araz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 9,291
- Reaction score
- 81
Thank you for your response. One really needs to hear from an expert as to why the K8 was acquired and what limitations are there on its development. It is a fairly comprehensive subject and I am not qualified to comment on it. The other and most relevant question one needs ot ask is whether the replacement of K8 is that necessary NOW or is it something we may need to look into post 2020-25. As always we need parameters first before we start a debate. The other question is the numbers game ie how many do we need. I suspect at best around 40 to 50 max platforms. If this is true do we need to re invent the wheel. I suspect any new project will set us back 700---1Billion $ in research should we embark on our own project and at least half the price for licence production and production of parts. Is all of this worth it for 50 platforms. The million dollar question is whether a newer platform will sell as well as the K8 has done. A lot of questions to which there are no answers.!!!!Agreed with the rate of production for JF17. Even though i am not particularly pleased with that 24 per year figure (i would like it to be in region of 36 or so if we are serious about exports) but still i do understand the need of it and completely agree with it. A necessity more than a choice really. We sure don't have multiple projects running where we can transfer and share resources. I just hope we get there some time!
For Hurkus, again, i agree. There are SO many options available i am not sure how much PAC will be attracted in license production etc. All we need in manufacturing for some parts, that is, for THIS order/requirement. However any insight into the technology must not go to waste as in K8 and should be used whenever we need to look at some other platform for some other requirement in future. The parts production and technology insight will be helpful! IT SHOULD BE!
Regards