would you plz give me your source (in English)? (I remember some Indian friends always insist in this kind of source for other forum members especially from non-English speaking country)…

if you are talking about AJT program . I heard the HAL had some problem as well…some delay again?… and only 5 hawks was manufactured(or I should say assembled ) by Sep 2009? so they might be the lucky cheaper five. and I thought that might be the reason why BAE failed delivering parts, coz they thought these cheaper jets were threat to their origin ones.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2009/09/hal-blames-bae-systems-for-hawk-delays.html

It was posted here in this very forum. Search previous IAF threads if you want to see it. The Hawks were many millions of dollars cheaper when made in India 😉

But it will have a larger wing and intake … so not exactly the same ! … and esp. these small differences are intersting !

Besides that … is there a chance of getting a model kit preferrable in 1/72 scale of that bird ??? PLEASE !!!

Deino

The Larger Wing is debatable, its only mentioned in one report and subsequently not mentioned. Newer intakes possibly true. The Gripen had an easy transition from F 404 variant to F 414 so it may not be as big an issue as people think.

Allot of wishfull thinking here ….. India would dearly like to ‘teach Pakistan a lesson’ but bottom line is it is helpless. Any conflict of any size — and nobody can predict where it will end — hence its a none starter. Proof of this is the parliamant attack – when India spent billions on mobilising forces – but they went home without stepping over the border. Further proof was Kargil – where despite Pakistan’s clear provocation (although no different to Indias incursion into Siachin earlier) – India was at great pains to stress that it would under no circumstances go over the border into Pak territory. Further proof was after the Mumbai attacks – despite the much hiped ‘cold start doctrine’ being firmly in place – and many threats being hurled – again nothing came over the border. No nuclear power has ever been attacked in the history of nuclear weapons – people will do well to remember that when they are dreaming up – wiping out PAF in 24 hours, forcing quick surrenders etc etc etc.

Now I’m sure some smart Alec will ask why PAF is purchasing F-16’s AND AWACS if there is no threat — because you have to retain a conventional detterence as well as a nuclear one.

As for Islamists taking over Pakistan – very alarmist and detached from reality in my view.

I think Pakistan in general has this wrong assumption that India want to teach Pakistan a lesson etc. The fact is that India have shown great restrain in the wake of many attacks. This is not necessarily due to fear of crossing the Nuclear Threshold. It could be because-

1. India has a bigger game plan, Its economy is growing well even at a time of grave economic crisis, any war with Pakistan will negatively affect its ongoing economic march.

2. India has more to lose in a war than Pakistan. Because it sees itself as a major player in the world in the near distant future, it is unwilling to jeopardize its situation fighting a war with Pakistan.

3. You have to realize that in the wake of Mumbai attacks the overwhelming public opinion aided by a war-hungry media was to go to war with Pakistan. The government showed great restraint at the face of adverse pressure from all quarters, whether it will have or show that resolve in future is something that both countries cannot risk.

I agree that China would lose far more in terms of structural and human damage. That doesn’t change the fact that the US would be severely crippled, and the Russians and EU would be left to be the “super” powers.

True but you are really under-estimating the U.S War Rattling Hawks who will go to War so fast. Obama and Democrats aren’t going to be there forever.

Sure they do, but it means a longer delay for them to respond. In such a scenario, every second is vital. The Russians are quite aware that any US mass strategic launch is aimed at either them or the Chinese (or both). They may not decide to take that risk. Or better yet, they may even decide to let China and the US nuke each other, then finish the US off… All of these are possible (some much more likely than others, of course).

Consequently, it is *very* difficult to believe that the US leadership will start a nuclear war with China unless the very survival of the USA is at stake. And by making that nuclear strike they are actually putting the survival of the USA in jeopardy.

Scenarios like you said can be many. Russians may trust the U.S a bit more because they have been through the U.S being a super power and know how to deal with them. They also do not share a common border with them. Russians may yet decide to finish of their smaller neighbour than the U.S.

You need to stop using conventional and nuclear interchangeably. There is a colossal difference between the two. A “disporportional” conventional response would be very difficult for the US assuming the carriers are taken out of the picture (either sunk or simply threatened and so outside strike range of the PRC). An example of a potentially effective strategy the US could implement would be to use their huge blue water navy to form a naval blockade of China, which the Chinese would have virtually no chance of defeating. But that involves no daisy cutters or disproportionate nuke strikes, so I know that you’d be disappointed.

It is sadly much more complex that what you say. It is unlikely that some one would know a ballisitc missile launch is nuclear or not. So the use of any ASBM is likely to result in a nuclear response. The U.S can use tactical nukes delivered using cruise missiles, I don’t yet know Chinese capability wrt to that.

Don’t know where you got “a lot of them will be shot down.” Unless my information is greatly-out-of-date, the US has only 10 interceptors and phase one deployment of the NMD system is still not complete. Even assuming a 100% success rate, that’s still only 10 shot down.

For the Chinese ICBM/SLBM force, the numbers vary significantly depending on the source, but a rough estimate is about 40-50 missiles which can reach the continental US, although a fraction of those can only hit the western side. A few of those *might* be MIRVed. Also, there’s the JL-2 sub launched missiles which are entering service, so add another dozen there assuming the SSBN survives (might have MIRV too). Even assuming NMD works perfectly and the Type 94 gets taken out by an SSN before launch, that’s still 30-40 missiles. Now go look at a map of the US and remove the 30-40 largest cities. Then calculate the economic cost of the loss of those cities. The US won’t be uninhabitable but it sure won’t be a superpower any longer, and possibly not a cohesive political entity either.

Further to that, and perhaps even more importantly, when the Russians detect a major US strategic launch there is a chance that they will launch too… I think that the Chinese are actually betting on that, which is why they’ve never tried to match the US/Russian arsenals.

I was just making my point that MAD is not a scenario that is possible in a US – China Nuclear Exchange. There are no winners in a Nuclear war but China will lose more than U.S.

As for the Russians launching it I am sure they have means to know when missiles are directed against them or not.

I have never said they will attack Chinese cities in case of a carrier being destroyed, but you can guarantee a large scale conventional/nuclear strike on Chinese military/PLAN. It is likely to be disproportional as well.

Rimmer is the obvious reincarnation of poster Dare2 and countless other names before that. Anyone that posts 200 times a month, most of it trash talk, has probably been banned here before. Its a shame he continues with the same preoccupation. Must be OCD.

While I have had my disagreements with Rimmer, I doubt he is the reincarnation of a French Rafale fan. 😉

>>>The Tejas Mk.1 is equivalent to Gripen C/D, and the Mk.2 will be equivalent to Gripen NG.

I think that has no foundation. MK1 is failed and seen as experiment. It was to replace the Bisons.

MK2 is a paperplane. You cannot compare that with flying planes.

1. In capability it is comparable but the Gripen C/D is a better platform at the moment and that is why it is in the MRCA. The LCA MK1 is however cheaper.

2. You are wrong in this count, because of the changing situation with India’s neighbours it needs something more than a MIG 21 replacement, hence the demand for an improved LCA. LCA MK1 is better than any version of the MIG 21 including the upgraded Bisons.

3. Only Gripen Demo is flying although it is admittedly much closer to completion than the LCA MK2. But in effect both are paper planes.

I am afraid not. The whole ‘cheaper labour’ debate is hard to prove in this case.

Swedish labour costs are much higher then France, but Rafael is still more expensive.

Do you have any stats on this?

Especially if alot of LCA compnenents are imported (engine weapons etc), additionally Gripen (at present) has much larger production run.

1. No it is not, look at the current price of the LCA and the Gripen.

2. Rafael is a twin engined fighter and in a different category to the Gripen.

3. Even with all that the LCA is much cheaper, It will be cheaper still when more and more indigenous subsystems replace foreign ones in the future.