The fact that you not know what the have planned doesn’t mean there is nothing. Neither will mean a lot of plans that something will improve. 😉

then come and talk when there is something concrete, till then the JF-17 is nothing more than a Chinese product with Chinese avionics, including radar, that the PAF wants to replace with European avionics since they’re not happy with it, Chinese weapons that the PAF wants to replace with western weapons and a Russian engine that the PAF is not happy with and wants replaced as well.

nothing about the JF-17 sounds like its fixed for the future and from what it seems, the PAF is not particularly thrilled with what they’re getting, but putting up a brave face anyway since they’ve invested so much in it. otherwise why would they want to replace almost all the important components with western items ? :rolleyes:indigenous is of course not even in the picture. so much so for a domestic Pakistani aerospace industry.

Sorry, but if all things were equal, there is no way anyone would choose LCA over Gripen. Just absolutely no way.

The list of advantges of Gripen is way too long…..

so please enumerate them. I can bet the one you’ll say is that the Gripen is in service. using that same argument, the JF-17 won’t stand any chance either, so why would it be successful for export ?

the reason is cost- plain and simple. a Tejas could cost around $30-35 million per unit for export (since the IAF’s Tejas’ cost around $25-26 million per unit), whereas the Gripen C/D goes for anywhere near $50-55 million per unit. name one system on the Gripen C/D that the Tejas doesn’t already have or won’t have when it enters service this year.

It is the same for them. I agree it is not the same plane but the path is usually Tweety/K8 -> FT7 -> F7 -> Mirages/PG/F16/JF17/FC20

so all PAF pilots fly the F-7 solo before moving on to other operational fighter types ? is there any one good article that explains the training for fast jet stream in the PAF ?

I think the point of having LIFT is that it can simulate flight performance closer to modern fighters than AJT and the cockpit and man-machine interface on these LIFT is also much closer to modern fighter.

Edit:
Actually, I think I got mixed up before. I think K-8’s role is intermediate jet trainer. From the recent Dubai Air show, L-15 was shown to be capable in both AJT and LIFT roles. I think JJ-9 would be able to also.

so if the JL-8 is an IJT in the PLAAF and trains pupil pilots to go on to the JJ-9LIFT, then how does the PAF use the K-8 as an AJT ? do they use any LIFT ?I thought that their FT-7s were basically for type conversion onto the F-7s..

SAAB & the FMV are prepared to give a price guarantee. The Swedes would take the risk of any cost overrun.

I agree. Saab had even given a fixed price offer to Netherlands for the Gripen NG and that was even earlier in the program. Now, with more developments being made, they’ll have a better idea of the final cost of the program and hence unit cost.

Saab’s Gripen NG offer to Netherlands with fixed prices

Indeed, but domestic support need not include purchase by the home country air force. JF-17 has a development partner which is committed to a significant purchase, & the backing of the Chinese government. That’s plenty. It doesn’t need the PLAAF to buy it, any more than the F-104G (practically a new aircraft) needed the USAF to buy it to achieve huge export success.

but that doesn’t apply in the Tejas’ case. I mean, you still need the backing of at least 1 major air force and 1 major purchase to get the supply chain going and keep it going for the duration of an export sale as well as the after-sales support. the IAF is the primary customer and unless it shows enthusiasm for the Tejas and supports it, which develops confidence for other users, there will be no foreign sales possible.

for the FC-1, the PAF was always the main customer since they needed to replace older Mirages and F-5 Fantans desperately, with the PLAAF buying some as well. it now seems like the PLAAF is not going to induct it after all, with the J-11 and J-10 as options, the FC-1 may be considered as falling short.

Apologies if you think that. I just find it hard to think how a plan that is still being flight tested can be claimed to be the fighter world’s next export success.

I must add that the Tejas has completed all test points of its flight testing phase that relate to its Initial Operational Capability (IOC) phase by Dec 2009 sea level trials held off Goa. And, as per its Chief Test Pilot, Air Commodore Rohit Verma (not retired) who is the Director of the National Flight Test Center, the Tejas met all parameters during the test flights.

The LCA, on paper, is a very impressive plane and India should be proud of what it has acheived.I dont seek to deny that, but as we all know, the export market is a very different ball game.

much of what the LCA is, is not only on paper. the IAF won’t touch it if its only on paper, because unlike many other air forces who can afford to take airplanes into service before they are fully ready, the IAF simply wont due to operational concerns of having 2 big air forces on its borders. Thats why they’ve resisted for so long to induct the Tejas before it meets the IOC requirements even in terms of equipment.

ALL of the avionics that the Tejas will have when it enters squadron service are either fully tested or will be fully tested before being given to the IAF in Dec 2010. This is true because several of the Su-30MKI’s avionics as well as the Jaguar and MiG-27 upgrades have many LCA derived avionics as well as the 7 prototypes that are flying (8 counting PV-5 now) . LCA’s LRUs are thoroughly tested and many have been re-used on the HJT-36 Sitara which is due to enter operational service in June 2010. The only major sensor that is not yet been tested thoroughly on the Tejas Mk1 is the LRDE-Elta MMR-2032 hybrid. Its development was complete in early 2008 and ground testing was being done since then. LSP-2 was supposed to be grounded while it was mated with the radar and then flown. Given Elta’s experience and expertise, the radar should’nt have any major issues either.

Countries that traditionally do well on the export areana have the following

1) An established aircrat industrial base
2) Ability to develop weapons and integrate these on any fighter it exports
3) Exconomic and political clout
4) Past proven hardware

India is a far way off this. For example, should they offer LCA for export can they offer a wide variety of Indian made air to air and air to surface weapons as well?

Now, to address your points

the first point is very valid. If you want to support an export sale, you need to have a well-established aircraft industry, one that can provide timely spares, support and training. India already provides training to several air force’s cadets (Malaysia for e.g for both its Fulcrum and MKM pilots as well as technicians) so training any customer’s pilots and technicians won’t be an issue. The same was done for the Dhruv, where Ecuadorian pilots trained in Bangalore and then HAL deputed 2 pilots and several technicians to Ecuador in a newly established HAL office to support the Dhruv for 3-4 years at least, till Ecuador could do it on its own.

Spares won’t be an issue since for the Tejas, several hundred private firms were tapped to be ancilliary support industry and they are part and parcel of the program. the more business for them, the better and in general, private firms will provide timely support because they do not depend on monopoly unlike some Public Sector Enterprises.

Regarding ability to develop weapons and integrate them, integrating is not that big a deal. the radar’s source code belongs to India and as it is, the Tejas will be integrated with a variety of BVR and WVR weapons- for sure are
– R-77 (because its the IAF’s main BVR weapon currently)
– Astra (because it was developed with the LCA as a main platform)
– Derby (because the Indian Navy has already identified this as the N-LCA’s BVR weapon)
– R-73 (already test fired near Goa)
– Python 5 (?- not sure but likely for the N-LCA as the Magic IIs will be retired)
– Litening LDP (already integrated and extensively tested)
– 1000 lb bombs (already dropped over Jamnagar, so with Paveway or Griffin LGB kits, these become PGMs)

The Gripen uses mostly non-Swedish weapons. Its BVR and WVR weapons are not Swedish as are most of its A2G weapons. So, if the Gripen can be sold to countries without Swedish weapons, why should the LCA be an exception ?

Economic and political clout- its an accepted fact that India already has economic clout and will be an economic powerhouse during the coming decades. the same goes with political clout.

Past proven hardware is the one factor that will be the hampering factor. Till the IAF uses, and expresses confidence in the Tejas, foreign air forces won’t take a chance. Operational record is a necessity. the Dhruv only started getting orders after the IA and IAF started operating it in large numbers for several years of safe flying. which is why I believe that its only the Tejas Mk2 that has any realistic export potential, based on the Tejas Mk1 having been operated for some years and depending on how it fares in the IAF.

and if you look at exports, every country that is aiming to make a big export sale, has domestic support from its Air Force (e.g. Swedish AF pilots do a lot of talking about how the Gripen is great in this, or that, to foreign air force pilots, journalists, officials, etc.). the IAF traditionally doesn’t do any marketing because it never needed to in the past. That must change if the Tejas has to be a successfully exported to any nation.

1) In June JF-17 will be in frontline operational service with a relatively large,we equipped air force

and the Tejas Mk1 will enter Initial Operational Capability role in the IAF’s No.45 Squadron by Dec.2010, i.e. 6 months after the JF-17 enters squadron service.

2) Has a fully integrated and functioning engine

so does the Tejas Mk1. the F-404 IN20 is the chosen engine for 2 squadrons of IAF Tejas Mk1 fighters. and of course they’re “fully integrated and functioning”. If not anything, the F-404 is the very benchmark of reliability in the world’s fighter engine market.

and for the Tejas Mk2, a superior and newer generation engine will be chosen compared to the RD-93 of the JF-17

3) Wespons systems and integration practically completed. Choice of Euro/Chinese systems

Choice of Euro systems ? where has Pakistan integrated any Euro systems or weapons on its JF-17s ? as yet, they’re completely Chinese both in avionics and weapons. you can only offer Euro systems when you integrate them yourselves, or else if you offer it to customers without having done it for yourself, you’ll need to factor in the cost and time taken in doing it for them.

5) Price is known

so it is for the Tejas. we know how much the IAF has paid for its first 20 Tejas Mk1 fighters as well as how much the IN has paid for its first 6 N-LCA prototypes.

6) China/Pak already in talks with potential customers

this is the only difference. China and Pakistan always intended the FC-1 to be exported in large nos. for the Tejas, the IAF is not bothered beyond its own requirements and the GoI has never been savvy in exporting indigenous defence equipment.

I am not saying LCA can never reach thi stage, but it is someway off compared to JF-17. I am also certain JF-17 will be a lower cost option.

it will be behind the FC-1 in this matter for sure. but technologically, its more advanced and will be technologically obsolete much later than the JF-17 thanks to the 4th gen technologies incorporated.

also, the choice of an American engine (F-404 IN20 or F-414) or European one (EJ200), while more reliable and technologically advanced than the RD-93, may not make it an attractive option for third-world countries that are not sold equipment by US or EU. It’ll be costlier and will require (at least in the case of the US) permission from another country for onward sales. In this matter, the EU will be a much much safer bet, although the EJ200 is more expensive than the F-414.

I mean it’ll be under the same restrictions as the Gripen could be. mind you, in this regard, the EU option is much much better- as we’ve seen in the past that Boeing tried to include a clause that restricted any future exports of the Tejas without US consent for Boeing consultancy for reducing the number of flights required for completing flight testing. India rejected that clause and later went to EADS for help, and they won that deal.