2012 Will be when all the tech in finalized actually. After that its actually designing the bird and making prototypes to test. 2018 Will be when the final design will start to be made at factorys slowly and 2020 is when we induct the bird and start flying it.

2012 is going to be when we know what will be inside as we get ToT after that its going to be a ambitious development process where we really get to know her.

(but of course you know that because your on bloody defencetalk)

So 2 years from first flight to Initial Operational Capability ? Someone needs to get their head checked if they feel that such a timeframe is possible for an almost 5th generation fighter.

A first signs of the winner appear. Weapons deal is the first step. Expect more leaks shortly.

I don’t think that the MICA deal can be linked to the MRCA winner selection- the Mirage-2000 upgrade had been signed earlier and those Mirages had to be equipped with the MICA missiles irrespective of who won the MRCA tender. The timing of the deal being signed can give rise to such speculation, but IMO it is not linked to the MRCA deal.

So the missiles you pointed out are ground launched? Do they work in an almost semi autonomous mode once launched by a ground based launcher from a stand off distance? Do they loiter in a pre designated area and strike if a radar is switched on?

Are they able to match the range of the proposed Nirbhay cruise missile without endangering the life of Indian service men or women?

i dont mind being corrected sure go ahead but atleast try to understand people before typing, especially if you are going to be rude in your reply. Maybe you should ask your self those same questions about comprehension

where did you even talk about “ground launched ARMs”? You said that the IAF doesn’t have any other ARM other than the Harpy..which other “ground launched ARMs” exist in the other air forces of the world? It is a unique missile that no one else has that is similar.

Your question is poorly posted as usual and then you ask how the answers are relevant. :rolleyes:

Could someone who understands French please give a better translation of this article on the Indo-French-Singaporean Ex Garuda-IV? It talks about IAF pilots having had a chance to test-fly the Rafale and that they were “very impressed” with it.

Exercise Garuda IV Armee d’aujourd’hui article

You are right, Venuzuela has a far better off population on average :rolleyes: .

Venezuela has quite a bit of experience in operating “modern” combat jets, not sure why you so dismissive.

India’s experience with the Flanker and its facilities and infrastructure for overhauling and maintaining its engines are far greater than what Venezuela has. That is what I was implying. Dismissing them on the basis of how well off their average populations are is what you might do, not me.:rolleyes:

6th and last C-130J of the first batch ordered by the IAF departs for India from Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, GA plant.

LIvefist blog link

Agreed. If the engine WTBO are followed, the AL-31F are very reliable and robust.
On top of that it has the best unrestricted airflow feed out there.

How many Flankers crash are directly linked to engine failure over the history?

yeah so it is said of the RD-33 as well and the IAF knows how many issues it had when it was in service initially.

I would much rather believe a professional Air Force’s version of events than internet innuendo. If you’re suggesting that the IAF doesn’t follow the MTBO hours/cycles then you’re wrong. No AF will operate an engine that has exceeded its MTBO limits (its a different issue that many parts fail much before advertised MTBO or MTBF limits are reached).

And the Su-30MKI has had a good attrition record in IAF service. They’ve been in operation since more than 10 years, there are more than a 130 currently in operation and only 3 have been lost of which none are attributed to total engine failure. And yet, its not as if the Al-31FP hasn’t had failures in the air before, as this article by an operational IAF pilots testifies.