I dont doubt many want the current situation to change.

“HAL will try and recruit more people”. I am sure.

They will select an engine. Again I am sure.

However, as you have listed, there are still many variables. The facts I have quoted represent the project as it is now.

Mk1 or MK2. The thing needs an engine. Even when one is selected you will find it will take time to integrate and may throw up a host of probelms.
What if there are massive problems with the new engine?

Would the IAF “pledge its support and order 100+”!?

How on earth could you possibly know that? You are pledging success on a programme that is nowhere near completion.

You then accuse me of posting “bull crap” when I have given sources and you have given none. I wuill leave it to the reader to judge…..

the J-7PG is a nice looking small fighter, but seems out of place in such modern company. won’t stand a chance in any form of combat against any of those fighters and can’t offer any real threat while training either. BTW, why aren’t there any Rafales or Typhoons ?

Could not just appreciate the picture and had to have a dig/flame?

The PG is quite nimble in the WVR envoironment and I am sure it was there for a good reason and lessons were learnt on both sides.

Come on people, please leave these non-related disccusions out of this thread. Lets get back to the topic.

In complete agreement.Apologies.

Rahul/Nirav

Amazing a simple answer always gets a long War and Peace type response without any facts. Again.

I started reading both posts and gave up andgot bored.

This has now moved on from a discussion and into personal attacks, which I will not engage in.

We have nowmoved froma debate into personal attacks, the JF-17 and Pakistan! Wow.

Also, as for BR enjoying a higher reputation then AFM you really are playing with fire here linking a aviation enthusiasts site and comparing it to ne were dergoatory racial terms are the norm.

Doubt if the PAF would want the Americans so close to its latest strategic asset !

Could be the Swedes who could have flown in the Plane or the System operators from SAAB. .

I thought they were Swedes, but Swedes dont wear desert cammo. Or do they?

All fine and good but flies in the face of the fact that the IAF chose to operate the MKI, an entirely unique bird designed to tailor made specs. Until v. recently of course, when the RMAF and Algeria issued some small orders.

USS

Yes, IAF is and always will be the only MKI user. By definition. However Russia was using the SU-30 when IAF ordered. My point is I am surethis fact played a role in IAF selection. Maybe not the final deciding factor but a role.

correction : IAF was one of only TWO operators of the gnat as a combat jet (the other ‘combat’ operator flew a total of 13 aircrafts for 14 years. IAF flew some 400 odd specimens in all for 34 years. surely IAF won’t have used it unless finnish air force flew its 13 fighters in the scandanavian skies right ? :rolleyes: ) and for the moment IAF is the only major operator of the jaguar and intends to be so for the next decade. any questions ?

the su-30mki had been ordered when there were no other air forces operating the type nor planning to do so. even now, quite significantly, the country of origin does not operate the type or even a similar derivative.

lastly, I will answer your long and misleading (IMO) post but first you have to tell me why this ‘logic’, by your own admission does not apply to the USAF.

when countries all over the world want a/c that are flown by other AF (according to you) why doesn’t the USAF care ? unless you answer this question, your honesty to argue this topic will remain suspect.

Hi Rahul

Thanks for your reply, and for treating my posts with courtesy.

Yes, as you admit, Gnat and Jag were used by others and IAF was not the sole operator. Glad we can finally agree with this.The time (70s) when IAF chose these types they were being used by others, although IAF did end up just recently being sole Jag operator.

There are many reasons Air Forces are much more comfortable using a plane chosen by others.

1) The act another Air Force has gone through extensive trails and evaluated every aspect of a aircraft and chosen it is a sense of reassurence to other prospective buers. You will, I am sure, notice that whoever wins the Indian MRCA order will stand a better chance in other international competitions.

2) Spares and support. Should foreign operators not take on board an aircraft it remains highly likely that spares and support may dry up should the orgncla manufacturer think it uneconomic contnueing production of spares.

I dont see how my debating certain points is a reflection on my honesty, but I will indulge you.

The USAF, it can be very falry argued, is almost in a unique position. Due to its size, budget and resources, it can well afford to be sole operator of a single type and is large enough to keep people like LM or Boeing in business almost on its own. No other Air Force can do this.

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.

OK, but for “all real purposes”, IAF was one of 3 Gnat operators and one of 5 Jaguar operators. The French and RAF operating significantly more numbers of the Jag then the IAF. My point is you simply cannot go around claiming something that flies completely in the face of facts. I have qouted you at length now and have no real wish to push the point any further, as it does nothing for this thread, however I hope we can all start being a bit more accurate wen making certan claims.

Thanks.