I don’t find these figures unrealistic. IIRC, the first HAL-produced MKIs have cost some $27mil flyaway. And that is an F-15E class fighter !

$27m figure not correct. that is figure from 12 year ago which at that exchange rate would be greater than $40m. and that does not include licensing cost. see 2005 price escalation.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/home-made-sukhois-to-cost-more-than-ones-bought-from-russia/1/223960.html

$1.2 billion at the current exchange rate for the Tejas Mk1. And most of the import value for the aircraft is owed to the GE engine. Like it or not, it is ‘so cheap’.

Gripen has higher production rate along with higher productivity/automation/experience labor. LCA real price is some where closer to $70 to $80m . these costs are estimates.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-lca-tejas-by-2010-but-foreign-help-sought-with-engine-01901/

And the IAF’s decided it wants the Rafale instead of the PAK FA? Fancy that.

it will be IAF loss. consider the dysfunctional procurement it wont surprise me if they chose the lesser bird at higher price.

JSR this thread is not about your beloved Mig-35. Somebody purely stated the J-10 is a technology peer to the Mig-35 and F-16C. That is hardly an unreasonable statement albeit fairly generalised especially when considered how much variance there is in F-16C models but you have taken it as a mortal insult to the Mig-35 and started your usual rambling on about unrelated matters. The J-10 design like the F-16 is not best suited to carrier operations, it is difficult to fit a strong enough nose gear under a chin intake. Hence why I am pointing out that criticising the J-10 for lacking a carrier ability is rather silly. You seem to think that having a particular airframe feature like a fuselage hump or an ability to land on a carrier makes it instantly more sophisticated then other types. Ability to land on a carrier is a design decision that will dictate an airframes layout after that a design is no more or less sophisticated.

The Mig-35 is a refresh of what is a 1970′ design, the engines installed in it are a refresh of a design started in the 1960’s. Whilst it is far more capable then a Mig-29A the Mig-35 is still a compromised elderly design. It is nevertheless an interesting and certainly capable type that is a fine example of how Russian aerospace is catching up with the West. The J-10 is a good example of Chinese aerospace has moved on in a very short time, it is a serious threat and a peer rival to many types.

F-16C is already approaching 9tons. J-10 very similar weights. create naval verison and weight can easily bump up to 11 to 12 tons. with current engine technology they will still not have real TWR of MIG-29K let alone 1 ton lighter MIG-35. unless you propose that monster JSF engine into F-16 but that will eat up all its fuel capacity. Compromise designs are like Rafale with small nose and underpowered engines or EF that has no naval variant. what kind of compromise you looking at for MIG-35?.
designs like J-10/F-16 are obsolete. they don’t have the flexibility of MIG-35.

What I see is a huge burn up of raw resources that the West thought was being acquired for the consumer export market. I’d be surprised if the commodities market doesn’t surge in value. It takes a huge capital expense to build the logistical chain to deploy these new units, so it’s not sustainable without altering material supply. It also makes one guess that China has mastered at a minimum 2042 aluminum alloy production. That is not insignificant.

The J-10B is a technology peer to MiG-35 and F-16C. The J-11B, J-15, and J-10B generation is a focus on eccm and survivability on par with western designs. If missile technology keeps on pace they will be a technology peer inside of a decade and are currently approaching anything the Russians can produce. Let’s look at the big picture for a minute. India, China, and Russia are currently ramping up fighter production in line with the F-35 production. J-20 and PAK-FA are obviously a step up from there. The difference is the West is banking on one main design common to partner nations. The aforementioned three nations are using a hi-lo performance mix. Time will tell which one is more relevant.

how exactly is J-10B technology peer of MIG-35. is its airframe advanced enough for 5 wet stations and can lift large ETs. MIG-35/MIG-29K does not need canards for carrier operations. Chinese are still following 1980s canard flanker.

Even though there are less Super Hornets being built the Tejas Mk2 is picking up speed (some 110+) as well as Gripen E (118 + a very likely production of 68 or more) + T50 in future sales. Its not the same as when the Super Hornet was at peak production but it still is a lot of engines.

We also have the US T-X competition where T50 (again) is likely to be offered with F414.

So the production line may be less than at peak bit but it is still running strong. I’m counting ca 300 engines in current orders and a couple of more down the road.

Eithr way it is cheaper than RM12.

In last 12 to 13 years. Almost 1500 GE 400/414 engine built. that kind of pace is impossible going forward.
the LCA MK2 is very slow induction. first operational some where in 2020 period. Gripen NG is similar situation of post 2018 period.
T50 is hardly 10 per year. so how you are counting 300 signed orders and on what will be yearly production rate?

It is reasonable to assume that the RD-93’s performance has improved over the years… but he hasn’t come close to offering any reasonable support to his original assertion, that the RD-93 has a better power to weight ratio than the F414.

Have you looked at MIG-29OVT videos from 2006. when you add complexity of 3D TVC your naturally going to increase the weight of aircraft. so to compensate it the real thrust has to be increased across the flight profile. This from company that has no order for TVC equipped fighter and they implemented the most agile system at that time.

It all boils down to “Look at the latest Mig-29’s cockpit! The latest version of the RD-93 is installed in the latest version of the Mig-29! The Mig-29 has gotten heavier, therefor the RD-93 must have a better power to weight ratio than the F414!!”

Yes MIG-29K is a lot heavier and draggier. but its top speed is higher than any other naval aircraft.
F-18E is very narrow at the nose and cockpit.

Coming to engine technology, two points here.
One the MiG-29 has not consistently been in production like the Su-27 family, so the AL-31 development is a better reflection of Russian engine technology than the RD-33. Secondly, the RD-33 derivatives don’t necessarily have to feature an increased T/W ratio. Higher thrust in the same volume is valuable. Even if the increased thrust of the RD-33MK is accompanied by a weight increase, the net T/W ratio of the aircraft still increases.

One point to consider inteasd of two. Klimov is very profitable business due to its helicopter engines. it has very effective R&D. that’s why its 3D thrust vectoring technology is used. and it built completely new plant in St Peterburg.
If RD-33MK was to heavy it would not give the level of performance for the enlarged MIG-29K. which carries 50% more fuel than standard MIG-29 and has much enlarge cockpit, spine and wing area and airframe stressed for 5 wet stations.. MIG-29K has same relationship to MIG-29 like F-18E is to F-18C.