A decision should be made at the beggining of next year flight evaluations are to start in April May, during the Indian summer. Which is ideal. cus if things are to break it will break then lol.

Typhoon is too expensive and has iffy commitment from its partners regarding the Captor E and A2G, if it had the latter two then the former may have been less of a problem.

I agree with most of your post 🙂

Also , any buyer who has a threat the F-16 block 60 cannot neutralize most likely also has the money to invest in something newer such as F-35 , Rafale and what not!!

In case of the MRCA where the Rafale and EF is pitted against the Viper, cost may also prove a big factor, especially if the AF needs it in higher numbers, if the Viper is going to be less costly and offers 80% of the performance, I think IAF would take that. 🙂

Go against a classic F-16A and the block 60 should loose unless the F-16A pilot really screws up

Err the Block 60 Pilot will have the advantage of JHMCS + AIM9x or ASRAAM, so I don’t think F 16 A stands much of a chance 🙂

Hmm EADS and not Dassault, SAAB or Boeing.

Err will we be seeing the Eurofighter in Indian Colours :(. If so let me pray for Captor – E

Thrust to weight ratio is important however it isnt really the sole factor , Thrust 2 Weight Ratio – Drag is better , and with those CFT’s and what not surely the drag will increase , however the thing is that for heavier fighters you need to have different wings , you can optimize a wing for a certain weight or a certain range of weight but the moment you start to go towards the north side of the range you will end up facing trade offs. It is simple sceince , you cannot have one wing optimized for all weight…

So lets say that the weight increase of the F 16 Block 60 is well within the limit of its wings. 🙂

I will take a 5-8% loss of agility and a 20-40% if not more overall performance, radar, range etc. 😀

Deterrent against Iran.

I am generally in favour of the F 16IN or the Girpen, A single engined fighter that can be inducted in larger numbers than the initial 126. Say 200-300.

The F16IN should be the ideal choice as the Israelis have been using it for strike and A2A missions for sometime. I am not sure about the Gripen in the A2G role.

Among the two engined jets I have to say I favour the Rafale.

There are reports of a split order between the Gripen and SH, to create a High Lo mix.

I would like a split order between the F 16IN and the Rafale 🙂 (not going to happen) ie. if we are going for split orders.

I am pretty sure it can do your Point (3) with regards to the SH.

On point (4) abt SH are you sure IAF sees this as a requirement, especially with Brahmos being inducted into the Sukhois ?

Agree on all other points with regards to the SH. If we go for twin engine its better to go for Rafale.

I am not sure about your point on the Rafales fuel economy compared to the F 16IN, could you illustrate.

Two engines also means more maintenance, so its just not only about the fuel economy.

Look at the weights! The Soufa is much heavier than a standard Block 52+. The F-16E & Soufa are similar weights. This is all about the weight.

That article neither states the weight of F 16E block 60 nor compares its weight with that of the F 16 I. It only states the weight of F 16 I.

The F 16 E also has a higher thrust engine :).

Oh dear. If you’re going to try to be insulting, at least do it properly. That’s very feeble.

You said “if (scenario)”. I said that (scenario) is inappropriate for the aircraft, & too unlikely to be worth considering. That demonstrates, to anyone of normal intelligence, 1) full comprehension of the use of “if”, & 2) that I have evaluated (scenario), & how it relates to the aircraft & its planned roles – and note, I did not say “always”, or reply as if you had said “always”. You’re resorting to very pfcem-ish straw man arguments. You may disagree with my evaluation, & if you choose to put forward reasoned arguments, your reasons for disagreeing may merit consideration & reply. But so far, the level of your replies suggests that you don’t have any reasoned arguments to put forward.

BTW, “boarder” is a person who boards, i.e. lodges in premises owned by another, renting a room, usually with meals provided. Derived from “board” as in table (archaic in English, but see modern Norse languages), & thence meals served at it. See “board & lodging”. The word you want is “border”, i.e. frontier, boundary, etc.

I was just talking about a likely wartime scenario and mission profile, while you attacked me saying I said they would be based in the border.

Spelling does not matter ! You can go on abt it all you want, if you can’t comprehend that its ‘border’ and not ‘boarder’ in this scenario then pity on you.

The level of my replies is meriting of your arguments. You have not put forward any solid evidence to validate you arguments, I have been asking for sources and links for days now and still nothing more than recycled arguments 🙁