So what is the PAF’s final intended size? The IAF intends to maintain around 800 fighters. I can see at least 150 JF-17s and 50 F-16s procured in the long run. Beyond that what? Are the reports of stealthy JF-17s credible?

I like how nobody here is considering the most viable alternative available.

The An-70. Now that it’s resumed funding and will be ready for production in a couple of years, has better performance than the A400M at one-third the cost, and falls in the 35-40 ton category, by all rights it should be getting a lot more orders. But pretty much has everyone ignored it like an unwanted stepchild.:confused:

The Russian Navy is in a desperate situation with the Bulava. On one hand it’s so riddled with faults that they can’t seem to make it work no matter how hard they try. But on the other hand if they cancel it they have nothing else to turn to since they can’t afford to fund another SLBM program(even if they have the capability to develop one, which they do).

It’s bad considering the Boreis are already in advanced stages of construction.

To the Russian experts here, what is the viability of these alternatives?

1)Create a shorter version of the Sineva that would fit inside the Boreis. Although this may lower their range to, say, 6000km it would still be a viable deterrent for subs on patrol.

2)Refurbish the three Typhoon class submarines that have been laid up to serve for another 20-25 years. These are already built to carry the Sineva, and although there would only be four of them with 10 MIRVs each they’d provide at least a minimum credible deterrent.

The figures I’ve seen for active sonars have been surprisingly low. For instance the ‘Ros’ dipping sonar on the Ka-28 helos can only detect submarines for 3-5km. Even the best figures I’ve seen are only for 50km or so. I suspect the limitations of sonar technology are why submarines are so hard to detect, although to be fair it’s not easy to obtain specs about sonar range on the internet.

The US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships can get up to around 45 knots, but they have a semi-planing hull, which isn’t ideal for deepwater cruising, and they probably burn enormous amounts of fuel to reach and sustain those speeds.

IMHO, the more sensible concept is to regard naval vessels as ‘mother ships’, that can launch fast RHIBs and/or helicopters as required. That seems to be the way it’s working out in the anti-piracy effort off the coast of Somalia.

Thanks. And I wouln’ worry too much about those Iranian vessels. Even if every one of them carries SSMs they have no credible long-range radars or helos. Without the surveillance systems needed to detect and pinpoint targets for their missiles they’re toothless.

Thats fine but the IAF does take local industry for granted in delaying orders which put the entire onus on HAL to maintain production lines and keep skills intact, when manpower is at a premium and programs like the MKI need to be accelerated. Simply put, only a captive industry will put up with this. When the same approach was tried with Dassault, for follow on Mirage orders, even with 120 odd airframes up for grabs, Dassault walked away. Ultimately, these costs are borne by the taxpayer.

One thing though; HAL is a PSU. Being a non-commercial and non-profit entity(though it does make profits) the usual rules don’t apply here. Just as GTRE has existed for over 50 years without developing a single accepted operational product(no, I don’t count the Orpheus engine upgrade), the LCA program will still go on regardless of how many planes are on order.

My apologies on the J-10A gaffe. I actually meant to refer to an older fighter project that’s no longer in production.:o

The IAF reluctance on the LCA mk.1 is understandable considering that there will be significant changes between it and the mk.2 version that is expected to form the bulk of their order. It’s not a simple matter of upgrading the avionics, the mk.2 will have an altered airframe, something that can’t easily be backfitted to the older versions like in the Eurofighter tranches. If the IAF are going to operate these aircraft for decades, they ought to put more priority on the more advanced version.

IAF To Order More Tejas Mk-1s

Source

This reeks of political persuasion from Antony and co. Not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing but if the Mk1 doesn’t meet the IAF’s requirements then it is still an ongoing development and should be limited to a token order like the J-10A.