Not so much tech to learn, since India can build everything already,
but freedom to integrate their own weapons/gizmo’s

I doubt a ToT of the F-16IN would be unbeneficial — as far as the Indian aerospace industries have come, I’m pretty sure they aren’t at that kind of standard LHM have set with the latest F-16. the Kaveri engine at least wouldn’t be put in the same standard as the F110 variant the F-16IN is being offered with and as far as I know there isn’t a fighter AESA in advanced stages of development yet. I’d also assume the EW suite would be superior, not bashing the achievements HAL and the like have made, of course.
Heck, even China could benefit from a ToT of something in the league of the F-16IN, in the engine and maybe composites departments.

At the very least it’s kind of awkward to suggest “they have the engine tech” in such simple terms.

Yes, the canopy can obviously be opened at will.

No need to be so snide 🙁

With previous blocks and challenges in engine development, particularly of the WS-10, the fact new build J-11B and BS are being powered by Taihang is very welcome.

^ I see… do you have any knowledge on future UAV/UCAV projects or a future bomber? (The latter has been mentioned by a number of reliable posters for years but it’s possibly even more elusive than the J-XX was five years ago)

And a Silent Flanker won’t exactly be in the same weight class as an F-35, I think 😛 But if they choose for a F-35 type fighter for both PLAAF and PLANAF, I hope they go for a lighter twin engined design (twin WS-13?).
I’m intruiged by the mention of generation 5+ espicially when 6th gen has barely been defined yet… where did you hear that, and what requirements might be necessary for this aircraft, may I ask?

There are pictures of JH-7s with EW pods on the net. Here’s one:

if the J-10B goes into production, I’m guessing the likelihood of China making a lighter 5th gen fighter is less and less.

Not really — you can upgrade J-10s as much as you want they still won’t have the capabilities of a real 5th generation fighter, just like how CAC upgraded J-7s to kingdom come and it still wasn’t a competitor to 4th generation planes.

It depends on what kind of structure the PLAAF wants in the mid term, either a low of J-7s/J-8s a medium of J-10 variants and J-11 variants and a high of J-20, or a low of J-10s and J-11s, a medium of a lighter 5th gen and a high of J-20.
In the second option the number of J-20s will be far less than the first to make space for a lighter 5th gen along the lines of F-35 and AMCA.

Yep … and IMO yet another “hint” that the J-10B features a new radar and not the same as stated by some critics.

Deino

I think this testbed may very well indicate J-10B will go into production, and won’t just be a demonstrator as some thought.
Why build a testbed for a demonstrator anyway?

The MRCA would be concluded this year, conflicting reports ranging from July to September and the delivery will start 3 years from signing the contract.

I think everything should be in place by early next decade. Most systems in the works should be online by middle-end of this decade but by the start of the next decade India will have sufficient numbers as well. Most importantly India’s Nuclear triad will be well in place.

And India need not even the tables to offer a good deterrent and strike back with enough damage.

I see — so in your opinion few if any delays in politics or such will influence the MRCA deliveries? I’m wondering if the countries who own the varying aerospace companies will lodge a complaint against the final ruling calling unfairness or such — I mean it’s a big contract for 126 aircraft and maybe even 260… I find it hard to believe the country’s and company’s which lose out won’t attempt to influence the final decision, if that is even possible.

Yeah, it’s just that you said “Whatever edge China has in SRBMS will go away once this enters service,” which we both seem to agree won’t happen.

Depends one who is giving the information. I can recall several instances in which Chinese erroneously claimed that their jet engines matched foreign competitors, or that certain planes were based completely on indigenous developments.

Yeah, I meant in terms of disclosures from the PLA itself, either issuing statements or interviews with other media.
Like the J-20 itself. It was only confirmed that it existed in the latter half of 2009 though the CCTV interview with He Weirong.

What exaggeration there is, is usually and probably due to misinformation by the media outlet (Late 2009 CCTV reported the Y-20 was to be “revealed” when it probably meant something else). Or vanity reporting, where some of the more loose details are missed out to make the overall story sound better, like calling the J-10 compltely indigenous when the engine is clearly russian — though that’s like calling Gripen not compltely indigenous from Sweden because it’s using an American engine, if you know what I mean.

What the ACM said is true from the idealist point of view.
However the point remains that in the real world , a bullet even if it comes out of a cloned AK 47,will kill you.Even a kid will understand that.

The funny aspect which has emerged from all of this is the “hyper” reaction from the chinese posters , not too mature is it?
Anyway.

I actually found the perceived chinese reaction to this report on this forum rather muted — it was barely given any mention on other (english) chinese defence boards. Maybe they reacted at all here because there were some who would’ve believed the ACM’s statement if not otherwise corrected.

But let’s call the ACM report clear BS and leave it at that 🙂