rimmer if I meant “IAF was the sole operator” I would have written so.
why would I add an extra ‘about’ or the word ‘similar’ then, please tell me ?

precisely because by using those words I meant that for ‘all real purposes‘ IAF is/was the sole operator of those types. I stand by that statement.

it is you who is playing with words, not I.

We have to wait to know this for sure.

There are still some technologies which are being developed (if they have not been axed due to the recent financial trouble) or have been in development which could prove to be game changers that we dont know off. One that has had some press is LADAR (?) for the F-22.

it all depends on the amount of metals used isn’t it ? more the amount of metals more advanced it is ?

Can anyone ID the canard-delta diamond formation @ 9:21? Look like typhoons or J10s but can’t see why they’d put them in that show. 😮

USS.

agree it’s very strange. those are typhoons.

I love the word “darstardly”! Make me sound like a Sherlock Holmes baddy! :diablo:

Please point out the allegations I made against you. I was asking people to stop bickering.

Nice to know we can cary this on in a civilised way though.

2) OK, lets make this a bit clear. You previously said IAF was an only operator of Gnats and Jaguars. This has been proved wrong.I dont care what the air forces of other nations used the planes for or in what numbers.That was not the point. All I was saying, was at the time he IAF choosed the Gnat and Jag, both aircraft had other users, you claimed this was not the case. I proved it was.

If IAF does go ahead with the LCA, it will be the only users. Trust me when I say most air forces (bar USAF) dont find this the most comfortable of things.

>> Rimmer, please don’t put words into my mouth. the dastardly adjective was used wrt the allegations by yudisthir. what I said was that you were repeating them,
viz.

I did notice the BR link removed, can someone please post again?

which is simply repeating a false allegation.
_________________________________

1) So basically you are agreeing with me? Only 40 LCAs have been ordered? Thats all we can be certain about. “IAF officers have indicated” is not really a certainty of anything. All I am saying and this was in regards to your previous posts where you were “certain” thsi would be inducted in large numbers,is that the whole LCA project is very much at a “wat and see” stage.Nothing is certain.It may end up being a 200+ order or the IAF may actually terminate it at 40 planes.

if you put it that way, nothing is certain, there are however acceptable levels of possibility and then there are possible but improbable events.

it is possible the earth may be destroyed tomorrow by an asteroid hit but it is unlikely that will happen. similarly, when a senior IAF officer says something it is unlikely that anything else will happen, since he can be expected to accurately convey the position of his service.
get my point ? the LCA Mk2 is at wait and see at the moment precisely because that DOES NOT add any years to the program. your words would have made sense if the Mk2 was a year away from production run and the IAF wasn’t placing orders. the IAF finds no need to order something that is not in the air yet 4 years before the production can start.
we will take this up again by 2013 end, okay ? I’ll admit you were correct and I was wrong if the IAF doesn’t place an order by 2013 end.

Going by past SU-30 procurement as a guide to the future procurement of a indegenious plane is now real guide at all.Just becuase IAF ordered batches in 40 in the past that does not really tell as anything solid about the LCA project.

not only the su-30, IAF uses this tactic in every major acquisition starting from the jaguars.

if you arbitarily throw away past behaviour of an institution in trying to predict future behaviour, on what exactly are you basing your views upon ? your feelings ? that’s not admissible.
the seriousness of IAF can be gauged from the fact that the DCAS chairs a review committee on the LCA that meets once every month and the CAS every quarter. this is over and above the IAF teams at NFTC and elsewhere that are closely associated with the program.
time is a precious qty for senior IAF officers, they don’t spend it on meaningless projects. clearly LCA has some value for them.

2) OK, lets make this a bit clear. You previously said IAF was an only operator of Gnats and Jaguars. This has been proved wrong.I dont care what the air forces of other nations used the planes for or in what numbers.That was not the point. All I was saying, was at the time he IAF choosed the Gnat and Jag, both aircraft had other users, you claimed this was not the case. I proved it was.

If IAF does go ahead with the LCA, it will be the only users. Trust me when I say most air forces (bar USAF) dont find this the most comfortable of things.

no, I didn’t say IAF was the only operator.

let me quote my own post again :

IAF itself was about the sole military-operator of the gnat and did it quite successfully too.
similar reasoning applies to the jaguars.

realistically speaking, in what way did a measly 13 gnats flying in far away finland affect the IAF’s operation of the type ?
hwo does it affect the IAF that oman flies a handful of jaguars ? especially when IAF jaguars have evolved to be significantly different from the omani ones.

please, please give me some logic on why IAF should care whether nigeria flies the jaguar or the tornado. “trust me on this” sadly, is not a logic.

by your reasoning the french should stop operating the rafale since they are the sole operator of the type so far ! :rolleyes:

pray tell me how and why does it make the air force happy that some other air force half a world away is flying the same type when the aircraft itself can be produced and maintained a couple of kilometers away ?
USAF is OK with it precisely because they can make and maintain everything in country, not for some other untold reason.
exactly same reasoning applies for any other AF if its domestic industry can manufacture and maintain the type.

the AF won’t give two hoots whether some other unrelated AF uses it.

in case the other thread is locked.

Harry passed away in May 2007. Cause is heart attack.

Link to the news item

I was his classmate in college. He did have an amazing knowledge about military technology as ascertained from his interaction with a defense scientist at the IIT-Madras tech seminar on the LCA in 2004.

One of his articles: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_521.shtml

He forbid me from revealing his true identity online. But now that he has passed away, I feel everyone needs to know the real person.

RIP Harish Balaji K.

PS: Sorry for the off topic post.

his profile : http://forum.keypublishing.com/member.php?u=309

added later : Harry was a moderator here on keypubs and a very respected member.

Rahul
Firstly, lets have the common courtesy to respect everyones opinion. Have just joined this forum and have my posts called”lame arguments” or “nonsense” is not that welcoming.If you feel I am wrong or disagree please feel free to say so, but lets leave the insults.

I have no intention to be discourteous but please tell me what adjective I should use for an argument that is nowhere near correct IMO ? it’s decidedly not a comment on your person, just on this particular reasoning. so please don’t take this personally.

the “nonsense” was written by another member, you were repeating it. I don’t know how to express “it” in a more civilized fashion, given that you were repeating a most dastardly allegation against me.

1) I persoanlly dont think the IAF will induct this plane in numbers.It seems veryreluctant to do so from all I read andI stand correct but current orders from IAF are just 40. Unless they have placed an order for 100+ then I am sure we can agree nothing is ever “certain”.

well then you are supposed to present facts and reasoning in support for your assumptions.
a simple “I don’t think so” won’t cut it, unless you are the IAF Chief. 😉

current ‘firm’ orders from IAF for Mk1 stand at 40, HAL will take till 2013-14 to complete that order by which time Mk2 will be ready for production. a number of senior IAF officers have indicated that they are looking to induct 100 of the Mk2 type for a start. for obvious reasons they won’t place firm orders till the a/c is ready since there is no pressing need for them to do so.

IAF always starts ordering in small batches, even the # of su-30mki initially ordered was 40, it has gone up to 280 at last count. who can say the same won’t happen with the LCA.

even otherwise, 40 itself is a large number, counting the additional trainer versions that number is almost as big as IAF’s entire mig-29 and the mirage2000 fleet.

2) IAF will not one to be the only operator of the LCA. Both examples you used of it being a previous single operator are wrong. Yes, IAF did end up being only operator, but both planes started their lives with many operators. LCA will start life with just one. If it starts at all.

Gnat = RAF, Finnish Air Force
Jag = RAF, France, Nigeria and Oman.

RAF never had the gnat in a combat role, only the trainer version was used and the finnish used a grand total of 13 jets according to wiki. clearly, the reason why IAF still chose the gnat was NOT because some far away AF was using a dozen specimens but because they were built in India and could be maintained here.

same applies to the jaguar. IAF can maintain it within the country and therefore doesn’t care if it is the only major air force using it.

similarly, IAF is the only major operator of the mig-27. similar reasoning applies.

I was referring to the BR LCA weight thread which I can no longer find.

there never was a dedicated LCA weight thread. the discussions on weight are still there in the current LCA thread. link is in Misraji’s post earlier in this thread. nothing has been removed.
I’m not sure what you are talking about.

I dont see the Indian Navy inducting LCA if the IAF dont induct on a big scale. The commonality argument would go out the window.

doesn’t make much sense the IAF is as certain as can be of inducting the LCA in numbers. a non sequitur if I ever saw one.

Noonereally wants to be the worlds only type operator.

Unless you are the USAF! 😉

applies only if the aircraft is produced in a foreign country. for in country aircrafts I can give pages upon pages of examples. IAF itself was about the sole military-operator of the gnat and did it quite successfully too.
similar reasoning applies to the jaguars.

IOW, lame argument.

Guys

This bickering is derailing a potentially good thread.

I did notice the BR link removed, can someone please post again?

no BR link has been removed. either clearly state WHAT BR link you are talking about or stop this nonsense.

sigh !