HAL pegs price of Tejas fighter at Rs 162 crore

[banvanaxl]

Oscar, I'm not sure I follow the analogy either. India bought the MKI to gain knowledge and to enhance their local aerospace industry (I'm assuming for the price they're paying, they better be building it locally). I'm sure they'd have bought 300 or more of the latest MIG's if the MKI's weren't on the table. On the other hand, the Chinese won't use the JF17's because it offers them very little advantage over their rust-bucket relics. The proof is in the pudding.
If the JF-17 were a capable 4.5 generation aircraft @ 15 million a piece, don't you think the Chinese would spend the extra 4.5 billion or so to replace their 300 or so old relics still lying around? 4.5 billion dollars for the Chinese is like pocket change.

Not quite so. You see an aircraft is a base platform and you add in building blocks to it as you upgrade them. I can quote the example of the McDonnell Douglas AV-8Bs. The congress wanted to know why all the active harriers in the USMC was being refitted to McDonnell Douglas AV-8B II standards at the cost of $23 mill a pop when you could buy a spanking new AV8B II for $30 mill sometime back in 97.
The decision to stick with the older airframe was upheld by pentagon and the refit went on as planned. Even Spain put off its plans to buy the new planes and underwent the same refit programme then being run by Boeing who had acquired McDonnell Douglas during negotiations of the refit programme.

Buying a newer airframe does not necessarily confirm the superiority or inferiority of a platform. Individual countries acquire platforms based on their threat matrix and strategic and tactical goals. All of which has little to do with the business of selling weapons.

cheers

And that will give you a profitable airline?

Who said AI was profitable ?

 

[SQ8]

Oscar, I'm not sure I follow the analogy either. India bought the MKI to gain knowledge and to enhance their local aerospace industry (I'm assuming for the price they're paying, they better be building it locally). I'm sure they'd have bought 300 or more of the latest MIG's if the MKI's weren't on the table. On the other hand, the Chinese won't use the JF17's because it offers them very little advantage over their rust-bucket relics. The proof is in the pudding.

If the JF-17 were a capable 4.5 generation aircraft @ 15 million a piece, don't you think the Chinese would spend the extra 4.5 billion or so to replace their 300 or so old relics still lying around? 4.5 billion dollars for the Chinese is like pocket change.

This tells me that the Chinese don't think too highly of the JF-17 (I mean they won't even replace their J-7's and J-8's with them). Which is why I'm kinda perplexed by all the posters here comparing the JF-17 to F16's, they're not even in the same league in my opinion.

Okay.. Ill try again. The LCA was built for a role.. it was to replace the Mig-21.. it was built for a specific role. It cannot fly 3000km and do the same thing the MKI can do. Hope that is clear enough as it takes not many brain cells to come to that. Now, why was the Tejas done? it has a role.. where did the role come from? It came from the IAF requirements .. what it needs are according to its geopolitical setup.

The same goes for China, It has specific geopolitical needs. The F-7s.. the A-5s.. are no longer meeting its needs. Its need to project power, its need to do that projection effectively. The same goes for any Air force. Now, in these levels of power projection there are tiers of aircraft an airforce maintain for particular tasks, for particular levels of force. Here comes the 747 analogy.. a 747 can fly 2 passengers from Dehli to Jaipur very nicely.. but it would take a rather dumb airline to do so with it. It would prefer to buy a small commuter to cater for that market in the most cost effective manner.

However, lets say the airline was flying that Dehli to Jaipur route previously with an old 737 model.. Yet as its routes expanded.. and the Dehli Jaipur route did not prove to be its main bread and butter but rather a Dehli Calcutta route.. Would it still want to buy commuters for that route.. or it would stick to buying a larger aircraft that it flies between Dehli and Calcutta while still occasionally doing the Jaipur line as well? Common sense cant be lost here.

The same goes for the Chinese. Yes, they could buy JF-17s(they test most new weapons off it anyway). But their J-8s provided long range interception duties that are now increasingly being taken over by J-11Bs.. they are longer ranged and more suited for the South China Sea battlespace.. does the JF-17 seem to suit that fight? Nope.

Lets talk about their J-7s.. the J-7 squadrons were slated for replacement by the J-10(and derivatives) .. they already have something for that role then dont they? Does the JF-17 suit them then? No it doesnt. So why get something that has no place in the inventory? Why get something that has no task or niche for it? The Chinese were not wilfully happy with the J-7s. They wanted a longer ranged replacement quite a while ago.. because it was their staff requirement.

The key word for all the rather pointless nay sayers is the simple word requirement. Why did the USAF get rid of the F-117? They had life left in them??


The requirements changed.

 

[JayAtl]

That helps, Ill bring it down to a lower level. Would you use 747s to fly 17 passengers from Dehli to Amritsar? If you would.. then Im talking to a child in these matters.. and children should not post in this thread and Ill ensure that for you.

Oh because you are making no sense to me and being asked to make sense with your analogies. ... your answer is to threaten me with your super moderator powers? alrighty then...

Can you name another country , that makes a " frontline aircraft" and refuses to induct a single of it...we are not talking about some block version , but the aircraft itself.

Try to explain your thoughts without the analogies, just spit it out man. the analogies are not helping ... well, then again you can ban me for just asking.

Update: I just read your post above. essentially you are saying an aircraft they tout as being a frontline aircraft is not what they want per their requirements. Okay, say we take you on your word- is there evidence that they said so? you might be right... I have not read anything to that... so do you have a link where they have stated as such?

 

[SQ8]

Can you name another country , that makes a " frontline aircraft" and refuses to induct a single of it...we are not talking about some block version , but the aircraft itself..

USA. The F-20 tigershark.

Like I said. I can threaten you .. and I just did. Because when you are being as receptive in thinking as a rock in a desert...and contributing little to thread other than acting like a cockatoo at a zoo and repeating the same line. Then I shall shut you up so that other discussion may continue to what is otherwise a nice technical thread.

 

[JayAtl]

USA. The F-20 tigershark.

Like I said. I can threaten you .. and I just did. Because when you are being as receptive in thinking as a rock in a desert...and contributing little to thread other than acting like a cockatoo at a zoo and repeating the same line. Then I shall shut you up so that other discussion may continue to what is otherwise a nice technical thread.

you have others tell you that your analogies are not making sense. so feel free to threaten away and do your thing my man. It won't change the fact it was difficult to follow your analogies. I could not follow it and I was asking ... don't know why that rankled you.

again your F-20 tigershark example can't possibly equate to the J17 program. The F20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed. Unlike J-17 which is in full blown production. You can't compare a prototype to a fully functional and inducted aircraft... yeah?

 

[h0mer]

Okay.. Ill try again. The LCA was built for a role.. it was to replace the Mig-21.. it was built for a specific role. It cannot fly 3000km and do the same thing the MKI can do. Hope that is clear enough as it takes not many brain cells to come to that. Now, why was the Tejas done? it has a role.. where did the role come from? It came from the IAF requirements .. what it needs are according to its geopolitical setup.

I understand the "roles" argument. I'm saying that your 747 analogy of a cost effective solution does not support your statements, it actually antithetical.

For example, in the rest of your post, you went on to say that the PLAAF are replacing the J7's and J8's with J11/J10's... a more expensive solution. I'm sure they won't be building 300+ of each aircraft to replace all the J7's and J8's in their inventories, that would just be plain stupid (pardon my french).

And just a quickie, but what's the point of the JF-17 if it can't even replace the "role" of the J-7 or J-8?

 

[UKBengali]

you have others tell you that your analogies are not making sense. so feel free to threaten away and do your thing my man. It won't change the fact it was difficult to follow your analogies. I could not follow it and I was asking ... don't know why that rankled you.

again your F-20 tigershark example can't possibly equate to the J17 program. The F20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed. Unlike J-17 which is in full blown production. You can't compare a prototype to a fully functional and inducted aircraft... yeah?

Let me get involved and try to explain the situation in my way

Pakistan's main adversary is India whereas China's main adversary is US.

Also China is a much larger country than Pakistan and hence has need for much longer-ranged aircraft. JF-17 is shorter legged than J-10.

The US is the foremost technological power on this planet and the Chinese will naturally want to field the best aircraft against them.

This does not mean that the JF-17 is a bad aircraft but it cannot hope to stand up to US aircraft like F-15 and F-22.

Pakistan on the other hand needs a substantial number of short-ranged aircraft that can defend against attacking Indian aircraft.

When combined with the constant upgrades and the direction of AWACs it should prove very effective in defending against attacking Indian aircraft. Maybe not one-to-one kill ratio against aircraft like Rafale and Su-30MKI but it certainly won't be a pushover.

Does that make sense?

 

[Last Samuri]

Nothing wrong with jf17 other than the fact the chinease prefer the j10 vanguards as their single engined fighter next to the bigger twin engined flankers.

Jf1will not be able to live with a su30mki and rafale combo in current block one or two guide. It would need massive upgrades acrosd the board and even then the handicap of single engines would make it difficult to win any overall engagement

 

[JayAtl]

Let me get involved and try to explain the situation in my way

Pakistan's main adversary is India whereas China's main adversary is US.

Also China is a much larger country than Pakistan and hence has need for much longer-ranged aircraft. JF-17 is shorter legged than J-10.

The US is the foremost technological power on this planet and the Chinese will naturally want to field the best aircraft against them.

This does not mean that the JF-17 is a bad aircraft but it cannot hope to stand up to US aircraft like F-15 and F-22.

Pakistan on the other hand needs a substantial number of short-ranged aircraft that can defend against attacking Indian aircraft.

When combined with the constant upgrades and the direction of AWACs it should prove very effective in defending against attacking Indian aircraft. Maybe not one-to-one kill ratio against aircraft like Rafale and Su-30MKI but it certainly won't be a pushover.

Does that make sense?

That is whole lot of assumptions, did you get this from the chinese ( officially)? where is this theory borne from?

and as @h0mer has eluded eloquently above, it does not quite fit your reasoning.

 

[UKBengali]

That is whole lot of assumptions, did you get this from the chinese ( officially)? and as @h0mer has eluded eloquently above, it does not quite fit your reasoning.

Also China has the money to go for more expensive aircraft like J-10B so why they should they compromise on quality at all?

If you do not want to believe the logic then by all means, feel free to.

 

[JayAtl]

Also China has the money to go for more expensive aircraft like J-10B so why they should they compromise on quality at all?

If you do not want to believe the logic then by all means, feel free to.

It might be logical to you - but everything you state is a personal opinion. This is not based on actual facts from the chinese.

 

[Superboy]

DSI was first tested on F 16 block 30 in 1996 by Lockheed. And if i remember correctly, JF 17 is yet to achieve its FOC

How do you know Chinese haven't tested DSI before Lockheed did? JF-17 is about to have 3 squadrons completed. Tejas won't have its first squadron till the end of 2015 at the earliest.

Oscar, I'm not sure I follow the analogy either. India bought the MKI to gain knowledge and to enhance their local aerospace industry (I'm assuming for the price they're paying, they better be building it locally). I'm sure they'd have bought 300 or more of the latest MIG's if the MKI's weren't on the table. On the other hand, the Chinese won't use the JF17's because it offers them very little advantage over their rust-bucket relics. The proof is in the pudding.

If the JF-17 were a capable 4.5 generation aircraft @ 15 million a piece, don't you think the Chinese would spend the extra 4.5 billion or so to replace their 300 or so old relics still lying around? 4.5 billion dollars for the Chinese is like pocket change.

This tells me that the Chinese don't think too highly of the JF-17 (I mean they won't even replace their J-7's and J-8's with them). Which is why I'm kinda perplexed by all the posters here comparing the JF-17 to F16's, they're not even in the same league in my opinion.

JF-17 is a light fighter in the class of Gripen and Tejas. J-10 is a medium fighter in the class of Rafale and Typhoon and F-16. China does not require a light fighter, Pakistan does.

 

[Fawkes]

How do you know Chinese haven't tested DSI before Lockheed did? JF-17 is about to have 3 squadrons completed. Tejas won't have its first squadron till the end of 2015 at the earliest.



JF-17 is a light fighter in the class of Gripen and Tejas. J-10 is a medium fighter in the class of Rafale and Typhoon and F-16. China does not require a light fighter, Pakistan does.

Show me a proof about china testing it before lockheed did, infact the research on dsi started in early 90's. I found nothing on google.

 

[Superboy]

Show me a proof about china testing it before lockheed did, infact the research on dsi started in early 90's. I found nothing on google.

Coming up with a new technology definitely needs to be applauded. Being the first to apply a new technology also needs to be applauded. It is not known whether China or the US first developed DSI. What is known is that China applied DSI first.

 

[h0mer]

Coming up with a new technology definitely needs to be applauded. Being the first to apply a new technology also needs to be applauded. It is not known whether China or the US first developed DSI. What is known is that China applied DSI first.

Highly doubt that.