what if you are wrong ? 😀

You have no ideas about carriers, have you? They are designed with the main carrier aircraft in mind. Hence the Indians choose the MiG-29K and not the Su-33 for their refit. Every naval aircraft has a “footprint” = space in need and a main mission related operating weight or empty equipped weight to be lifted. All the restrictions from that rules out the present PAKFA. Even the Russians will swap some of their Su-33 from their single carrier for more useful MiG-35s. Just something small like a Harrier could be operated from most flight decks.

perhaps I can say the same about your knowledge of these particular carriers ? anything that can carry the su-33 can certainly carry the PAKFA. future Indian carriers will be built around the aircraft they operate. by the time they start designing they will have a very good idea which aircraft is going to fly off its decks. that goes for both IN and RuN future carriers.

Why are we talking about cost-benefit analysis when the key matter is that those planes have UNSAFE engines? Just because budgetary constraints say it’s ‘unfeasible’ to replace them doesn’t make the resultant loss of life acceptable. Would the IAF and the MoD come to the same conclusion when their VIP transport jets grow old and new engines and upgrades are considered ‘unfeasible’? No, I didn’t think so, either.

in the ideal dreamworld everyone flies F-22’s. unfortunately we don’t live in one.

witcha, 60% of the inventory was bis ? really ? that too in condition good enough to justify an upgrade ? :rolleyes:

Their airframe life may be over but if they are going to be kept in service till 2017 that alone merited a new engine. I’m referring to the proposal given a few years ago, when there was still a decade of service life intended.

your opinion is based on what cost benefits analysis ? what do you know that IAF doesn’t ?
floggers in IAF are intended to do a very particular job and IAF has upgraded it extensively in the recent past to better fulfil those objectives. if the option of engine upgrade was considered but not exercised, it stands to reason that the IAF does not think the improved performance is worth the time, effort and money.
unless you are privy to the files from air HQ, I don’t know on what basis you are making these statements.

Can’t see it being any worse than the 21s.

precisely why you shouldn’t pass opinion on a subject you are not aware of. the mig-23 is one of the least liked fighters of IAF while the mig-21 for all its faults is one of the most well-liked ones. the impression one gets from a computer screen is not the same as one gets working or flying on that plane, which is a maintenance heavy and unreliable swing-wing aircraft that offers no performance benefits that justified the efforts spent on it.

all those are IAF decisions, not GOI ones.

penny-pinched on re-engining the MiG-27’s
not much life left and the cost of re-engining is not justified by the time it would be in service. would be easily replaced by LCA Mk1 in same role.

limited the BISON upgrade to just 125 MiG-21s
how many bis airframes were available in the first place ? the decision was taken after structural testing of the bis. IAF did have the option for a further 50 bisons which it did not exercise.
ignored the 23s altogether
a panic buy in response to the F-16 whose service record in IAF can at best be termed atrocious. IAF is very happy to let it go.

If they had any sense the MiG-21s should at least had their engines replaced with a more reliable model, like the RD-33 tested for the proposed MiG-21-97 upgrade.
RD-33 isn’t that reliable to start with.

There is no real market for a navalized PAKFA.

except the RuN and IN. 😉 that would suffice.

a recent article by pyotr butowski states that mig is going to be the principal shipborne fighter developer under UAC. which means, as and when the PAKFA is navalised, mig would have a finger in the pie.

thanks H_K, always liked the 2 seat mirage.