Funny, the vast majority of the world trust the US. Should I provide a list like the UK, Germany, France, Poland, Norway, Japan, Australia, etc. etc. etc.etc.etc.etc.

Also, while the US supports Pakistan to a degree it is hardly a blank check and at the moment relations are far from good. As a matter of fact pre-9/11 the relationship was even poorer. So, I doubt most wouldn’t agree the relationship between the US and Pakistan Goverment is mainly based on need from both parties.

Another point that contines to get overlooked. Is the US point of view…….As we see the need to engage Pakistan to get at the terrorist cells that want to attack us. Yet, India had and has a close relationship with Russia (ex-Soviet). Which, has been our main adversary………

Now before all the Indian supporters jump down my neck to explain there relationship with Russia. My point is………..

“Just that there is two sides to every story and I don’t see the American view being given equal time……………..Let’s also not forget that this is not a purely US issue either. As much of the free world held very similar views.

So, while I personally understand why India didn’t like the US relationship with Pakistan. Nor the US imposed sanctions at one point……..The US in turn didn’t like the Indian relationship with Russia.

That said, I believe both the US and Indian Goverments are starting to see each others argument and is moving past it………

Hope your batteries are soon are out, or y grow up in a day or two.

I’m afraid it makes too much sense for the GoI or whichever committee it sets up to come up with this solution.

The problem with the Snecma offer was also that it supposedly failed to meet the Operational Requirements. the IAF has its heart set on a 95-100 kN engine and it looks like the only option now is to import EJ-200s or F-414s..

incredibly, India would’ve been building AL-31Fs and RD-33s under licence as well..Kaveri is too crucial for India- we can’t keep licence producing foreign engines forever at exhorbitant prices. The very fact that India is licence producing these engines and yet unable to overcome the Kaveri’s or Kabini’s problems shows how limited the knowledge gain from ToT can be..it is the basic and advanced R&D which is most crucial and they’re rightly not willing to let it all be frittered away.

I just hope that the IAF just asks for the F-414 or EJ-200 and they continue to develop the Kaveri, even if it doesn’t get ready within 3-4 years. The Tejas LCA cannot be held hostage to an indigenous engine program- they can be linked together whenever the engine matures, but the LCA has to be inducted.

maybe a good opportunity for the Typhoon consortium to link the EJ-200 with the LCA and that way improve the chances of the Typhoon.

I would think the scecma deal was a ok, then the engine can be developed in intrations and under production and use. Its very ineffective to work in “one big step” rather many small steps. Especially in with that target thrust.
100kN is a big goal, for even GE in that engine size.

I heard that the Eurofighter has a 7.5G rated supersonic cup holder, totally surpassing the subsonic one the Rafale has.

But it can only handle small english tee cups 😀
The french can probably hold a hole bottle of wine 🙂
Wonder were the cabin attendant sits while not serving..

Since you are so well versed with how democracies work would you please care to elaborate a bit? Especially in light of the fact that the requirement for the MRCA was exactly as you have put above – intermediate plan to fill numbers. Also, the US curtailed the raptors mainly based on cost. India otoh, left the much cheaper mirage 2000 deal (great TOT was offered btw) @ ~ $5 billion for a deal thats over twice the cost! Another highly educated analogy here :rolleyes:

Do you know what exactly they bring to the table? If so, please provide some insight/link to their response to RFPs.

So? The other contenders are not exactly sleepwalking through the contest. By your standards the Gripen or MiG 35 should have it in the bag by now.

Aah, some more emphatic theorizing, please list those reasons since they are so clear to you.

Riight – such as the F-16IN which has not even flown so far, brilliant!

Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion, I am sure the IAF/GOI will give it due regard.

Yes tell that to the many airforces in Europe, must be fools in that part of the world to go with anything but US offered options.

1, 1) The Rafale is distinctly smaller than the shornet thereby offering a smaller visual sig in the WVR game (kinda important factor that)

Boss, do us a favor and read up a little more before making absurd claims! In Indradhanush for eg. its large size was one of the main weaknesses of the MKIs vs the typhoons. The typhoon’s ability to quickly accelerate was another decent advantage for it. In DACT between IN shars and IAF fulcrums, the low visibility of the shar caused major problems for fulcrum drivers despite being a far better platform in most other areas a2a. A large platform goes against the rule “First look – first kill” esp. in WVR.

3, The rafale has long ranger IIR MICA which can be used in combo with the OSF to make a fully passive attack

So? What effectiveness has the Raptor demoed in a2a engagements todate? Might as well diss its super duper radar, EW suite, supercruise and stealth features, no? Priceless argument this – “never been seen in a2a combat before, so simply not effective” Damn tacticians should be shot for thinking innovatively.

Yes, such as its ability to supercruise or use IRST I suppose? Btw, dassault has shown its ability to integrate an HMS on its other products.

Yes, we leave it to this brilliant new find on AFM to enlighten us on what every contestants chances are. Pearls of wisdom just being scattered here by the rookie.

Once again I think you should read up a lot more before making blanket statements. I was not referring to Col. Fornoff at all. This topic has been thrashed on this forum for ages. A little reading would have made you understand my point a lot better.

So what exactly is your point bringing in the bison in the context of WVR ? Especially considering that he was clearly referring to the bison’s ability to sneak in and cue a bvr shot thanks to its small RCS and “israeli” radar.

Perhaps. But that does not mean the eurocanards are any less maneuverable than the shornet.

Prove it! Lets see some figures on ITRs, STRs, climb rates and the like for the MRCA contenders. If you don’t have them, please learn to think a bit before making big statements.

USS.
.

:D, disarming without weapons…

I believe what you’re trying to say is that for you, not everything requires thought. I didn’t even ask for sources, I asked how anti-stealth measures could overcome the limitations as shown in the article. But rather obviously, you have no idea. All you have is an intense need to believe that stealth will be rendered moot.

Have I stated anywhere that the F-22 is invisible? Trying strawman arguments like yours is the inevitable recourse when people like you argue against stealth.

I have posted before and will post again – there is a (conceptually) very simple way to counter stealth: pepper the area with radars. Since stealthy airplanes only reduce detection range, a lot of radars will give them no seams in radar coverage to slip through. Of course, the reason why nobody can do that is because it would bankrupt anyone trying to do so.

stealth of to day is always doomed in the future.. The stealth of tomorrow is another thingie… Thats normal evolution. no sources needed. The stealth of yesterday was camo… is it still as stealthy?

I think that is back up by all future design are leaning toward Stealth. Which, will now include the American F-22/F-35, Russian/Indian PAK-FA and Chinese J-XX. Let’s not forget the world is full of older 3rd and 4th Generation Fighters that are in bad need of replacement. Yet, hardly any orders are coming in……………Because in my view they are waiting on 5th Generation Types.

Purchase a new fighter today and it could be obsolete tomarrow.

F-35 will not ,be as much as you think, used in future combat, UCAV will replace it soon enough.
Eurocanard will be replaced Neuron(or modfied kinds, neuron is flying in 2010)
And F-35 replaced by X-47 (or lookalike, just roled out)

remember sooner than later..2020 will be all UCAV in the west, so thats gives us 5 years with f-35? (a really good investment i would say)

The only area that still not claimed by UCAVs is highspeed AoA, and thats not F-35:s turf, its F-22:s.
And in conflicts as to day, long endurance light attack, only Reapers (and alike) will be used. because so much cheaper, and still do the job.

Well, I hate to tell you but external tanks would not be dropped unless in an emergency. As for one they are extremely expensive and two usually in very short supply. Further, in a Gripen NG vs Lightining Engagment. The external Fuel Tanks of the Gripen would just increase the range (i.e. RCS, Drag, etc.) that the the aircraft could be detected and would likely be destroyed before they could drop them in any case!:D Also, I keep hearing about the Stealth Penalty? Which, I would love for someone to clarify??? As the F-35’s cousin the F-22 doesn’t seem to suffer from it. As is has excellent range and can “Super Cruise” at high Mach. Further, as long as we are on the subject of Aerodynamic Penalties. Which, I assume your partner means by costs for Stealth. Are you going to tell me that the Gripen carrying External Fuel Tanks and Stores would not pay a bigger price in drag than the clean F-35 with internal fuel and weapons. Remember, the fully loaded Gripen NG with max fuel (internal/external) carries approximately the same fuel as the F-35 does clean………….:rolleyes:

Yes i would!?, thats why the big thisty engine?! and thats why its restricted in topspeed.. The F-22 suffer also, but probably less. The power of two F119 is humongus! big crosssection was the one thing earlier designers needed to get rid of(mig21/Draken era, the jump from radial to axail compressors), to even reach over 1 mach.
Now the americans replaces that with big engines and fuelbills.

You never know, and it would be stupid to choose the Gripen anyway. India has inhibitions about American stuff because it fears of sanctions so why buy Gripen which will also be succeptable to those. Better get F 16 or SH in case of the latter you can have engine commonality with half of your fleet.

No difference, if a sanction from with american law is made, it also includes f-16 or SH parts. No difference if it sits in a gripen or a SH. The americans also is in om the gripen, so.. a order is an order but not as good for them if india buys gripen than a SH, but still better than EF or rafale?!
100% american or much less? thats the question..
Gripen have a broad supplierbase in the “international” arena so the risk is smaller, rather than just have it from one country. That goes for EF and Rafale to.
And even SAAB will get some orders if Rafale or EF is choosen(subcontractor)!