Mr. Witcha a JF-17 will cost $25 mn at least. The $15 mn figure is a decade old and doesn’t apply today. Besides, that was for the older JF-17s without DSI and older avionics and radars.

So how will your air force argue with China to sell them J-10s for the same amount ?

Sigh…

There are currently 7 official helicopter display teams in the world. Apart from team Sarang there are:
Blue Eagles – AAC, Lynx
Black Cats – RN, Lynx
Grupa Akrobacyjna Skorpion – Poland, Mi-24

I agree these are currently operational, international teams from Air Forces.

Rotores de Portugal – Portugal, Alouette III

This team has been disbanded many times and “merged” into existing squadrons. And has it ever performed outside of Portugal ?

Patrulla Aspa – Spain, EC120

Berkuty – Russia, Mi-24

Is this even an official team ? And has it ever performed outside Russia ? The choppers seem to be loaned from a training center in Torzhok. It doesn’t seem to be a dedicated team at all.

And not too long ago, there were the Dutch Grasshoppers (Alouette III), the Belgian Blue Bees (Alouette II), a Swedish team with Hkp5’s (or Schweizer/Hughes 300s if you will). Never mind the one-season display teams formed by individual units throughout the years (like the Swiss Puma’s).

Please don’t dwell in the past. I was talking of presently operational, international helicopter aerobatic teams from Air Forces.

Any fool can google and draw up a list of helicopter display teams (past and present). Like this webpage.

Which raises a question for an outsider to Indian aerospace like me. Why has GTRE’s comparatively bad performance been tolerated rather than being addressed and fixed?

A counter-question :- China too hasn’t been able to develop its own indigenous engines till date. The showpiece J-10 and FC-1, both run on Russian engines because the Chinese engines intended for them aren’t upto the mark.

Given that China has a strict accountability mechanism in place and even competing government companies, its hard to fathom why thy failed to develop indigenous engines for the J-10 and FC-1.

So, there must be some “secret sauce”, some Holy grail that GE, Snecma and BaE have cracked, and which India’s GTRE and China’s Guizhou Aircraft Industry Corporation aren’t getting right, right ?

I think that’ll all come with more experience. America and France have been building figher jets since WW1. They have a wealth of knowledge on engine tech. Comapre this to Guizhou in China and GTRE in India. How much experience can they boast ?

Even then some positives for Kaveri :-

1) It gives better thrust than Snecma’s M-88 that powers Rafale. Kaveri on Rafale will give better performance.

2) It has higher thrust than the RD-33 engines that currently power IAF’s fleet of MiG-29s.

3) Japan’s Mitsubishi corp. sent an RFI to GTRE for the Kaveri. They may use it for their upcoming 5th gen. fighter.

4) Kaveri will power Indian Navy’s ships. Bye-bye to expensive turbines from GE.

———

Now, if after all of the above why doesn’t IAF deem Kaveri fit for Tejas ?

That’s simply because despite being flat-rated, its thrust at low altitudes isn’t enough. That’s why IAF has asked for either GE-F414 and Eurojet for the Tejas Mk.2. Although they aren’t flat-rated, their high overall thrust makes up for the lack of the flat-rated feature.

And the nations that build jet engines are:
-US
-Russia
-China
-EU
Hmmm…

Arey Witcha remove China from that list. Their J-10, J-11s and FC-1s run on Russian engines. At the most, the licence produce engines from Rolls-Royce — just like HAL.

The Kaveri is hardly the cutting-edge of engine technology either. No modular construction, BLISK, RAM blockers, ceramic components or TVC nozzles, just FADEC. Relatively basic by modern standards. But so long as it meets the IAF’s requirements that’s more than enough, and that’s what matters.

Bhaisaab, Kaveri has over 16,000 parts and its definitely not a monolithic construction. So please..

And you drop words like BLISK tech and TVC, as though any mechanic in aneghbourhood can come up with these. Like I said above, China and India DO NOT have the experience of GE, BAe and Snecma. They’ll take time to get there.

Besides, Snecma or Eurojet too don’t have TVC that you’re going ga-ga about. Now go join a French forum and tell them this. Go now….

Besides, single-crystal technology has been developed in India, though in labs and is not yet productionized.

Both PAC and CATIC are churning out JF-17s.

By end of next year PAF see 50+ in inventory, so 200 in 4 years is not unrealistic.

Last A-5 unit is converting to JF-17 now. One Mirage unit has already transferred to Block 52s and another will convert to surplus F-16 A/Bs by next year.

So taking into account the JF-17 and F-16 rate of deliveries by 2015 most if not all the Mirage and F-7 fleets will be gone.

OK. The “most if not all” argument can easily be applied to IAF too. All MiG-27s will be gone by 2015. MiG-21s are also dwindling fast by phased retirement and even crashes. From 300+ once upon a time, only 100 odd are left.

That leaves a net of 5 types even after adding Tejas and a MRCA (if selected). Compare this to PAF’s 6 or 7 types by 2015.

In fact, even the original MRCA was supposed to be 126 Mirage-2000s. But Dassault closed the assembly line frustrated at the lack of response from the MoD.

Good point. I dont know the basing locations of the MIGs.

It does lead me on to another point, if the LCA does indeed enter operational service and the MRCA is chosen as well, this will leave India with a hodge podge of many types of fighters doing very similar roles.

Assuming MIG-21/27 are retired, that still leaves

(Mirage 2000, MIG-29, LCA, SU-30MKI, MRCA winner)

5 types of jet fighter!!!!

That’s 6 types. You forgot Jaguar.

But 6 types is better than 8 types. Till 2005-06, we also had MiG-25s and till 2008 we had MiG-23s. In another 5 years’ time MiG-27 will be gone too.

Even when Tejas is introduced this year, thats a net reduction in types from 8.

Now Pak too has 6 types namely Mirage-3, Mirage-5, J-7, A-5, F-16 and JF-17. Coming Up :- J-10. Thats 7 types total. That’s the same as IAF, isnt it ? So you gotta know your own Air-Force’s mess in the first place, before wishing others good luck.

The LCA MK2 will not be enough to take the fight into the PRC vis a vis the PLAAF as it lacks the payload, range and size to contest heavily defended airspace. But it will be very useful and excel against the other opponent.

I think of all the 6 contenders, Rafale, Typhoon and F-18 closely approach the Su-30 MKI in range-payload specs. ** Existing MKIs are also being upgraded to include state-of-the-art avionics packages.

Tejas Mk.2 will equate Gripen-NG and approach F-16 in performance.

So our needs of deep-striker is met by Su-30 and air-superiority is met by Tejas Mk.2.

To give you a PLAAF perspective, they have lined up Su-30s (and illegal derivatives) and J-10s along Tibet to face India. We are lining Su-30 MKIs already to face their Flankers. And for their J-10s, a more powerful Tejas Mk.2 would be sufficient.

Also note, that PLAAF is not inducting the JF-17 at all. They too have arrived on the same conclusion as everyone else that they need a deep-striker (Su-30) and an air-sup jet (J-10).
Similarly, in IAF the Su-30 is our deep-striker jet and Tejas Mk.2 can be the IAF’s own J-10.

And the MMRCA offers the chance for the IAF to get an aircraft which offers an alternative to overreliance on the MKI fleet to contest heavily defended zones, and brings state of the art capabilities, without the running costs of this heavy 4G+ fighter, which are pretty high. Plus India gets fully reliant on Russia to boot.

I agree running costs of Su-30 are the main sticking point in my argument actually. It can’t be denied that Su-30 MKI does incur huge costs and any of the MRCAs will be cheaper to operate.

On this basis, we should’ve taken the French offer of 40 Rafales and get it done with. 126 seems bit too much. Also shop around for little-used Mirage-2000-Vs.

And all of those 40 Rafales and Mirages should’ve been lined up along north and NE.

More MK1 may indeed be ordered but the issue is that logistically, the IAF does not want to maintain two different fighter subtypes. Its a bother, with engine and avionics and subsystem spares being different in several cases.

I agree above is a plausible. However given that we’re fast retiring (and already retired) many fighter types, we will have a net reduction only, even if a new subtype by way of Mk.2 is added.

Meanwhile sense has also dawned on the IAFs planners, some at least, that the LCA is shaping up to be a worthwhile addition, and that for the long term, they cannot just afford to keep importing expensive aircraft from abroad. Hence, the LCA is also getting a level of participation which it did not have earlier, from the IAF end.

The above is accurate. Moreover after getting the cold-shoulder from Russia over many issues, and the CISMOA shocker from USA they would’ve emerged wiser. The wisdom is that in the new world, self-reliance is the key.

I agree that the current Captor is performing very well in the realm of mech radar but to take only the range factor is oversimplistic. ESA radar brings several other advantages which lead some manufacturer to opt for an ESA rather than a mech radar.

-Interalving modes for simultaneous AtG and AtA. Important in a low altitude deep strike mission for instance. This capability is determinant in the “multirole” performance.
-Greater beam agility which enables a higher numer of target to be tracked
-Better LPI performance and better ECCM, (pencil beam tracking, beam agility). with a mech radar you are irradiating the whole sky betraying your position.
-Independent tracking and volume serach.
-Integrated EA capability, data transmitions for latest AESA.

With AESA the balance is obvious as it is now a standard requirement for airforces.

I fully agree with the above. AESA is even being developed for Tejas Mk.2, because of (as you rightly said above) agile pencil beam scanning, which minimizes detection and simultaneously tracks more targets. By far the greatest advantage is the simultaneous A2A and A2G modes, which the pilot no longer has to switch to manually.

Avionics can just be plugged and played into fighter jets nowadays. Even the JF-17 is eyeing a possible French radar, and is anyway nearly confirmed to get the J-10’s PESA radar for next batch after the current batch of 50.

Tejas already shares most of its avionics with Su-30 MKI. Hence, what we must be looking at is range-payload specs only. Rafale or Typhoon or F-18 or whatever should not matter. A more powerful Tejas Mk.2 with its AESA and sensor fusion (like SPECTRA) can just as well compete with a Typhoon and Rafale, like it does today with Su-30 MKI.

A better comparison would be crashes per sorties or per hour of operation.

The above is already taken into account. Despite the USAF’s F-16s flying much much more than IAF’s MiGs, the latter have a higher crash rate.

:diablo:

mig-21 – 2nd to 3rd gen
f-16 – 4th gen

even apples and oranges doesn’t describe this. a better comparison would be with 100 series fighters rather than the teens.

Bhaisaab, IAF claims that the refurbished and re-engineered MiG-21 is much better than the crude flying machines they originally got from Soviets. Its mid-life structural upgrades were touted to have made it as-good-as-noo.