Seems like a simple enough concept…

The writing is on the wall for 4th generation fighters. In the coming decade or two they will increasingly be relegated to secondary/support roles when facing capable opposition. In the case of the US, Russia, and China (or their export customers) this is of only limited concern because 5th generation fighters will be available to take on the more demanding missions. You don’t need to stop flying a 4th generation jet the minute it can’t operate on day-1 of a high-intensity war. There are still plenty of tasks available for those aircraft. (see for example the A-10) An F-15C in 2030 will be suitable for air policing, delivering MALD-Js, etc… but the US will have 1,000+ 5th generation fighters available by then.

We are looking at the end of the European fighter industry, that is unless something truly dramatic changes in the next few years. Small scale UCAV research projects without any definite procurement tied to them aren’t going to be able to maintain the industrial base.

4th generation fighters can operate day-1 provide they can can saturate the battlefield with standoff weopons, having big external jammers, big fuel tanks, big radars to provide situational awareness to every other asset. quantitiy is force in itself. but none of it is going to apply to 4th generation fighters from EU as there main customers the arabs will be in state of decomposition in less than 10 years and Germany will take hold of rest of industrial labor and economic system in EU.

This is due to the fact that India doesn’t want to stop operating the Mirage 2000 fleet, so they decided to upgrade only two planes at a time.

N

Did Dassualt offered them to upgrade all 47 in 3 months. I am sure they would have taken the offer.

It can make sense to sustain factories with sub-optimal or “make work” on a temporary basis — if there is a realistic prospect of circumstances changing in future so as to permit full and efficient utilisation of that workforce and productive capacity — but not permanently. There needs to be a realistic assessment of what the long-term future is for the industrial base in the context of military requirements and national resources and priorities. I am not convinced that Russia is on a sustainable path in this respect, and the current economic downturn could provide an opportunity to make those difficult decisions in the long-term interest of the nation.

you have no understanding of factory concept. The advantage of maintaining 6 or 7 fighter/bombers factories. Skilled work force is widely dispersed in geographical area. so natural /man made disaster that risk that wipe out fighter production is less. more rapid upgrades and overhaual capability in independent factories. (you can see the slow upgrade of M2K for India). that is good for small airforce but not good enough for maintaining operational readiness of large airforce. manufacturing defects in one factory will not ground the whole fleet. there is less risk of worker strikes. the same is true for engine production at various plants.
you can see the same concept in Germanic car production where there are so many car plants and manufacturer is that it inhibit supply of skilled workers and innovation in other fields.

What 300 fighters? Are you serious?

The factories themselves said they plan to top out production at a manageable rate. NAPO is aiming for 20-22 birds per year max. Knaaz is not getting any orders past another 48 or so Su-35s, and whatever yearly T-50 production will be. What, you think they will make THAT many T-50s a year? Irkut has clearly said they are looking to phase out Flanker production at the end of this decade.
So who exactly will be producing what 300 fighters in 2020?

And that fact aside, it is utterly unfordable. Even if we use the magical 30 million per bird figure that the RuAF seems so fixated on (ignoring the realities of contracts being far more expensive aside from the bare bird) you think they will spend 30 billion $ per year on new fighters ALONE?

La-la land.

you have no understanding. People who are employed on upgrading MIG-31BM and producing MIG-29k will shift to future successour of MIG-31 and Naval PAK-FA. by that time robotics technology will improved enough that fighters can be cheaply produced in vast numbers. I don’t think $30b a yearis big amount post 2020 period. Russia gov always understate things but end result if always much more expenditure.

No it won’t.

your predictions are always wrong. no one invest in factories without using them for decades. It is not 1960s era factories.

Read my earlier posts. You’re repeating my points.

I’ve said that India could have got Clemenceau very cheaply, & probably refurbished her much more cheaply than rebuilding Gorshkov, even allowing for having to do more than the Brazilians have done (BTW, I like ‘modest facelift’ as a description of the limited refit they gave her).

But before that, I’d pointed out the limitations imposed by her small size & limited capacity catapults, i.e. not able to operate any new aircraft except at reduced T/O weights & with limited bring back, & the shortage of old aircraft able to operate off her unrestricted.

I also said that the cost of modifying her to make good her deficiencies was unknown. It may not even have been possible – I don’t know.

I didn’t say anything about a dream deal. I don’t think I’d even hinted at it. Overall, I thought I’d been rather negative.

I think we agree.

Gorskhov too much time was wasted on negotiation. if the same deal that was signed in 2004 was signed in 2000. they could have gotten Gorshkov at half price and 6 years earlier. impact of oil price rise on labor rates in Russia from 2004 onwards have big impact.
even INS vikrant would have accelerated by 6 years.
http://in.rbth.com/economics/2014/10/31/st_petersburg_enterprise_to_supply_arresting_gear_for_ins_vikrant_39439.html

how? dassault and eurofighter gave a pricelist of their proposal. dassaults was, according to reports, a good 25% lower.

was the price given taken according to RFP. why Indian DM is saying in every statement now “Stick to RFP”

After choosing Dassault, they start negociating technical items (until now) and, obviously, the conditions change from the initial proposal. As a result, if Dassault has to change parts of its proposal it obviously has an impact on price. For example, Dassault said they’d put an assembly chain with Reliance (an example along many), but GoI says “no, it has to be HAL”… a condition has changed and that may push Dassault to reevaluate the price as setting up an assembly line in HAL may be different than Reliance. From memory, the technical things that were negotiated are counted by thousands, and each time something newis negociated, it has an impact on overall price.

technical terms after chosing. what was they doing in past 5 years before that. you made a lot of foolish claims like testing Meteor in India.

Imagine you go at your car retailer and ask him for the best price on a particular model. He’ll give you a liw price but it won’t have many options in it. If you ask him to add metallic paint, air conditionning, massaging seats, satnav, cruise control, and so on (all of which were not in the “best price” offer), you can expect your dealer to raise the price of the car you’re asking from him.

India already knows what they selected based on your claims. or the price in 2007 was given of different version.

Same here, GoI asks for changes over the initial proposal, Dassault asks GoI to pay for them… it’s called normal business, and they all know it.

there is no change. stick to RFP.