mirage2000 out of iaf race for mrca

[ajay_hk]

Acquisition of MRCAs have not been raised to 200. These speculations were put to rest by Air Force chief in an interview with Force recently. It is 126 A/C onlee..IMO if the deal is split, then I dont think we can expect a good level of TOT. Why wud anyone give deep TOT if they dont get the major chunk of MRCA order?? F-18s, if chosen wud be at a gr8 risk. M2K-5, withdrawing from MRCA race is also a speculation. Everything wud be made clear during Chirac's visit to India in a couple of months. The only logical solution for IAF wud be rafalized M2K-5 and Mig 35. Both France and Russia have agreed to give deep TOT.

 

[dreamwarrior73]

Acquisition of MRCAs have not been raised to 200. These speculations were put to rest by Air Force chief in an interview with Force recently. It is 126 A/C onlee..IMO if the deal is split, then I dont think we can expect a good level of TOT. Why wud anyone give deep TOT if they dont get the major chunk of MRCA order?? F-18s, if chosen wud be at a gr8 risk. M2K-5, withdrawing from MRCA race is also a speculation. Everything wud be made clear during Chirac's visit to India in a couple of months. The only logical solution for IAF wud be rafalized M2K-5 and Mig 35. Both France and Russia have agreed to give deep TOT.

totally agree with you on that. only Mirage-2000 or MiG-35 is the best and most logical choice for IAF MRCA requirement. other than that will be a disaster to the whole ILS chain. if others are chosen then it would be of a political decision.

btw, latest Russian engine are not so bad. they are quite good actually. no more smoking trails. more reliable. higher MTBR and MTBF.

 

[ajaybhutani]

Acquisition of MRCAs have not been raised to 200. These speculations were put to rest by Air Force chief in an interview with Force recently. It is 126 A/C onlee..IMO if the deal is split, then I dont think we can expect a good level of TOT. Why wud anyone give deep TOT if they dont get the major chunk of MRCA order?? F-18s, if chosen wud be at a gr8 risk. M2K-5, withdrawing from MRCA race is also a speculation. Everything wud be made clear during Chirac's visit to India in a couple of months. The only logical solution for IAF wud be rafalized M2K-5 and Mig 35. Both France and Russia have agreed to give deep TOT.

i agree with you on this.
About the split.. i think split again is a speculation and nothing more .. indians wont like the headache to add two more planes in their logistics.
I think M2k-5 is withdrawn from the race by french to promote the Rafale instead.

 

[ajay_hk]

totally agree with you on that. only Mirage-2000 or MiG-35 is the best and most logical choice for IAF MRCA requirement. other than that will be a disaster to the whole ILS chain. if others are chosen then it would be of a political decision.

btw, latest Russian engine are not so bad. they are quite good actually. no more smoking trails. more reliable. higher MTBR and MTBF.

DW73, this MRCA deal has a lot of political stakes involved in it. Americans are aggressively pushing F-18E/F and F-16s..most notably Boeing. So dont be surprised if you see F-18s in IAF colors. The basic idea of having a 3 tier force is no longer valid with SHs, EFs and Rafales coming into fray. IAF earlier proposal of 150 additional M2Ks shud've been taken seriously, all this delay, political implications wud'nt started at all.

 

[ajay_hk]

i agree with you on this.
About the split.. i think split again is a speculation and nothing more .. indians wont like the headache to add two more planes in their logistics.
I think M2k-5 is withdrawn from the race by french to promote the Rafale instead.

Ajay, MOD has openly stated that it dose'nt want to depend on a single country/vendor especially when it comes to defence. That cud be one of the reasons why IMO, the deal would be split between 2 majors (Dassault/Mig or Boeing/Mig). EF 2000 and Rafale were rejected initially as they didnt fit IAF requirements. These 2 are 4.5 gen fighters and MKI with upgrades can fit that bill more than well. These funds instead shud be directed to PAK-FA/LFI and MCA program. The idea is to have a fighter with true multirole capability that can suffice the need of Nuclear delivery and also have the capacity to defend itself. Perform excellent ground and A-A roles. M2K has been the favorite of IAF, no denying that.

IMO the only thing that is agaisnt M2K is the price.

 

[ajaybhutani]

Ajay, MOD has openly stated that it dose'nt want to depend on a single country/vendor especially when it comes to defence. That cud be one of the reasons why IMO, the deal would be split between 2 majors (Dassault/Mig or Boeing/Mig). EF 2000 and Rafale were rejected initially as they didnt fit IAF requirements. These 2 are 4.5 gen fighters and MKI with upgrades can fit that bill more than well. These funds instead shud be directed to PAK-FA/LFI and MCA program. The idea is to have a fighter with true multirole capability that can suffice the need of Nuclear delivery and also have the capacity to defend itself. Perform excellent ground and A-A roles. M2K has been the favorite of IAF, no denying that.

IMO the only thing that is agaisnt M2K is the price.

by the statements like " we wouldnt depend upon a single vendor" implies only that they are not giving russians this order.
Though MKI , EF & rafale are all 4.5 gen but they are in different role altogether.. MKI is long range high payload plane .. while Rafale & Ef are more in medium category.
GEn no just represents the level of technology of the plane. for instance both F22 and F35 are 5th gen but they are both needed and are for different purpose.
Now we need these planes to be able to easily hit on F16 blk 52 and J10/JF17 ..
we have had technological superiorities to the extent that during kargil a single Mig29 had locks on 2 Pak F16. at the same time. with F16's in no way to fire BVR. Of couse such superiorities arent really possible now with F16 blk 52 .. but we do need to select judiciously to at least maintain superiority on a 1-1 basis. and so i guess the need for better planes like rafale,EF,F18 etc.

 

[tphuang]

by the statements like " we wouldnt depend upon a single vendor" implies only that they are not giving russians this order.
Though MKI , EF & rafale are all 4.5 gen but they are in different role altogether.. MKI is long range high payload plane .. while Rafale & Ef are more in medium category.
GEn no just represents the level of technology of the plane. for instance both F22 and F35 are 5th gen but they are both needed and are for different purpose.
Now we need these planes to be able to easily hit on F16 blk 52 and J10/JF17 ..
we have had technological superiorities to the extent that during kargil a single Mig29 had locks on 2 Pak F16. at the same time. with F16's in no way to fire BVR. Of couse such superiorities arent really possible now with F16 blk 52 .. but we do need to select judiciously to at least maintain superiority on a 1-1 basis. and so i guess the need for better planes like rafale,EF,F18 etc.

dont' make any assumptions. There is no guarantee that the Pakistanis are actually getting AMRAAM from the Americans. I do expect that they will, but there has been no such news. Also, I do expect the PAF F-16s to all be upgraded to MLU standard, so that they will have the capability to fire AMRAAM. Although of course, the SMT upgrade on Mig-29 will also give Mig-29 the ability to fire R-77.

My reasoning on why IAF might get 2 vendors is due to the fact that I do not think all that highly of the cheaper fighters in MRCA. However, you can't really fill all 126 or 200 with typhoon or Rafale or even F-18s at the price they are going at these days.

 

[ajay_hk]

by the statements like " we wouldnt depend upon a single vendor" implies only that they are not giving russians this order.
Though MKI , EF & rafale are all 4.5 gen but they are in different role altogether.. MKI is long range high payload plane .. while Rafale & Ef are more in medium category.
GEn no just represents the level of technology of the plane. for instance both F22 and F35 are 5th gen but they are both needed and are for different purpose.
Now we need these planes to be able to easily hit on F16 blk 52 and J10/JF17 ..
we have had technological superiorities to the extent that during kargil a single Mig29 had locks on 2 Pak F16. at the same time. with F16's in no way to fire BVR. Of couse such superiorities arent really possible now with F16 blk 52 .. but we do need to select judiciously to at least maintain superiority on a 1-1 basis. and so i guess the need for better planes like rafale,EF,F18 etc.

Do u think just coz., MKI has long range greater payload, it cannot perform roles to provide air superiority over Pak airspace which comes in a very short range? MKI/for that matter any advanced flanker is a classic eample of what true multi-role is. For a IAF strategy to have LCA, M2K/Mig 35, MKI and 5th Gen (Light, medium, heavy) force structure, where wud u put in Rafale/EF 2000? try and replace them with M2K/Mig 35 in that equation..what wud u get? 2 birds of same roles. ain't that waste of money? With 135-150m a piece, these are $hit expensive.

Generation number not only represents the tech in the plane, but the capabilities it offers. I dont see any advantages Rafale/EF2000 offer over MKI. U think F-35 cannot perform A to A roles? Its optimized for LO observability, why wud u need that for a striker role? It can be accomplised by F-22s escorting them!

 

[aaaditya]

Do u think just coz., MKI has long range greater payload, it cannot perform roles to provide air superiority over Pak airspace which comes in a very short range? MKI/for that matter any advanced flanker is a classic eample of what true multi-role is. For a IAF strategy to have LCA, M2K/Mig 35, MKI and 5th Gen (Light, medium, heavy) force structure, where wud u put in Rafale/EF 2000? try and replace them with M2K/Mig 35 in that equation..what wud u get? 2 birds of same roles. ain't that waste of money? With 135-150m a piece, these are $hit expensive.

Generation number not only represents the tech in the plane, but the capabilities it offers. I dont see any advantages Rafale/EF2000 offer over MKI. U think F-35 cannot perform A to A roles? Its optimized for LO observability, why wud u need that for a striker role? It can be accomplised by F-22s escorting them!

i dont know about rafale but i would certainly rate the ef2000 to be marginally superior to the current version of the su30mki,because it is smaller having a smaller radar cross section,it has 40+%of its structure made of composite materials,dvi capability and the meteor missiles.

 

[ajaybhutani]

dont' make any assumptions. There is no guarantee that the Pakistanis are actually getting AMRAAM from the Americans. I do expect that they will, but there has been no such news. Also, I do expect the PAF F-16s to all be upgraded to MLU standard, so that they will have the capability to fire AMRAAM. Although of course, the SMT upgrade on Mig-29 will also give Mig-29 the ability to fire R-77.

i do agree with you..on this but we need to wait and see how much americans give pakistan in this deal.

My reasoning on why IAF might get 2 vendors is due to the fact that I do not think all that highly of the cheaper fighters in MRCA. However, you can't really fill all 126 or 200 with typhoon or Rafale or even F-18s at the price they are going at these days.

i do believe that the price in a EU factory is quite a lot more than what it can be produced in india or in china etc.
its all about the numbers..

whatever we finally select it still makes much more sense for use to select
126 same planes than 60 planes of one type and rest for another..

secondly do the mig29's already have a capability to fire R77's?

if we cant afford 125 rafales/ef2000 lets just buy what we can afford instead..

 

[ajaybhutani]

Do u think just coz., MKI has long range greater payload, it cannot perform roles to provide air superiority over Pak airspace which comes in a very short range?

thats not at all the point.. the point is its much more expensive to keep MKI's to maintain air superiority over short distances.. MKI's would consume double(just a guess) the amount of fuel a ef2000/rafale etc will consume . after all its not just about how much did we buy the planes for but also how much do we need to pay every month per plane .. that determines really wether MKI is really fit for the role . its actually an overkill to use MKI's to assert air superiority.

MKI/for that matter any advanced flanker is a classic eample of what true multi-role is. For a IAF strategy to have LCA, M2K/Mig 35, MKI and 5th Gen (Light, medium, heavy) force structure, where wud u put in Rafale/EF 2000? try and replace them with M2K/Mig 35 in that equation..what wud u get? 2 birds of same roles. ain't that waste of money? With 135-150m a piece, these are $hit expensive.
actually MKI fits very well in the heavy role .. LCA in light role and so the rafale /ef2000/mig29 etc as the moderate role.


Generation number not only represents the tech in the plane, but the capabilities it offers. I dont see any advantages Rafale/EF2000 offer over MKI.

theres one big obvious advantage .. and thats the operating cost per km of flight as the ef2000's or rafales'1 are is much more than what MKI's offer. ( after all using a shot gun to kill a person is cheaper and more simple than using a missile. )

U think F-35 cannot perform A to A roles? Its optimized for LO observability, why wud u need that for a striker role? It can be accomplised by F-22s escorting them!

 

[ajay_hk]

thats not at all the point.. the point is its much more expensive to keep MKI's to maintain air superiority over short distances.. MKI's would consume double(just a guess) the amount of fuel a ef2000/rafale etc will consume . after all its not just about how much did we buy the planes for but also how much do we need to pay every month per plane .. that determines really wether MKI is really fit for the role . its actually an overkill to use MKI's to assert air superiority.

Acquisition costs are not considered by you ajay. Fuel consumption is again speculation by u. with MKI around 35-40M a piece (infrastucture also set up) compared to EF/Rafale 150M a piece (no infrastructure whatsoever) operational/maintainence costs cannot be speculated. In addition setting up infrastructure will incur huge losses and a big headache too. How would u say that EF/Rafale would acheive air superiority/ whatever role its assigned for without an overkill? u might be right abt maintainence costs, it cannot be accurately accounted for. but if you consider long run, u might be right!

theres one big obvious advantage .. and thats the operating cost per km of flight as the ef2000's or rafales'1 are is much more than what MKI's offer. ( after all using a shot gun to kill a person is cheaper and more simple than using a missile. )

any source mentioning operating costs? I dont think therez much difference!! The point is IAF needs atleast around 300 A/C to replace. in that view my opinion abt MRCA is

1. M2K lines are abt to close, its a proven fighter, buying them 2nd hand would be very cost effective at abt 20-22M a piece. Then MLUs can be done on them to keep them in service level for another 12-15 years. Set up a production line too.

2. Same thing abt Mig 29, can be MLUed to SMT/M2 stds (similar price). Set up a production line of it too.

3. Focus more funds on LCA, MCA/PAK-FA to get them operational soon.

 

[tphuang]

Acquisition costs are not considered by you ajay. Fuel consumption is again speculation by u. with MKI around 35-40M a piece (infrastucture also set up) compared to EF/Rafale 150M a piece (no infrastructure whatsoever) operational/maintainence costs cannot be speculated. In addition setting up infrastructure will incur huge losses and a big headache too. How would u say that EF/Rafale would acheive air superiority/ whatever role its assigned for without an overkill? u might be right abt maintainence costs, it cannot be accurately accounted for. but if you consider long run, u might be right!


any source mentioning operating costs? I dont think therez much difference!! The point is IAF needs atleast around 300 A/C to replace. in that view my opinion abt MRCA is

1. M2K lines are abt to close, its a proven fighter, buying them 2nd hand would be very cost effective at abt 20-22M a piece. Then MLUs can be done on them to keep them in service level for another 12-15 years. Set up a production line too.

2. Same thing abt Mig 29, can be MLUed to SMT/M2 stds (similar price). Set up a production line of it too.

3. Focus more funds on LCA, MCA/PAK-FA to get them operational soon.

Do you know what you are saying?
IAF is going to be in serious trouble if all it does it buy 2nd hand M2Ks and upgrading Mig-29s. SMT standard is still using that all powerful radar aka Zhuk-ME. As for MKI, I thought it's 35 million per plane, but that's not including the cost on HAL's part to assemble it and such. You can't discount that cost. Note, the 150 million dollar tag on EF and Rafale also includes full suite of sensors and weapons. The cost for MKI does not include the R-77 and PGMs.

Is MKI technically a better platform for strike? Not necessarily. MKI's payload isn't really that great. You kind of want that to carry AShMs and such. The combat radius of MKI is only about 100 more than EF/Rafale.

 

[ajaybhutani]

Do you know what you are saying?
IAF is going to be in serious trouble if all it does it buy 2nd hand M2Ks and upgrading Mig-29s. SMT standard is still using that all powerful radar aka Zhuk-ME. As for MKI, I thought it's 35 million per plane, but that's not including the cost on HAL's part to assemble it and such. You can't discount that cost. Note, the 150 million dollar tag on EF and Rafale also includes full suite of sensors and weapons. The cost for MKI does not include the R-77 and PGMs.

Is MKI technically a better platform for strike? Not necessarily. MKI's payload isn't really that great. You kind of want that to carry AShMs and such. The combat radius of MKI is only about 100 more than EF/Rafale.

just for clarifications and reference.
source :http://www.fighter-planes.com/
plane combat radius
SU30 1400 km
rafale 900 km
ef2000 900km
gripen 800km
mig29 710 km(might have gone up with differnet versions).
LCA 850 km(expected).
if the source is right i dont see the rafale/ef2000 in the league of su30 at all .. intead more near to LCA.

 

[tphuang]

just for clarifications and reference.
source :http://www.fighter-planes.com/
plane combat radius
SU30 1400 km
rafale 900 km
ef2000 900km
gripen 800km
mig29 710 km(might have gone up with differnet versions).
LCA 850 km(expected).
if the source is right i dont see the rafale/ef2000 in the league of su30 at all .. intead more near to LCA.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/eurofighter.htm
# Combat Radius ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km
# ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km
# air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km
# air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km

 

[ajay_hk]

Do you know what you are saying?
IAF is going to be in serious trouble if all it does it buy 2nd hand M2Ks and upgrading Mig-29s. SMT standard is still using that all powerful radar aka Zhuk-ME. As for MKI, I thought it's 35 million per plane, but that's not including the cost on HAL's part to assemble it and such. You can't discount that cost. Note, the 150 million dollar tag on EF and Rafale also includes full suite of sensors and weapons. The cost for MKI does not include the R-77 and PGMs.

Is MKI technically a better platform for strike? Not necessarily. MKI's payload isn't really that great. You kind of want that to carry AShMs and such. The combat radius of MKI is only about 100 more than EF/Rafale.

MKI with 12 hardpoints (can be increased to 14 if necessary) and with a load(external) of more than 8000 KG!! and its less?? Why wud India need to invest in another fighter of a similar platform. Ain't that a logistical nightmare? Even with all bells and whistles MKI wud be a way lot cheaper than Rafale/EF2000. If money is not a concern, Rafale would be OK since its a proven striken platform, but a big no no to EF2000!. Whats wrong in acquiring 2nd hand M2Ks and Mig 29s and upgrading them? I dont see any reason for IAF to have any problem with that. Yes Mig 29s were a headache initially but those r days are over.

 

[tphuang]

MKI with 12 hardpoints (can be increased to 14 if necessary) and with a load(external) of more than 8000 KG!! and its less?? Why wud India need to invest in another fighter of a similar platform. Ain't that a logistical nightmare? Even with all bells and whistles MKI wud be a way lot cheaper than Rafale/EF2000. If money is not a concern, Rafale would be OK since its a proven striken platform, but a big no no to EF2000!. Whats wrong in acquiring 2nd hand M2Ks and Mig 29s and upgrading them? I dont see any reason for IAF to have any problem with that. Yes Mig 29s were a headache initially but those r days are over.

some idea of the takeoff weight and such for different flankers
Aircraft/Empty weight/Normal takeoff/Max takeoff

Su-27/16,400/22,500/28,000
Su-33/19,600/26,000/33,000
Su-34//39,000/45,000
Su-30MKI//25,700/34,000
Su-30MKK//24,900/34,500*
MKK's payload is measured as 8000 KG. Su-34's payload is at 8000 KG. I know that MKI's payload is listed as 8000 KG, but payload is calculated differently. For example, how much fuel weight do you use and such. I would think MKI's payload to be less than that of 34 and MKK. If I've learnt anything from MKK in China, it would be that the Russian precision strike pods/weapons are really not developed to the Western standards. Rafale/EF-2000 would be equipped with much more proven precision strike equipments and such.

Why would you want to get EF-2000? It's the second best air superiority aircraft behind F-22, that's why. It has turn rates that are comparable to F-22 at certain speeds.

Why not get upgraded M2K and Mig-29s? They are old airframes, that's why. There are obvious reasons why old airframes are not as good as new airframes. And by 2015, these fighters will be out of date.

 

[ajaybhutani]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/eurofighter.htm
# Combat Radius ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km
# ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km
# air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km
# air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km

SU30
from
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/su30/


Empty 32,020 lb (17,700 kg)
Typical Load (Su-30M) 52,910 lb (24,000 kg)
(Su-30MKI) 56,590 lb (25,670 kg)
Max Takeoff (Su-30M) 73,855 lb (33,500 kg)
(Su-30MKI) 74,955 lb (34,000 kg)
Fuel Capacity 20,725 lb (9,400 kg)
Max Payload 17,640 lb (8,000 kg)
fuel fraction
with max takeoff wt(only internal fuel) 0.2764


EF2000

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/typhoon/

Empty 22,045 lb (10,000 kg)
Typical Load 32,280 lb (15,550 kg)
Max Takeoff 46,295 lb (21,000 kg)
Fuel Capacity internal: 8,820 lb (4,000 kg)
external: two 395 gal (1,500 L) and one 265 gal (1,000 L) tanks
Max Payload

14,300 lb (6,500 kg)

fuel fraction with max takeoff wt(only internal fuel) 0.19


RAFALE
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/rafale/
Empty 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)
Typical Load 33,200 lb (15,060 kg)
Max Takeoff 47,400 lb (21,500 kg)
Fuel Capacity internal: 1,405 gal (5,325 L)
external: 1,745 gal (6,600 L)
Max Payload

17,635 lb (8,000 kg)
from http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRRafale.htm

Weights (Massen)
Empty weight (Leermasse): ca. 9,4 tons (Rafale C), 9,6 tons (Rafale B), 9,9 tons (Rafale M)
Internal fuel (Kraftstoff): 4500 kg
External fuel (Zusatztanks): 7500 kg
Max. external load (max. Außenlast): 9500 kg
Max. take-off weigth (Max. Startmasse): 24500 kg


http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/rafale.htm

Empty Weight: 9060 kg
Max.Weight: 19500 kg
Internal Fuel: 4000 kg

it makes a good sense to take weight as 4000 kg. max weight is a conflicting figure.but even with taking lowest figure of max wt(19500)
the ratio is 0.20.

range really depends upon the configuration used.the engine efficiency and speed of flight will be big factors.but the higher fuel fraction for su30 surely wont stop it from getting the good edge in range.

 

[aaaditya]

some idea of the takeoff weight and such for different flankers
Aircraft/Empty weight/Normal takeoff/Max takeoff

Su-27/16,400/22,500/28,000
Su-33/19,600/26,000/33,000
Su-34//39,000/45,000
Su-30MKI//25,700/34,000
Su-30MKK//24,900/34,500*
MKK's payload is measured as 8000 KG. Su-34's payload is at 8000 KG. I know that MKI's payload is listed as 8000 KG, but payload is calculated differently. For example, how much fuel weight do you use and such. I would think MKI's payload to be less than that of 34 and MKK. If I've learnt anything from MKK in China, it would be that the Russian precision strike pods/weapons are really not developed to the Western standards. Rafale/EF-2000 would be equipped with much more proven precision strike equipments and such.

Why would you want to get EF-2000? It's the second best air superiority aircraft behind F-22, that's why. It has turn rates that are comparable to F-22 at certain speeds.

Why not get upgraded M2K and Mig-29s? They are old airframes, that's why. There are obvious reasons why old airframes are not as good as new airframes. And by 2015, these fighters will be out of date.

well we need not worry about the russian pgm's and pods,since mki can quite effortlessly accept western and israeili weapons and pods.

 

[ajaybhutani]

some idea of the takeoff weight and such for different flankers
Aircraft/Empty weight/Normal takeoff/Max takeoff

Su-27/16,400/22,500/28,000
Su-33/19,600/26,000/33,000
Su-34//39,000/45,000
Su-30MKI//25,700/34,000
Su-30MKK//24,900/34,500*
MKK's payload is measured as 8000 KG. Su-34's payload is at 8000 KG. I know that MKI's payload is listed as 8000 KG, but payload is calculated differently. For example, how much fuel weight do you use and such. I would think MKI's payload to be less than that of 34 and MKK.

why do you think SU30MKI cannot carry 8000kg of payload?

If I've learnt anything from MKK in China, it would be that the Russian precision strike pods/weapons are really not developed to the Western standards. Rafale/EF-2000 would be equipped with much more proven precision strike equipments and such.

but india has access to western technologies too.

Why would you want to get EF-2000? It's the second best air superiority aircraft behind F-22, that's why. It has turn rates that are comparable to F-22 at certain speeds.

do you intend to say that EF2000 is better than Rafale. ?? can u please elaborate why ?

Why not get upgraded M2K and Mig-29s? They are old airframes, that's why. There are obvious reasons why old airframes are not as good as new airframes. And by 2015, these fighters will be out of date.

[/QUOTE]
fully agree with you on this... but i do wish to know exactly how much work has been done on mig29 to mig35.. as thats the plane india can get the whole ToT.. making it more attractive than what its really worth.