Well if the T-50 is marketed for export then the same thing would apply if it has a similar price tag.

I’d estimate its price tag to be much higher.

And no I am not being vague. You are forgetting that an air force to be effective needs training. How can one service be effective when it has 20 or so frames to train with and international joint exercises are less than 10 a year (not everyone is invited or wiling to go to everyone even). The european theater may have up to 500 F-35s but not all will be there at the same time (LM deliveries) and not all will be willing to train with you when you want them or you can afford.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Royal Danish Air Force (30 fighters) is less well trained than the Russian or Chinese air forces (with active fighters numbering in the thousands). And its only exercises of the Red Flag scale that are limited. Nothing prevents Denmark, Belgium and Netherlands from setting up a joint training program (and perhaps even a joint air policing program). Throw in other neighbors like Germany, France, Norway etc and lack of air frames for joint exercises isn’t an issue at all.

We are talking about established air forces, which in the previous years have acquired front line capable fighters such as the F-16/18. Not airforces that were obliged to simple air policing duties.

Those established air forces were forced to maintain strong fleets only in, and as a legacy of, the Cold War. Today the threats facing Belgium or Portugal aren’t anymore severe than those faced by Ireland or New Zealand. They may contribute to multinational campaigns even without being a member of the NATO like Sweden in Libya 2011. Or may choose to stay out of such an operational despite being a NATO member like Germany during the same operation. That’s choice they get to make. There’s no military threat to those countries and the public campaigns to massively scale back militaries in places like Switzerland is not entirely devoid of merit.

This is an interesting line of debate but X vs Y comparison is missing an essential factor – cost.

The F-15E was superior to the F-16C in nearly every department (except for RCS). Was it a better aircraft? Not necessarily. The Su-30MK series was on the market in the 90s for $30-40 million each. That certainly was great value for money.

Are they any reliable estimates for the PAK FA’s cost? The latest AESA equipped Su-30s are priced at upto $100mil/unit. The PAK FA’s cost would be most likely $150mil+. The Russians have traditionally enjoyed a cost advantage over the competition especially vis a vis the Europeans. But with wages rising over the last decade and likely to continue growing, it remains to be seen how far that advantage will endure. Plus as a larger heavier aircraft the PAK FA is likely to have a significantly higher life-cycle cost particularly with continued growth predicted in global oil prices.

Really? Where did you pick this garbage from Mr.Expert?
And what was Indian Navy going to do by just buying the carrier?

Read it again. :rolleyes:

The Indian Navy was not ‘buying the carrier’. It was transferred at no cost, with ‘only’ the refurbishment to be paid for.

Even @ kidscorner members who had similar thoughts and negativity about the carrier have moved on after realizing the facts. But seems like you are still in it. sad.

I haven’t followed the debate @’kidscorner’, so you’ll have to excuse me.

My dear, give some rest to your bottom and try using your head. You will get that figure of $1.7billion.

Oh please. Even the contractor isn’t claiming a cost of $1.7 billion. Unless of course you’ve got it in your head that the cost of the carrier ought not to include the expenses clocked in the sea trials.

And plz dont reply if you intent is to continue for the sake of arguing. You made the PAK-FA thread a garbage bin with your expertise. I dont know if you are doing it to increase your post count or just for getting some kick. Either understand the thing and move on from the earlier negativity…

If you have an issue take it up with the mods.

anyway do use the ignore button for me when you feel like.

You replied to my post, not the other way round. Post #599 -> Post #622. Feel free to take your own advice.

yes MIG-29K available but not at price in 2004 signup. Russia would still have charged $1.5b for 16 MIG-29K in 2004 considering no one else can come to that price and capability. F-18E non Naval 2007 Export Price is $3b. Rafale did not have any antiship or anti radiation missile integrated. it was a primitive platform.

As usual a vacuous claim. The Gorshkov was transferred as a quid pro quo for the MiG purchase not the other way round.:rolleyes:

You cannot extrapolate costs like. Different engines, different steel and strength needed for 45k carrier. India simply unwilling to sign anything above $1.5b in 2004.

They’d both use a similar if not the same grade of steel. Same LM2500 gas turbines, scaled up diesels. By carrying over the design to the IAC program they’d also have managed huge cost and time savings on the latter.

BTW the Gorshkov refurbishment cost $2.35 billion not $1.5 billion.

Your assuming India has the way money at all the times in history which is simply not the case. it is only Bush supplied economics that devalued the dollar and raised the Euro to 1.68 in 2007 to 2008 period that India got some money for deals.

So India’s economic growth was driven only by the rising Euro which in turn was driven only by deficit spending in the US… :rolleyes:. Save your lectures on economics for someone who holds your philosophies in lesser contempt.

but not at this price. MIG-29 cheaper productionizing is related to Vik.

The cost of setting up MiG-29K production infrastructure has nothing to do with the cost to refurbish the Gorshkov.

by contrast the 2 Yak141 prototypes flew many times and the design was fully sucssesfull and performance was as good or better than expected and the Yak141 was a generation ahead of the Harrier.

Hardly. It was capable of supersonic flight but otherwise its advantages were a lot less stark. The Harrier II had a lower top speed but a much higher payload, longer range, lower wing-loading, superior avionics and probably greater reliability. Rate of climb and flight ceiling was comparable.

You do seem very willing to overlook a 300% cost increase and 52 month original delivery schedule missed by about 4yrs for Gorshkov though. Not really a fan of the French JSR?.

There’s little doubt that had the Indian Navy/MoD known that the Russians would deliver a carrier only by 2013-14 and charge $2.35 billion for they’d have said, thank you but no thank you.

Even if a domestic shipyard was not in a position to deliver a ship in the same class in a similar timeline, there are plenty of shipbuilders (Fincantieri for example) that could have been contracted to deliver a brand new ship with a far superior design under $3 billion.

I will happily admit that stealth offers advantages, but that is just one of many features. Kinematic performance (where the F35 barely keeps up with the F16) is way behind the eurocanards. And the reason is simple. The Eurocanards are designed to be able to get into a merge (by using low RCS and superior EW suites). By using GaN based AESA jammers this will be possible even in the future. (Consider detection threshold vs noise level)

Its getting to the merge that’s the issue. The Eurocanards have an RCS that is low relative to older aircraft (Tornado, Su-27) but unless they’re flying clean its easier said than done. And in WVR the aircraft with superior situational awareness will always have the edge, in this case that would be the DAS & VSI HMDS equipped F-35.

As I see it the situation is too complex to crown one as a winner just by looking at specs. The winner will be the side that can move the fight to where they have the advantage.

Not crowning a winner, but the odds certainly lie on the side fielding a vastly lower RCS and superior avionics.

Aim120D will IIRC use the same engine as the aim120C7. It is probably fairly effective out to 50km or so at medium altitude, but if the target gets early warnings and moves about at corner speed the range will drop fast.

That would imply that the range is adequate if jamming works out as you suggest it will.

Targeting stuff at long range is near impossible if they have modern jammers. Just ask the F15 pilots who faced off against against indian Su30MKIs. They couldnt even get a lock on at WVR. So the range of the Aim120 might just be adequate.

At Cope India they were using mechanically scanned radars and probably not using them to their full potential either. Against an AESA, the jammer will have to keep up with the frequency hopping target emissions which is unlikely given the lower number TR modules available and limited processing power. Add to which, heavy jamming radiation will be gift to every RWR in the vicinity.