quadbikeSpeaking of which how about Otaku’s wet dream of having a few batches of Su 35 in IAF service 🙂
quadbikeYes..
But this was always going to be the next stage once Americans were allowed to fly drones and kill Pakistanis in Pakistan.
Terrorists can be killed anywhere. They are not protected by any conventions or anything. It has caused wars in the past as well starting from first world war 🙂
quadbikeSo getting Military aid means you have sold off your sovereignty to the US govt and they can barge in when ever they feel like it?
I’m sure if you ask any ordinary Pakistani (not an army general) they will tell the Americans to take all their aid and shove off back where they came from.
On that note didn’t US provide military aid to Russia when a forest fire got near a nuclear site?
Actually I would like nothing more than Pakistan having such a responsible government where the militiary has its place and tells Americans what to do.
But the point is.
When you are harbouring an international terrorist who has commited an act of war against the worlds only super power, then sorry no such laws will save you. The Americans would have gone to Kremlin or Beijing and done what they have to do if they knew the guy was there let alone Abbottabad.
You’d want to buy sovereignity of a country with 170mil citizens for a dozen of F-16s and few old Hercs? You surely must come from one cheap corner of the world..
One cannot buy anything unless its put up there for sale. Yet in Pakistan many think of the army as saviours. They should go out there and topple the army power like the people in the middle east then they can talk about soverignity.
Soverignity is not absolute, then we will not have International Humanitarian law or International Criminal Court. Soverignity ends where human dignity and freedom is trampled up on. In this case Bin Laden responsible for countless deaths of people of all nationalities was in Pakistan thats reason enough for the Americans to go in and do the job.
However it is spinned…entering some other country’s territory willy nally and assassinating people on her territory does not equal aid for services provided.
How ever you Spin it, Killing some one like Bin laden does not equate to ‘assasinating people’.
For all of you would you have rather had a join U.S-PAK operation where in Binladen escaped ? than what happened now ?
quadbike[QUOTE]
And in what condition are these aircraft, how many flight hours are left and how long would it take to materialise a deal?
We will only know that if India decides to go along that path. The Ex-Algerian SMTs for example are probably in good shape.
What are the differences in the equipment of the IAF’s planned M2k upgrade and M2k-5Mk2/9? Are Abu Dhabi’s M2k-5 Mk2s even for sale? There is still no agreement on the buying back of the UAE’s M2k-9s and the UAE AF is certainly not going to sell all its M2k-9 back at once, they have their own time lines and will require the Rafale deal to materialise. Forget about a fast delivery! The M2k-9s won’t be returned anytime before first Rafale’s would be delivered and with no deal being signed by now who knows how long this would take. We are possibly looking at a time frame of 4+ years from now before the UAE would START transferring M2ks back to France, add the time for the possible upgrades and the IAF would be lucky to see first ex Arab M2ks in service by 2015, probably latter!
What about the first MRCA what if its Rafale for instead with their awful production rate, suppose the tender is decided by middle of 2012, the first MRCA will only come by 2015, and then there is a problem of establishing local production etc.
I know the Emirati deal may be a bit more complex, depending on how they are willing to deal and in what time frame the MIG/Mirage mix in the deal can be altered, Fulcrums are much easier to procure. As for difference of equipment I would say the HMDS/IFF etc. The M2K upgrade deal unlike the Mig deal doesn’t have many Indian components.
Sure local production etc. could translate into further delays I agree.
Yes and also suspect is HALs ability to assimiliate technology, they have been making MKIs but the Euro canards are much more advanced interms of construction, avionics etc.
India would receive quite a great offset value which will bring back at least 50% of the investment.
Is that not revised to 30% for the MRCA tender ? And it also depends on where it goes whether to civilian or defense industry. EADS for example can easily setup up some Airbus stuff and meet the offset requirements.
That’s pure speculation and to be honest I doubt it, especially if we consider the AMCA.
Considering how cheap the LCA is compared to a western fighter of its class the Gripen C/D I have no doubts about it.
It’s being stated that the Su-30MKI costs India some 100 mln $ per ac these days, that’s hardly cheaper, let alone much cheaper.
There was one report regarding it and no follow ups. May be true may be not, I think at this late stage IAF has to look the option atleast before deciding on MRCA purchase.
As aforementioned there is much more to the purchase of additional aircraft from foreign operators! Russia might be able to deliver upgraded MiG-29UPG from its stocks quicker, who knows, but the M2k is much more at risk. France don’t have current M2k-5/9 for sale all these aircraft are operated by other nations, which may or may not sell these aircraft sooner or later.
In that case increase the number of Fulcrums wrt to Mirages. They will be cheaper to procure as well and IAF has a bigger stock of weapons compatible with them.
And the LCA Mk2 and T-50 are years away from becoming operational platforms and there is a greater risk for further delays wrt their development than is for either of the MMRCA contenders.
Fingers crossed on the LCA MK2, but the PAK FA seems to be making decent progress, the only problem that I can see with it is it may be half cooked when it enters IAF service (current engines instead of next gen ones, all weapons not qualified etc.) then again Typhoon has some way to go in this regard as well.
They must have enormous faith on the LCA MK2 otherwise I cannot see why the Gripen NG did not make the cut.
As per reports the Flanker is hardly much cheaper, if cheaper at all these days! But that’s not the matter at all.
We need more reports to clearly identify how much the Flanker costs now. What it doesn’t need however is infrastrucutre and maintenance facilities as well as newer weapon purchases. When considering the two MRCA contentors we must calculate the price of the whole package and not just the fly away cost.
Sure all of which are in a risky state, especially the AMCA followed by the FGFA/PAK FA and to a lesser extend Tejas Mk2. The AMCA as of now is a pure paper project, T-50 is flying with two prototypes since 1.5 years and the Tejas Mk.2 is not expected to become available before 2018 IIRC (correct me on that if I’m mistaken here).
Yes 2017-2018 is short-medium term as we are past Mid 2011. Even if both FGFA and MK2 are delayed till early 20s and AMCA till 25, one could agument the fleet by an additional lot of MKIs and Tejas MK1s.
Yes its a bit risky the route but sometimes even what seems like low risk options can be delayed. Look at INs Scorpene Submarines and the Nerpa lease ! Look at the Vikramaditya supposedly a low risk option compared to India’s first Indigenous Aircraft Carrier. Now they are expected to enter service roughly at the same time !
You could atleast agree that the MRCA is awfuly delayed (because of our own incompetence) and that every passing year its need is becoming less and less.
quadbikeSorry, thought the experience with Russia was that it provided lousy after sales service ie if you have the choice, avoid buying Russian.
Yes but mostly with the IL 76 transport fleet. IIRC the only issue with MKI was the tyres.
quadbikequadbikeNothing wrong if Pakistan was not getting American military aid yes. In this case no.
quadbikeRussia today is available here in India as well on most dth services 🙂
quadbikeSome thoughts wrt recent arguments put forward here.
Some claim that the IAF would be better off with additional MiG-29UPG and Mirage 2000 to fill the gaps. The first question to ask here is, is it a viable option?Unused and stored MiG-29 airframes are reportedly exhausted by now, so from where should these airframes come from?
Malaysian ones come to mind. I am sure as RuAF gets more streamlined and based on Su 35/Su 34/FGFA/Su 27 upgrades they will be willing to part with some 29s which can be bought to UPG standards rather easily because the infrastructure for it is already being set up.
The situation looks better for the Mirage 2000, but the examples on offer may require further upgrades/changes to be similar in configuration to the Mirage 2000 upgrade envisaged by the IAF. One of the questions here is how long would it take and how much would it cost?
All those mentioned like Qatari and UAE Mirages are of 2000-5/9 standards which only require slight changes to bring them to the IAF standards. Some of the UAE mirages are not that old either.
What people ignore as well is the fact that all these aircraft are used, it could be an intermediate solution, but not a long lasting one and sooner or latter these aircraft must be replaced as well with a new type, that means a much sooner acquisition of new aircraft as would be required for the MMRCA. You can hardly expect upgraded MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s to last much beyond 2025 or 2030 at all, the MMRCA would be in service for 3-4 decades or up to ~2050!
Indeed the point we are making, the shortfall is going to be felt severely in the medium term and not long-term the MRCA delivery will only start from 3 years of signing the contract and setting up local infrastructure and production can mean further delays. What you are forgetting is that we already have experience and infrastructure wrt to Mig 29 and Mirage 2K.
As for the argument that they need to be replaced yes and thats good for us. When India spends on Tejas or AMCA or to a lesser extent FGFA a significant amount of the money remains with in India rather than going to the coffers of foreign companies. Looking at the price of Typhoon, buying Mirages and MiGs now and replacing them with Tejas MK2/AMCA is likely to cost less than buying 126+ Typhoon right now.
Add the fact that offsets or useful ToT would be lost and this is also one of the reasons for the interest in the MMRCA.
This is the only saving grace of the MRCA, the ToT.
I don’t share the “heavy” argument either, while aircraft like the Typhoon or Rafale offer a similar or even better payload capacity in comparison to the Su-30MKI they are still much smaller and lighter. Payload is not the determining factor for heavy, medium or light. It’s the basic airframe and its weight which are of relevance here.
Smaller and lighter and much more expensive while being slightly more capable, being twin engined not that cheap to operate either.
The question is what does the IAF need in the face of its potential enemies, especially China!? The IAF’s current fleet of MiG-27 and Jaguar strike aircraft becomes increasingly vulnerable in high threat environments, even in their upgraded form and they won’t last for an eternity either. Introducing yet other used and old aircraft and upgrade them might be a quick solution at the first glance, but I in fact believe that new MMRCAs could be delivered just as quickly if not quicker. Consider the capability gaps vis a vis an ever stronger China and one must wonder whether such a solution would be a wise choice in the medium term.
You are saying that the new MRCA can be delivered as quickly as buying already upgraded Mirages and buying and Upgrading MIG 29s (the MIG 29 upgrade is moving along rather swiftly). I disagree with it totally may be in the case of the Typhoon if India relaxes on the requirement to build all but the first 18 airframes at home. I cannot see MRCA being churned out in respectable numbers in India till the end of the decade. LCA MK2 and PAK FAs can be made just as fast as well.
T
ejas Mk.2 is yet at risk for further delays, the AMCA is a long time away from becoming an operational reality and even the FGFA’s schedule is still quite optimistic. Purchasing additional Su-30MKI’s could be a solution but how many heavy fighters can the IAF afford to pay for? Comparison of the operating costs between the Su-30MKI and the ECDs would be interesting and we must take into account that the Flanker has still a rather limited life time. What some appear to forget as well is that the FGFA will in fact replace the Su-30MKI. At the time the former is introduced the first examples of the latter will be some 15+ years old and that considers the rather optimistic schedules envisaged now.
1. India will buy PAK FAs (atleast fifty of them) and FGFAs (twin seat variant) i am thinking the first PAK FA will enter service 2-3 years from the first MRCA entering service. Even if that is five years the additional MIG/Mirages can cover.
2. Heavy in what way again I ask. Su 30 MKI is cheaper than the Typhoon and Rafale. Even with the latters lower operating costs it will take years if not decades recuperate the price difference at the time of purchase. India is still flying the MIG 21. India also has a high level of experience with the flanker and can be guaranteed Russian help in extending the life of the Flankers if needed.
3. By skipping the MRCA India has a great chance to streamline its fighter force to just 3 fighters in the future. The FGFA, AMCA and LCA MK2.
quadbikeNote the exhaust mrmalaya look at the black covers before the exhaust, not exposed engines like the current Prototype PAK FA/Su 35/30/27
Is it just me or does that ‘Article 101KS’ targetting pod look like a complete rip-off of the Sniper pod?
Yes LM to file a lawsuit in Germany to stop its sales 🙂
quadbikeI never called them obsolete ? which is once again a relative term. Even platforms from the 70s can be upgraded to current standards and can still be very useful. One could not argue for example that the Eurocanards as new as they are have any marked superiority over the latest Eagles or Flankers (there may be a slight superiority but none like a generational gap).
So as from India’s point of view because the process has been so delayed there is little to gain from another fourth generation fighter, (the argument that its an LM invention does not hold water when Russia & China also consider their new stealth aircraft to be of the next generation). The price floated for the PAK FA is 100 mil USD, they typhoon costs more ! Now put yourself in the Indian taxpayer’s shoes and see whether spending 15-20 billion dollars on a fourth++ gen makes sense when more numbers of fifth gen can be had in roughly the same time frame with the same amount of money.
The MRCA IMO is no longer Medium/ its heavy! for example the Rafale can carry more load than the Su 30MKI. And we are getting better heavy fighters in the near (PAK FA) future, which makes it a bit of a waste.
One of the arguments was that the Western birds have lower life time costs, well then why was the Gripen ignored ? It touted to have the lowest of them all with single engine. Unlike others, I believe it would have supplemented rather than supplanted the LCA.
May be its all about ToT and latest technology being offered as part of the deal, thats the only logical explanation which can be drawn from this. Again question marks are there on HAL/India’s capability of making use of the transfered technology in a timely basis. DCNS/MDL Scorpene fiasco is a perfect example of this.
quadbikeThe PAK FA is going to blow both the Eurobirds out of the air and I guess so will the J 20. Then again the J 20 is likely to form the elite of the PLAAF and has to be deployed on several fronts (Taiwan,Russian and Indian) so IMO the PAK FA in the proposed numbers will be good enough to counter that particular threat. The Su 30 MKI should counter (with its proposed updates) the newer PLAAF Flankers as well.
That leaves us with J 10 on the China front and J-10/F 16/JF-17 on the PAK front for which buying another expensive twin engined type is a bit of overkill and may not be able to reach the numbers required to counter these threats. If we go the MRCA way the Gripen or the MIG would have been ideal choices, and if we cancel the MRCA the M2K-5 and Mig 29SMT/M will be good enough to counter these threats as well. Now if the LCA MK2 ends up as capable as we hope it will be, it can progressively take over from the Mirage/MIG.
The money saved can be used to have better AD coverage/ More Tankers/ AWACS etc. A few more AWACs will certainly make up for the lack of uber long range radars.
May be its all about access to Meteor !
quadbikeActually, while spelt the same, the motto can be interrepretted in several(albeit similar) ways….
And as common sense seems to be breaking out, maybe someone could stop changing the designations of the aircraft…. why C-17A ever became CC-177 is beyond me…..
May be because of its proximity to U.S and joint operations with US etc makes it easy to distinguish ?
RCF-18 😀
quadbikeCan someone photoshop this to IAF grey. ?
quadbikethe cockpit looks more akin to SMT upgrade than the MIG 29K.
Sign In
