The simple fact is that the Israeli’s have always been outnumbered yet they always prevail because of poor training and little skill on the Arab side of the equation.

Israeli armed forces r very well trained…no doubt about it. But one has to read a non-biased history/analysis of 1973 war in order to realise wot really happenend during that war.

Early model Mig-29s were dynamically unstable designs with hydraulic control. Yet their agility is time proven.

A few months back, there were indications that the negotiations for M2K-5 were at a rather advanced stage and some were even implying that the deal will b finalised soon. In the light of this, its rather strange that IAF sent in an evaluation team for SMT. :confused: But, perhaps there is an alternative explanation and the two may not b linked??? IAF mayb interested in upgrading their existing Mig-29 fleet to SMT standards, since it’d b somewhat illogical/expenisve to maintain 2 almost different a/c, i.e. Mig-29 for IAF and Mig-29K for IN. That said, purchase of 125 M2K-5 with TOT (and im sure IAF will also upgrade their existing fleet) wont b cheap by any means in comaprison with Mig-29SMT (without taking into account the operational costs). Unless im mistaken india has to delay the discussions for scorpenes for at least a year due to lack of funds and currently they have a large number of projects going which r consuming a lot of funds.

PS. I have to admit that sometime back i used to think IAF is only showing interest in M2K-5 to derail PAF’s efforts to aquire the fighter. however, I was rather surprised to learn recently that PAF is still very much interested in M2K-9 :confused:

The flyaway cost of a Mirage 2000-5 is about 30 to 35 million estimated, probably the most 40 million (possibly 30 to 40 mil for a Block 52 F-16 now flyaway cost). As a rough rule, flyaway cost tend to be 50% to 60% of the contract price.

True.
In addition, the avionics may be somewhere around 25-45% of the fly away price.

PS. Unless im mistaken, UAE is paying around $80 mil per unit for its F-16E/F…but this includes everything from A-Z almost.

The actual interview also talks of 2 mission computers.

Usman shabir (of Pakdef) clarified the issue…the aircraft has a full FBW with a redundant hydraulic system. According to him, the next issue of AFM will have a 5-page special on JF-17…may clarify more issues.

guys does the Mirages of PA, which went through ROSE upgrades..capable of firing BVR?? any more info on that upgrade (radar range etc would be welcomed)

This is a million dollar question…and it seems that PAF doesnt want anyone to know about it, hence a lot of conflicting reports from them (firing of a BVR AAM from an upgraded platform, i.e. mirage, appeared in newspapers last year, while reports about T-darter have also surfaced). Even Janes seems to b confused about this issue. :confused:

An educated guess would be that if they dont have this ability they soon will aquire it (depending on how long they remain in service). Rose Mirages’ Grifo M has enough range for BVR missiles and if one of Darter series BVR is not employed already, then chinese FD-60 (which janes recently linked with F-16) may b used as an alternative or even SD-10.

How much is 50% fuel for both?

About 1,150 Kg for both.

Why don’t they just go to Klimov and try for RD-33-10M, which at MAKS 2001 was reported to be approximately 103kN (10.5 tonnes thrust).

After 2010, Klimov is expected to have the VK-10M (which the RD-33-10M is a prototype for), which will be 108-113kN.

Flight International, 24-30 June issue, 1998 did in fact link VKS-10 with FC-1. However, we havent seen any developments in this regard and it does seem that CAC opted for a safer option. One should also remember Klimov General Director Alexander Sarkisov did not exclude the possibility that an upgraded RD-33 with thrust-vectoring nozzle, dubbed the RD-133, could be offered to power combat aircraft, including MiG-29 tactical fighters, in several other countries. So as crobato put it…may be later.

bharat

The FC-1 uses the RD-93 engine, not even the RD-33K has such spc.

Now dats another confusing issue. :confused:
Whereas Aviation Week & Space Technology (see the link i provided in one of my posts above) describes RD-93 as an an in-depth modification of the MiG-29’s RD-33 turbofan, developed for an order from China, Janes describes it as a further upgrade of RD-33K (see the following link for Janes article). we can only guess about it fuel efficiency, MBTO etc. :rolleyes:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/research_literature/aviation_articles/Janes/topics/plasma_stealth/Aircraft%20and%20Propulsion%20Systems.pdf

PS. Hope, crobato and GoldenDragon’s statements regarding ferry range would b sufficient.