The Brits (BAe) have a stake in the Gripen along with the US and Sweden. It would be interesting to see how things shape up especially with BAe in bed with the IAF with the Jag and Hawk. Along with BAe and HAL having a software JV.

The Pakistanis have to coordinate with three different countries with different politics for a Gripen deal. The Erieye is a much more plausible it would seem as Ericsson is the only major stakeholder along with whatever platform the Pakistanis may choose.

Anyone taken the time and/or care to actually ask a F-14 pilot what s/he thinks of the SH?

Instead we all have our preconcieved notions and droll on and on into super borenetdom.

The missiles are probably a ficticious air-launched Uran or something of the sort.

I’ve had and seen this pic for ages but only recently did it sink in that the inboard pylon can be doubled up to give the plane 9 (theoretical) weapons stations plus the IRST/LDP/Navpod station.

Let’s be candid, no one buys fighters purely on its technical merits. There’s always other factors; offsets, influence, kickbacks, pressure, etc involved. My argument has always been that when a country buys an fighter, it is getting the best holistic deal. Others may boast that US is best or something but my argument is that the best overall deal will win.

The best overall deal is the F-15T (Teagle). Why? Because the Raf’s and EF’s strongest points does not overcome the Teagle’s strongest point: Buying American influence. Irregardless of what technical advantages the Raf and EF may have over the Teagle, those supposed advantages are not big enough to offset Teagle’s biggest advantage. You don’t have to like it, you don’t even have to agree with it, it’s just the way things are.

Also, regarding interoperability:
I disagree that a Raf and/or EF would be as interoperable with the USAF, Japanese, and Australian forces. If that were the case, then the Spanish, the Japanese, and the Australians wouldn’t have chosen the Aegis and SM2/3 system for their ships. Why did they choose it? All of their naval procurement officials said mainly due to interoperability with the USN. Same applies to the USAF. Having similar eqpt as the USAF will make you better at interoperability. Let’s face it, not very many are keen to have interoperability with the French or Russians but they will sacrifice some things to have interoperability with the US forces. For better or worse, just the way things are.

Battlefield choppers are far from obsolete in a conventional war scenario. Where their limitations start to show is in insurgency type conflicts like Iraq and A’stan. At the same time, their utility in insurgency type conflicts are invaluable. So there’s a risk vs. cost calculation that must be done everytime a chopper is sent into these types of situations. Blanket statements like choppers are useless are pretty ignorant.

The PAF choppers (the Mi-17s and Bell 412s) will be employed more often than naught in exactly those (anti-insurgency) types of situations. Unfortunately, the type of enemies that those choppers will go up against are also equipped with RPGs and possibly Stinger/Igla.

Also, regarding using large scale heliborne assaults presupposes one important thing: air superiority over and around the LZ, if not the entire battlespace. Hardly a bygone conclusion by the PAF in an Indo-Pak conflict.

Having said all that, the Mi-17s, Bell 412s, and C-130s will be a massive improvement in PA and PAF transport and logistics. Their battlefield utility will depend on the tactics used during the battle.

Maybe the USN is there right now to show off the SH 😀 A dark horse in the race.

The LFI and the MCA will be complementary in the IAF’s force structure, circa 2025. With LCAs, MKIs, and M2Ks being the bulwark and the LFI and MCAs starting to trickle into the OrBat.

sharmaji, when you say

MCA will come by 2015

Do you mean IOC or first flight or roll out?

For a 2015 IOC, first flight would have to be around, at the latest, 2006. Impossible! IMO. The LCA is supposed to have IOC around 2008-2010, 8-10 yrs after first flight. Which is the global mean, it would seem.

Roll out or first flight around 2015 sounds more realistic.