^^
that 90kN is the max thrust from IN20 meant for Tejas Mk1
The engine for Mk2 is rated at 98kN….. would that be enough for Mk2 need to seen, considering that Mk2 is longer than the Mk1 and is going to have an increased weight.

One of the big mistakes was for going for a high composite content from the onset. The result now is that we have exhausted allmost all options to reduce the weight by replacing the sheet metal area. The only option now to reduce the weight (if in the future it become a necessity) is on the structure. And to get a good margin on weight reduction Titanium will need to be called in, which is going to make the cost/unit go north. Let us hope Mk2 doesn’t take us to that level.

I don’t know when our guys will learn to design it simple and conventional. The advantages of doing that are enormous because it keeps open the option of a better solution for the future. If we go in for what we perceive as the best and latest initially (read small & light), we are closing the doors (or narrowing) on future growth (read space & weight).

The length increase for the Mk2 over the Mk1 shows that the initial approach/priority/goal of making (or creating a record?) the worlds smallest & lightest fighter was wrong. The priority should have been for a small, light weight, multi-role & cost-effective fighter that could be produced in mass to form a strong base of the IAF fighter pyramid. At least that was the plan with LCA initially, but it have deviated from most of it. JMHT

3rd degree Blackbelt in Google-Fu 🙂

thats an interesting belt…:D

Don’t get me wrong, guys, the JF-17 is the right fighter that even came right on time. Everything is fine with it, it’s a cheapish Gripen of the Eastern world, an aircraft in a much highly asked for class… but it’s Chinese.. and China don’t buy it..

If it was Russian and introduced in the domestic air force, then it would have excellent export chances.. for all intents and purposes, buying from China means switching to a completely new vendor, which is very poorly established on the fighter maker market.

But as said, it was a right thing to do, no doubt.. You will find more countries willing to gamble and play a guinea pig with an $20mil aircraft like JF-17 instead of $40mil J-10. But China should definitely introduce few squadrons if they don’t want their yongest kid to die a slow death.

Agree on the view that JF-17 is probably the right size fighter in terms of cost and size that could replace the MiG-21. Not much orders for the aircraft should not be taken as it not being suitable as a cost-effective multi-role fighter.
The only other cost-effective alternative which was planned to replace the MiG-21, the LCA, got into messy time with lack of proper project definition (which shifted with each Discovery channel show :diablo:) and utter mismanagement.

In that department JF-17 have done exceptionally well, with the target set being that of a cost-effective multi-role aircraft with probably no ‘exceptional’ ground breaking technology. The result is a cost-effective multi-role fighter that is operational and serve the AF, unlike its competitor which unfortunately is ‘combat’ capable only on internet forums.

One of the right thing (among the many) of that entire project was to select a proper engine and put faith in its capability. The result was RD-93, with no ground breaking thrust and gave the aircraft required performance.

Now we hear a JF-17 block 2 variant is under development and one of the main difference could be the higher thrust engine. If the blk1 started with the ‘modest’ 8,300kgf thrust of RD-93, the new variant is probably going to get the newer RD-93MA with 9,300kgf thrust (~92kN) which is likely to improve its performance if there is no additional structural work/modification on the airframe and hence weight increase. If they manage to reduce the weight with more composite is what need to be looked at.

The LCA is also coming up with an MK2 variant, but the only difference here is that JF-17 Blk2 variant is coming/planned/developed after the initial variant became operational.

an interesting illustration..

Russia Filming Movie on Gulf of Aden Hostage Release
14:54 09/07/2012
VLADIVOSTOK, July 9 (RIA Novosti)

A subsidiary of Russia’s Mosfilm group has started filming an adventure movie recreating an operation to release a Russian vessel seized by Somali pirates in 2010, fleet spokesman Roman Martov said on Monday.

On May 6, 2010, the crew of the Admiral Shaposhnikov large submarine-hunter freed an oil tanker seized by Somali pirates; 23 Russian sailors from the hijacked vessel escaped the incident unscathed. As a result of the rescue efforts, 10 pirates were captured and one killed. The rescue operation took 22 minutes.

The film recreating the operation will be called “22 Minutes.”

“Filming began on Sunday in the Primorsk Territory. The film crew is now working at the Basargin Lighthouse [located near Vladivostok] which is known for its beautiful sea panoramas,” a spokesman for Mosfilm said.

He said filming will continue onboard the Admiral Tributs destroyer that also took part in the operation in the Gulf of Aden. The film will feature not only actors but also commandos.

For those interested in watching movies…here is some links for Mosfilm.
http://www.mosfilm.ru (official site)
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0028450/
http://www.youtube.com/user/Mosfilm (Movies with English subtitles)
http://www.youtube.com/user/MosfilmNews
http://www.cinema.mosfilm.ru/Films.aspx
http://www.cinema.mosfilm.ru/MainPage.aspx?gmt=-330

It has been long since I saw Russian Navy ship in movies. So looking forward to watch the “22 minutes”.

From what Russian MOD said lately they wont be funding a light fighter this decade ( SAP 2020 ) , they are alredy developing a new CAS aircraft and the PAK-FA/FGFA program.

There is no money or appetite for another fighter and they probably dont need one as Su-35 should do the job.

AMCA has no Russian involvement its more of DRDO own program , they might go for Western consultancy if required

Read it as Sukhoi doesn’t want it now and that they don’t want MiG to get funding on a new project and better their position. 😉

As for the need of a smaller fighter. Yes I can see the need for the successor for the MiG-29 (at least for the carrier deck) and unless it is started now, there won’t be a finished product by the time the new Russian carrier comes online (somewhere after 2020) and on Kuznetsov. T-50 based solution is big and a wastage of space, a smalller platform is needed. Both for land basing and carrier deck. I feel so.

Tu-160 looks awesome up close in air….but they could have done it on a newly painted aircraft. 😉