This week’s AWST is reporting that Boeing might bid for the IAF MRCA tender with a package that includes F/A-18 E/Fs with a modified AESA radar – toned down for exports.

I think it will be F-18E shell with F-18C technology. after all these people know F-18E is too expensive . TOT is ruled out. and the big thing is MM singh is incapable of making this decision. wait untill 2009 for decision only. 🙂

MOSCOW. March 29 (Interfax-AVN) – The U.S. delivery of a batch of F-16 fighters to Pakistan considerably reduces U.S. chances of winning the Indian fighter tender, if such a tender is issued, Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy director of the Center for Strategies and Technologies Analysis, told Interfax-Military News Agency on Tuesday.

“The U.S. decision to deliver 25 F-16 fighters to Pakistan has considerably reduced the U.S. chances of winning the upcoming Indian tender on procuring a batch of light multi-role fighters,” he said.

Makiyenko noted that the U.S. decision to sell F-16s to Pakistan demonstrated the true U.S. policy in South Asia. It is the traditional policy, assigning priority to Pakistan, while India has always been considered a potential global rival for the U.S. in the international arena. Pakistan is of strategic importance to the U.S. as a foothold for conducting operations in Afghanistan, and Iraq. In addition to that Pakistan is all the more important due to its geographical proximity to the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Makiyenko also pointed out that the decision to deliver fighters to Pakistan had generated a very negative response of Indian senior military officials.

Commenting on media reports that the U.S. may offer F-18 fighters in addition to F-16s to India, Makiyenko said that the fact was not a decisive factor in winning the tender. First and foremost, India does not need such aircraft as F-18s, since it has already fielded more powerful and modern Sukhoi Su-30MKIs, produced in India under license. Secondly, the F-18 is considerably more expensive than the F-16 or the Russian Mikoyan MiG-29. Thirdly, it is not clear what modification of the F-18 the U.S. intends to deliver. The early C/D modifications can hardly satisfy the fastidious Indian brass, while the really modern version, namely the F-18E/F, is too expensive and too hi-tech for the U.S. to agree to provide India with production license. On the whole, the offer of F-18s to India is nothing but a pill, intended to sweeten the bitterness of the F-16 sale to Pakistan. It is a PR move, which is unlikely to result in any practical consequences, Makiyenko said.

According to him, the U.S. faced a choice and choose Pakistan. “You cannot eat your cake have and it,” he said.

The USAF want to buy F-35 and F-22,which aren’t rady yet.
The french AF want tobuy Rafale F3 whicharen’t ready yet.
The RAF want to buy Typhoon tranche 3 which aren’t ready yet.
Korea bought F-15K which weren’t ready at that time.
Do you see the pattern ?
You can’t buy a plane availble in 4 or 5 years by a comparison using 2005 capabilities.

how is F-16Blk52+ or F-16E is five years from now? it is already fully developed planes like M2K-9.

I know that the mirage 2000 is expensive but stop that please. The AESA and all new sub systems used by the block 60 aren’t free.
80 block 60 for 6 billions ? So 75 millions per planes.
Still very expensive, and, as I said, on rafale prices range.
The Rafale was the less expensives planes in the Koean shortlist (and with the AESA 😀 )

So do you think M2K-9 is less than $75million? you forget to mention that this $75m includes every thing from training to infrastructure. M2K-9 user already has these two things to begin with and still it is very expensive. export version of Rafale is even more.

he provides entertainment through his predications.
wet dreams about F-18E 😀

My Point is if PAF going to buy 100+ F-16s she would not have commited to JF-17s Production lines as well as look for 4th generation Fighter so if qouted 24 F-16s are fitting right as they still looking for 4th generation Fighters plus

I think you have valid point here. i think new built F-16 will be more in 24 to 28 numbers with rest F-16AMLU. otherwise they would not have so explicitly mentioned other options so soon.

France like the concept of versatile system, and it’s right to point that MICA hasn’t the range of the AIM 120 or the boresight capabilities of the AIM-9X.
But from an IAF point of view, the comparison would be more like MICA-Python 4.
But still, perhaps the newer version of the AIM-120 allowed to regain some differences in pure range, I would like to know the real difference.

Its better to have two systems speciallized for intended roles rather than put half capabilities of each in one.

Sorry, it’s wrong.
The electronic has been update and is way smaller so that the size of the antenna has been icrease for a higher output and a better sensibility.
The detection range is said to be 15% better.

15% is nothing to mention about. if it is 30 to 40 % than we can talk about it.

A comparison with a block 60 is pointless I think.
Sure, it’s way better than a miage 2000 but it’s asexpensive as a Rafale 🙂

are you sure about F-16E price? it is cheaper than M2K-9. remember UAE didnot have F-16 infrastructure and pilot training before unlike Mirages and even including development cost it is still cheaper than mere avionic upgrade like M2K-9.

To claim that an F-16 with CFTs has comparative range with the Flanker or Eagle is, well……

With two 2000 lbs PGMs and two AAMs, the block-60 has a range of 800 nm.

Source : Pg.52, International Aerospace, Vol.3, July 2002, interview with Dwain Mayfield, Vice President, Marketing initiatives and Tim Albin, Pilot Vehicle Integration, LM.

under what profile and how much use of afterburner and non afterburner. F-16E engine produces as much as 90% thrust of in non afterburning phase as afterburning thrust of F-16A? and what will be flanker range with 4500LBs external load? and 800NM translates into 1500KM if only that statement is to be believed. not bad at all.

Don’t forget the increase in wing loading as well.

The Mirage-2000-5 Mk.2 has increased internal fuel capacity.

by how much? and has also increased weight with same thrust.

I doubt F-16 block 50 would be vastly superior if at all to the M2K-5. In air to air combat M2k will have the odds to winning.
Here is a comparision between M2k and F-16C:
http://antislashe.free.fr/mirages.htm

I ‘d take the M2k-5 any day!! 🙂

they are comparing old F-16C with Mirage 2000. Mirage hasnt grown in engine power or fuel capacity. Newer F-16 will have first shot with long range AIM-120 and than use its superior internal fuel capacity will maximize its afterburner use. AIM-9X is also not short range like AIM-9L. it can be employed in BVR regime also with more than 90 degree unlike MICA which is limited to 60 degree offboresight. the bottom line is that F-16 superior engine, fuel capacity, visibility and superior medium and short range air to air missiles give it decisive advantage. i am not even going into air to ground stuff. F-16Blk60 is over kill for any Mirage including M2K-9.

Mirage with external tanks can be more draggy as its internal fuel does not allow it for long range strike or loiter time for wvr combat with multiple adversaries.
CFT can be removed i think. F-16 has always the engine advantage as the current engine on BLK60 (32,500)can go up to 36000LBS. there is simply no comparision between two. F-16 has more weopon stations (11), twin racks and can externally lift 10 ton load.