demonstrate some level of supersonic level flight in dry power (hypothetically speaking) but from a tactical point of view it means little to nothing. The F-22's supercruise requirement came with a combat load and a mission radius requirement as well and one would assume the AMCAs would too.NRao wrote:
An IAF Vice CAS stated - between 2007-2009 (need to check it out), that the need for SC is to enter and exit an engagement faster/quicker than it is possible now (actually then). Certainly the IAF - if I understood him right - is not planning on using it to go between east and west. The IAF had envisioned it as a short range tool, rather than a long range one.
The point being, he - this IAF person - expected it as part of the AMCA (or what it the MCA then?)
The point is in context of the gripens advertised ability to do so. With what load it achieves this, I have no clue. As for tactical relevance, that is for the IAF to decide. Perhaps it is meaningful and perhaps it's just marketing. I was simply curious as to whether the f16 has any potential here.brar_w wrote:What is the point? The point of supercruise is to increase supersonic combat radius with a decent payload. If you fly a slick jet with a big engine you may be able to achieve it perhaps but will that be tactically relevant? As an MRCA, you will need extra gas and a flexibility air to air, air to ground payloads to cover a wide spectrum of multi mission need plus targeting pods and additional external jammers for SEAD missions for example.
No bomber capability ?Philip wrote:Rak,no peddling the SU-34,peddled it a long time ago,IAF have no bomber capability,esp. useful now when the dragon has started bombarding us with its fiery bombast.Nothing that can reach Beijing,
No potential for the F-16. Gripen-E maybe but then they are coming in heavier than planned and of course payload and range will determine the tactical use.Cain Marko wrote:The point is in context of the gripens advertised ability to do so. With what load it achieves this, I have no clue. As for tactical relevance, that is for the IAF to decide. Perhaps it is meaningful and perhaps it's just marketing. I was simply curious as to whether the f16 has any potential here.brar_w wrote:What is the point? The point of supercruise is to increase supersonic combat radius with a decent payload. If you fly a slick jet with a big engine you may be able to achieve it perhaps but will that be tactically relevant? As an MRCA, you will need extra gas and a flexibility air to air, air to ground payloads to cover a wide spectrum of multi mission need plus targeting pods and additional external jammers for SEAD missions for example.
And don't forget the baconsrai wrote:Yes it will be one beautiful pigRakesh wrote:srai: you can put lipstick on a pig, but it will still be a pig
...
Considering that the Gripen E flew for the first time only recently, we have to understand that Saab had been trying to sell us vaporware during the whole MRCA saga. Keeping that in mind it is better to take any figures they put out for the Gripen with a large bucketful of salt. I would more readily believe paki specs for the JF-17 at this point.Cain Marko wrote: The point is in context of the gripens advertised ability to do so. With what load it achieves this, I have no clue. As for tactical relevance, that is for the IAF to decide. Perhaps it is meaningful and perhaps it's just marketing. I was simply curious as to whether the f16 has any potential here.