Senators are more concerned about losing jobs in their home-states etc…..

That is a bunch of crap.
I’ve seen figures that suggest the Su-35 will come at 65mil$.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35

Picking numbers out of thin air again are we?

Thanks

No it has been reported widely by more than one journalist. It has been postedn in multiple threads in this forum. Instead of accusing me of picking stuff out of air. Why don’t you search for it ?

I do not have time to dig up old threads and news for people who don’t want to do it themselves.

Yes well, I don’t know.
I red some analysts put Mig-35 in a 30m$ flyaway class. Gripen NG is being in 60m$ class and EF in 90m$ class, excluding logistics which will almost certainly be lower for Mig-35, then any other contender.
Mig-29 costs ~11m$.

Well the analysts are wrong even optimists here would put the price at more than 45 million dollars fly away cost. Yes the MIG 29 costed 11 Million dollars, but at the time the F 16s cost was like 15-18 million.

Good price competition between the gripen and the mig-35. Buyer’s market for sure.

Yes and the F 16IN would be price competitively as well I think. The Super Hornet will cost a bit more but not as much as the Typhoon or Rafale.

The F 16 Block 60 still has a good T/W ratio (although not as good as block 52+) so it may actually do well in Leh.

Many also believe that the MiG will not be selected because that would amount to having an all Russian fleet.

At best it can offer India a Tiffy with a developmental radar project attached to it. Just like Dassault and SAAB…

Actually I think Dassaults and SAABs AA radars are pretty much done and only needs more trials. EF is far behind.

India has its own AWACS program based on native radar on embarer platform. These will compliment the 3 Phalcons ordered from Israel (one is already in service). Three more may be on order may be on a different platform other than the IL-76.

So then maybe India should tell the lovely ladies & gents that are showing off their Typhoons, Rafales, Migs & F-18’s to go away because they’re wasting their own time, money & resources, shouldn’t they. If that really is the case then I’m sure the latter contenders would’ve just took the hint, packed up & went back home by now. Their, i.e India, logic looks somewhat, odd to me, yes have something cheap, but still…

The trials are really tough. Many aircrafts may look great on paper and be compatible with what IAF wants, but the trials in India and performance under conditions like Leh will have an impact on the decision as well. Thats where the twin engine birds may have an advantage.

I only said favourites not winners. 😉

Of course you can strap a nuclear bomb under any plane but the Rafale is the only plane in your example that has been designed from the onset to carry nuclear strikes. So your statement that F-18 & Typhoon are heavier because of nuclear needs is BS pure and simple.

The F 16 is also designed to carry a Nuclear bomb. According to Wiki atleast. But this is an American weapon the B61, then again i would say Rafale ain’t designed to carry Indian nukes either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf

But Germany did want to talk! Hitler was perfectly willing to make peace at any time – but on his terms, which neither Britain nor France would accept, as they meant subservience to Germany.

The original point was Britian did not go to War because of a moral issue. She went for War because she had her own reasons to do so.

So what? What does that have to do with intention & willingness? The UK ignored German feelers, & insisted on fighting on, even without France, & with Italy having joined the war on the German side. What does that tell you?

I tell you what it tells you: that you are completely wrong. There was no prospect of Britain making peace with Germany until Germany was defeated. Whether by blockade, by whittling away at German allies, by bombing – whatever means were possible – Britain would fight on.

Britian was actually **** scared of an invasion and preparing the Home Guard. Yes they won the airwar (admittedly a blunder by Germans as RAF was on its knees by the time they called the thing off). Not till Americans entered the Frey had they had any intention of Liberating Europe, For that too they waited till the Soviets were practically winning the war on the Eastern Front.

Without external help, first in terms of aid and weapons and escort ships and then joining the war, Britian would not have lastd much longer.

Ridiculous! The majority against Mugabe is obviously far greater than shown by votes cast.

Mugabes government acted to disenfranchise large numbers of people before the election, targeting those it thought most likely to vote against him. Millions have left the country, both for economic & political reasons, & for obvious reasons, few if any of them would support Mugabe. The votes counted represented less than 40% of voters (& remember, registered voters exclude large numbers of opponents of Mugabe), despite large numbers of rural voters being forced to vote. Of those votes cast, a majority were not for Mugabe, & we know that many of those he did get were fraudulent, that polling stations in strongly anti-Mugabe areas had too few ballot papers, & that many of his opponents were forcibly prevented from voting, even if they’d managed to register.

And you claim that rigged vote might under-represent his support!

All this unilateral views held by international (mostly western media and observers). Who also allege election fraud in places from Afghanistan to Russia :). I personally subscribe to the views expressed by them but not everyone does. You see the world is so dominated by the Western hemisphere that all mainstream news represents only one view. Mugabe still has a lot of support may not be majority (my bad) but you only have to look at rallies supporting him to see this.

Zimbabwe is changing slowly from Inside. Only changes like that are sustainable.

I don’t think you can realistically pull F.1’s out of retirement and update them without Isreali-derived help. You might as well deal for secondhand Mirage 2k or Gripen A/B, or the choice is pretty much new build; Rafale, Gripen, or Typhoon. The Iraqis seriously need capability to hold off an Iranian military offensive in the event of an American withdrawal. And they need to be able to repel bombing missions out of Turkey into Kurd-held areas. Iraq is wedged between middle east powerhouses of Turkey, Isreal, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Syria is way down the list as far as threats.

They can buy the JF 17 or Gripen C/D if they want to. The Americans will still keep permanent bases and small amounts of soldiers there that should prevent Iran from acting foolishly. There is no need for Iran to invade Iraq now as Iraq is headed by Shia majority government. Kurds are administering their own territory I don’t think they would need Iraqi help, and Iraq in any event cannot stand up against Turky’s superior Air power. As things stand Iraq is a democracy and none of these powers including Israel would consider it as a threat. Any Airforce Iraq should have would be for Air Patrols, Counter Insurgency and minimum deterrence.