You can find dozens of numbers on the likely price of the F-35. Because there are so many variables.

Those are program of record numbers as reported to congress.

As always the critics take the numbers out of context…….:rolleyes:

How are these numbers out of context?

Well, that of course depends the source. As some claim the FGFA is the same as the PAK-FA. While, others state that its a Unmanned Future Type……..

Regardless, its not up to me to define roles for future Indian Military Projects……..

Yes, I see the Indian/US Strategic Relationship growing by leaps and bounds…..Also, in the case of Boeing. They have the advance technology ……..Yet, currently have no funded future fighter projects. Which, is clearly in the interests of the US to keep them viable Defense Contractor. In short they need a partner…………..HAL would be perfect.

Again you haven’t answered any question clearly.

So? How does that mean they can’t learn anything from it? Did the F-22 development benefit from the F-117? Did the F-35 benefit from the F-22? So you are saying experience counts for nothing?

I said two very different projects……………for two very different roles!

You didn’t answer a single question and you also did not say how technology and data from the FGFA was supposed to be unusable for the MCA. As for different projects and different roles, please define their roles. I asked you before how you see the future Indian force mix and replacement strategy and you did not reply on that topic.

As I already stated any of the three that could share the same engine with the LCA MK2…………..but I prefer Boeing. As I believe the Super Hornet will win the MMRCA.

How much ToT regarding stealth beyond mere customer level have we seen recently from the US? Do you think this would suddenly change just for India?

Sorry, India is not ready to go it alone. On such an ambitious project like the MCA.

Read again: Learn from FGFA (i.e. outside help and expertise), apply on MCA.

Other than, Scooter, why don’t we cut this pseudo-thread short and say: “No, they shouldn’t scrap their indigenous projects and go for the F-35 instead, begging for any amount ToT as a carrot-on-a-stick.”

Satisfied now?

Looking at how long it takes to develop a truly 5th gen fighter and bearing in mind Indian aviation industry (still needs a lot of experience before maturation), I guess around 2030 or so might be good estimate before MCA gets into service. And by then many of these other types would be approaching their retirement.

But it’s supposed to replace Jags and M2000s, isn’t it? Considering that the MCA is supposed to mix with the PAK-FA/FGFA, I’d expect India to sign a PAK-FA contract with liberal ToT and then apply tech from that project to the MCA, which would be quicker than completely going it alone.

No other 5th gen program will probably offer as much ToT and involvement, so if the PAK-FA participation is viewed as a strategic investment, then there could be a lot to be gained from this partnership.

there have been great disasters that you won’t remember as well..do you even hear or know of the Latur earthquake that affected India or the Gujarat earthquake that killed more than 20,000 in India ? no- heck the guys quoting natural disasters in posts above, don’t mention it.

does that mean you don’t give a damn about those who’ve died in natural disasters ? I don’t think so. whereas, everyone will recall those 200 odd people who died in the Bombay terrorist attacks, because those were precisely that- terrorist attacks, orchestrated by Islamic terrorists. there is a BIG difference between the two, when one is something that no human can be held responsible for, whereas the other is due to the acts of a set of humans. they are morally responsible for murdering those many people, whereas in the former, whom can you hold responsible for an earthquake ?

I emphasized the last part, because that’s quite important in my opinion. I’m a pragmatist: I only care about the one responsible as far as it helps prevent future similar incidents. Less blaming and punishing, more saving. If you had the choice of a single action and it’d be either a) punishing an offense and b) preventing the next offense, I’d always go for prevention.

Terrorist attacks might seem to be easier to grasp than building stable infrastructure, keeping contingency plans in place and developing technology to weather natural disasters, but it makes the disasters no less tragic and ultimately preventable.

That being said, I also don’t think that the measure of being preventable is any kind of yardstick for a death’s tragedy. All deaths are equally tragic. Mortality is an evolutionary trait we should get rid off.

There is no moral equivalence between the two.

In a thread about Kim Kung Il’s threatened use of nuclear weapons against his neighbors, your attempt at equating moral relevance between deliberate murder and accidental deaths due to nature is very offensive.

You are misreading something. I’m not talking about moral relevance. I’m talking about tragic effect.

One could find the notion offensive that one death is supposed to be more tragic than another due to its circumstances. Is it more tragic if a person dies in an attack than if the same person dies due to accident?