The PLA is cunning. Rather than spend billions in upgrading their Navy to take on the Indian fleet, they spent only a few hundred and took down India’s newest flag ship 😮

I think the biggest problem – and as such a constant source of trouble, misunderstanding and harsh discussions is the different definition of the term COPY used or accepted by several of us here:

First You can take it as a true COPY … or a derived or inspired design.

1. If accept a copy only as a 1 by 1 exact replica of the original, then You surely need the blue-prints or at least one original airframe to drawn new plans … as such neither the Lavi is a F-16 with canards nor is the J-10 a copy of the Lavi, since the external dimensions are completely different, their fuselage diameter to hold a completely different engine, the radome and so on …

2. If You however that a copy as an “inspired, derived or influenced by the original design” development, then You surely can say the Lavi is a inspired or derived design of the F-16 and the J-10 is probably as derived from the Lavi like the F/A-18E/F is derived from the A/B, since they use similar configuration or chose a similar design for similar requirements.

As such the Chinese Flankers J-11A are surely “copies” of the original Su-27SK, but a legal one … the gap widens a bit with the J-11B, which is a copy but a derived development with different systems, powerplant and modified airframe and here the situation is not as clear regarding its legal status … and esp. in mind of the latest J-15/-16 I would still accept the term “copy” and even question their legality.

But to tell the J-10 a “copy” of the Lavi again is plain stupid … if You accept “copy” only by definition 1.

Can we agree on this ??

Deino

1, copies could be made if the original company is part of the development process. just like how Dassault helped IAI make Mirage clones

2. you lumped all variants into one cluster even though some variants are much closer to being copies and others being new designs.

Pics or it did not happen 🙂

looks suspiciously like the Dhruv.. what’s the deal.

I remember once suggesting the Mitsubishi F-2 was just a copy of the F-16, and got a long response describing how there were all these changes that made it not a copy.

lol nice try. AV-8B had British Aerospace working with mcdonnel douglas
Mitsubishi F-2 had General Dynamics doing most of the work in designing it. In case you didn’t know General Dynamics is the maker of the F-16 before Lockmart took over.

The Japanese wanted to produce this design

but supposedly was forced to buy an American design.

Errr . . . that’s more or less what they did when they got the Mirage 2000s. It was to postpone the acquisition, & enable everything to be evaluated without time pressure. But several years later, the time pressure is back. A second postponement won’t solve the problem.

There’s also the question of the F-5E replacement. FX-2 is supposed to replace first the Mirage 2000s, then the F-5Es (which have been through a very deep life extension & avionics upgrade), perhaps the A-4s (ditto), & at least part of the AMX fleet. Postpone much longer, & they’ll need to replace everything at once, which would present considerable logistics problems. Brazil doesn’t want to have to build lots of aircraft in a short time, then end up with empty factories. Very wasteful.

Perhaps Brazil could do like the Chinese, using Embraer to copy (ahem.. reverse engineer) Mirage 2000s and make new 2000’s models with local/updated components. With the 2000 line out of production, Brazil could actually get a legal license to do so, unlike some others.

Even more than that! Malaysia operates three supersonic fighter types (assuming the F-5Es are now all retired), each in squadron strength or less, plus the Hawk 200. That’s two too many for an air force of that size.

The Malaysians should have picked one type (MiG-29, F-18, or maybe F-16 or Mirage 2000) & stuck with it, spending on making it as effective as possible & operating as many as could be afforded. Assuming the same amount spent, that would have given them a far more effective force, regardless of which type was bought.

Malaysians always operate in pairs
Air force likes American types
Politicians like Russian types

agreed they should retire the third type.

Supposedly the Gorshkov deal is connected with the Nerpa lease and assistance with the Arihant + its missiles.
That is something no European country was/can offer.

you sir, also make a good point.. there are some things that Europe can’t offer to India that Russia could.. however its still quite possible India could decouple the Gorky and the Nerpa/Arihant deals, perhaps by paying a bit more or offering something else.

It is almost amusing that the ship itself appears to be trying to reprieve the Indian Navy from its seemingly inescapable burden!. The irony is also nearly unbelievable that the principle justification for carrying through with this deal is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago….that there is ‘no other option’.

There are, of course, options to simply skip Gorshkov as a bad idea. They would involve dragging on the Sea Harrier with the current ship or picking up a discarded european CVS like Principe de Austrias for the cost of a refit. The current IN SHAR inventory is light but could be augmented from a couple of potential sources going forwards…not least the half a dozen complete FA2 airframes at Culdrose. Recompense from the Gorshkov deal would more than cover any costs for refitting a CVS and regenerating half a dozen airframes in the near term.

IAC commissions, last I heard, 2017ish according to current scheduling…a schedule that seems generous enough to cope with a good few set backs. Running with whichever CVS until then presents no apparent issue I can see in terms of the IN’s strategic situation. IAC takes over after that with CVS covering refits, and modest deployments, until the Harriers expire around 2020. They then run on with IAC-1 and the small pool of Fulcrum-K’s until the first CATOBAR carrier is online middle of the next decade. Then, I’d imagine, pass the Fulcrums to the IAF and convert IAC to CATOBAR with a couple of EMCATs to buy some time until IAC-3 can be built.

Thats the alternative. The only real reason for continuing with Gorshkov at this point is the momentum thats built up in the contract. The IN want better than STOBAR delivers already and Rafale is on the way regardless. STOBAR buys time for IAC-2 and Rafale-M but you have IAC-1 to deliver it…with a vessel that promises to be considerable cheaper than the Russian built unit to run.

I’m starting to see your point and it does seem to make sense.. the IN should’ve went catobar and Rafale-M to begin with, not Gorky and Miggy. but its easy to say that in retrospect. perhaps this is a good opportunity to cut the gangrene hand. But would any other navy be interested in buying the Gorky off the Injuns?