mattAnd what part of the compressor would you make out of CMC’s?
mattWashington pins hopes on India fighter deal
By Edward Luce in Washington and James Lamont in New DelhiPublished: September 30 2010 20:53 | Last updated: September 30 2010 20:53
The US administration is stepping up pressure on India to buy US military hardware five weeks ahead of Barack Obama’s first state visit to India.
Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, and Robert Gates, the defence secretary, have pressed AK Antony, the Indian defence minister who is on a two-day visit to Washington, to opt for US bids to supply more than 100 multi-combat fighter aircraft to India. The project – worth up to $11bn – is the world’s largest pending military hardware deal.
SNIP_____
“We think we have the finest military hardware in the world, and if India is upgrading its defence capabilities, they should buy American,” PJ Crowley, a state department spokesman, said following Mr Antony’s meeting with Mrs Clinton. “Our understanding is that some of those decisions are coming up fairly soon.”
The selection of one of the US fighter jet bids would help cement a growing alignment of two of the world’s largest democracies, a political bond that Mr Obama will stress heavily on his visit.
US officials say privately it would also take the sting out of the recent Indian nuclear liability law, which would make suppliers, as well as operators, liable for any accidents at Indian civil nuclear plants.
One of the main selling points of the controversial 2008 US-India civil nuclear agreement, concluded by George W. Bush’s administration but upheld by Mr Obama, was that it would create a huge flow of business for US companies in India’s planned civil nuclear expansion. The deal gave India access to civil nuclear technology and material without requiring it to renounce its nuclear weapons or join the non-proliferation treaty. But the passage last month of India’s nuclear liability law, which US companies describe as draconian, has put paid to such hopes.
SNIP_________
The US could also back India’s aspirations to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. However, there are divisions within the administration on how far Washington should go.
“There is a camp within the administration, particularly at the state department, that understands India’s huge geostrategic importance to America, and there is a camp that is much more sceptical and wants first to see the pay-off to the nuclear deal,” said a senior India lobbyist.
.Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
This is scary news because everyone knows that Congress is very pro US and always has been..
The F/A-18 and F-16 are less than adequate for Indias imediate neighbourhood… F/A-18 is a bomb truck which is great if you got high value SEAD and Stealth bombers in your airforce but useless if you happen to be the IAF and facing a fleet of 200 plus Su-27 or derivatives of the same along with some of the best Air defense systems in the world!
(Reuters) – Russia has delivered 15 batteries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to China, Interfax news agency reported on Friday, under a contract analysts said could be worth as much as $2.25 billion.
China is a major buyer of Russian weapons, and the two countries say they are trying to forge a strategic partnership, though senior Russian officials are privately concerned about an increasingly assertive China.
Russia has delivered 15 S-300 batteries to China, Interfax news agency quoted Igor Ashurbeili, director general of Almaz Antei which makes the missiles, as saying. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6310WG20100402
F/A-18s and F-16s will be flying coffins in this neighbourhood unless the US is offering the E/A-18 as part of the package.
Hope that Typhoon and Rafale win outright!
mattI don’t think IN can see any hostile nation in the IOR which require more than the projected capability(the ships work with the two fleets).
That is what i was saying the market in consulting, systems and and other types of naval vessels is too huge for a major player like BAE to ignore.
Dont understand your point, can you eloborate? Do you mean that the India shore is vast enough that IN does not need a real AAW at sea?
mattPutting Su up north so close is silly. Anyway bigger danger is in buying US for MMRCA as none of the offerings is technical match to what India has to face.
mattI read somewhere that the US expects 40% of all missile launches during war to miss their targets due to some malfunction or the other.
Anyway the Prithvi missile has been launched a lot and the success rate has been very high.
Is that an opinion or a fact? Especially with respect to the US failure results also you mention that it expects 40% of all missiles to miss targets that is not the same as 40% of all missiles to fail from launch. Also for what missile system is that figure from?
Also when you mentioned that Prithvi II has been launched a lot can you give any numbers ?
Some links would help as well have tried to confirm your reporting but nothing found so far.
mattTHIS IS HUGE: GE F414 Engine Lowest Bidder To Power Tejas MK-II
Maybe they are just bidding low to win the contract, would it not make sense for India to get both the EJ2000 and the F414 for the LCA? Risk reduction and competitive supply chain.
mattI really do not see how SFC gets benefitted by conducting launches/training on ITR ranges.
They should rather be routinely testing it as part of the tactical exercises at the location where these are held very year , thats more like field experience integrated with exercise.
The current failure though is normal some percent of missile would always fail in combat for what ever reasons.
What kind of failure rate would you accept on a missile system you need to rely on for your defence?
How many Agni II have they tested and how many have failed? 1 in 5?
matt(Source: ddi Indian government news; issued Sept. 24, 2010)
India’s indigenously developed nuclear capable Prithvi-II ballistic missile failed to take off during a user trial from the Integrated Test Range at Chandipur off the Orissa coast on Friday apparently due to a technical problem, defence sources said.
Though the ITR authorities were not immediately available for comment, defence sources said the sophisticated missile could not take off during the planned trial from the launch complex-III of the test range due to some “technical snag.”
“The failure to lift Prithvi-II was due to a snag either in the main missile or the sub-system, including the launcher,” they said, adding the test-fire was slated to be held as part of user’s trial by the armed forces.
During Friday’s planned trial, a noise could be heard as smoke billowed from the launch site around the time of the blasting.
Efforts were on to ascertain the exact reason behind the failure on the part of the missile to take off and defence scientists were examining the matter thoroughly, they said.
The last four user’s trials of the surface-to-surface missile were successfully conducted during the about one year period, from the same site in the ITR.
The last trial was conducted on 18th June, this year.
The test firing of the state-of-the-art missile, which has already been inducted into armed forces, was planned as user’s trial by the specially formed “Strategic Force Command” (SFC), the sources said.
-ends-
Maybe this explains why the SFCfeels it needs an aircraft based delivery system. I guess until the missile program gets mature and there are no or very little failures they can do anything else but get aircraft involved.
mattWhat’s New About the AirSea Battle Concept?
______________SNIP_______
The Strategy
But it is the ways Navy and Air Force assets would provide mutual support in this campaign that can make the ASBC, if it evolves in a manner that many strategic thinkers believe it should, a modern-day equivalent of some of the innovative strategies and tactics employed by U.S. air and sea forces in World War II. If the ASBC evolves as the CSBA study suggests, Navy and Air Force planners may evolve a strategy in which:•Air Force counter-space operations would blind PLA space-based ocean surveillance systems to prevent the PLA from targeting Navy surface assets, providing the Navy with operational freedom of maneuver.
•Navy Aegis ships would supplement other missile-defense assets in Air Force forward bases in the Western Pacific.
•Long-range penetrating strike operations would destroy PLA ground-based, long-range maritime surveillance systems and long-range ballistic-missile launchers to expand the Navy’s freedom of maneuver and reduce strikes on U.S. and allied bases. Concurrently, Navy submarine-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike support against PLA integrated air defense systems would pave the way for Air Force strikes.
•Navy carrier-based fighters’ progressive rollback of PLA manned and unmanned airborne ISR platforms and fighters would secure the forward operation of Air Force tankers and other support aircraft. This would require the Navy to rethink its current inventory of missiles, jammers, and decoys.
•Air Force aircraft would support the antisubmarine warfare campaign through offensive mining by stealthy bombers and persistent non-stealthy bomber strike support of Navy ships conducting distant blockade operations.13
The evidence also suggests that this ASBC will, indeed, gain traction throughout the U.S. military. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen has already put his imprint on the concept. Speaking at the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation and commissioning ceremony earlier this year he noted, “[The ASBC] is a prime example of how we need to keep breaking down stovepipes between services, between federal agencies, and even between nations.”14Implications of an Evolving Concept
According to CSBA’s study, AirSea Battle: A Point-of- Departure Operational Concept, “The Defense Department’s Program of Record forces and current concepts of operations do not accord sufficient weight to the capabilities needed to successfully execute an AirSea Battle campaign.”15However the elements outlined here combine to form a coherent ASBC, myriad strategic, institutional, and programmatic implications, both understood and unintentional, will arise. These will vary depending on the concepts envisioned and the course adopted. A sampling of a few that may immediately surface include:
Naming Names-U.S. policy toward China has been centered on managing the “peaceful rise” of this emerging peer competitor across a broad range of issues. Moreover, the United States has been careful not to paint China as a threat or engage in activities that could lead to an arms race. This may be changing, and the development of the ASBC may contribute to this change.
By actively and publicly planning, training, and equipping a joint air-sea force to confront even something as benignly described as a “pacing threat,” the United States is implicitly challenging China’s military influence in Asia. It is one thing for the independent thinkers at CSBA to issue a set of reports and conceptual papers on the ASBC; it is quite another for Navy and Air Force staffs to collaborate on a comprehensive approach to counter PLA systems, doctrine, and operational plans.
Read rest in here http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-08/whats-new-about-airsea-battle-concept
___SNIP________
This is a interesting read main artical is a lot lot bigger than what is posted
mattIs anyone getting feeling this is going to go back and forth for years? :S
I really hope they choose the better technically suited engine
mattInteresting Dispatches documentary on Channel 4, just concluded, called
“How the MoD wastes our billions”http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-58/episode-2
(programme should be available online soon)
4OD should have it on. I read the preview to it in the mail this sunday, and only watched the final 5 minutes of it.
Did they say how much much the UK armed forces have?
mattI think you’re missing the point.
First, it’s not SLBM -or- air-launched — it’s BOTH, and an additional capability.
Second, India needs a different nuclear doctrine than the British. When you have a foe whose declared nuclear doctrine has extremely low thresholds, an all-or-nothing SLBM nuclear deterrent does not do. India’s nuclear doctrine dictates that a tactical nuclear strike on India’s forces even in enemy soil will merit a nuclear response. India’s response to such an event will not be a counter-value strike (given geographical proximity considerations, etc.) but a graduated tactical counter-force nuclear strike, which a submerged boomer cannot deliver. (Of course, if the enemy begins with a counter-value strike, one can be well assured that the boomers will more than oblige, in bloody spades.)
As for taking out the airbases, you can be sure that the SFC aircraft are not going to be co-located in an easily identifiable location for anybody to take out. They will be disbursed in different airbases. And if it is so trivial to take out all of India’s strategic airbases with impunity, then you have no need to worry — you will win any conflict hands down. 😉
What do you think the different nuclear doctrins are that India and Britain need to adopt?
So you would distribute your nuclear weapons and aircraft over the whole country? how many nuclear warheads would you keep apart dotted around everywhere? With the full confidence that they can be kept secure?
As for the initial part of your post, Really depends on who is in power and who is facing you. Some people would take the view that if a nuclear weapon is used in war then its a case of the gloves being off. If a foe is willing to use nuclear weapons on your army to reduce your fighting skills there is nothing to say that he would not use nuclear weapons on your civilian centres further down the line.
It would be a foolish general who would at that point turn the other cheek.
Getting back to the original point, for the air based detterent to be usefull and not a lame duck India needs to buy/make some long range bombers with cruise missiles with long range. fighters droping dumb bombs will not make anyone have sleepless nights.
mattI suppose a case for free fall nuclear bombs and planes to drop them from could be made:
– With a supersonic dart near the border a fixed wing asset can be over a large number of pakistani population centres in no time, same goes for Pakistani planes, the two nations have a land border with major population centres near the border.
– Air defence on both sides has not been that sophisticated, even simple early warning assets have just begun induction.
– Ballistic missiles by nature are neither accurate nor reliable, far too many things can go wrong, and the number of warheads at disposal are limited. The only thing that can go wrong with a plane is that it can be shot down (well not entirely true a plane can also have tech. problems, however i doubt as much as a ballistic missile), and the plane can drop the bomb where we want it.
– Planes and warheads can be hidden in the vast number of airbases, it will be near impossible for the enemy to target all of these air bases with nuclear weapons, and in case of a conventional attack these air bases are best protected assets. Each air superiority and attack squadron along the western front could be provided with some nuclear weapons and planes dedicated to drop them, and they could form a strike package when ever it was ordered for.
That is really grabbing! But your right you don’t want collateral damage in a nuclear exchange need really high accuracy! :S
mattIn report language accompanying the bill, the committee said that the importance of the F-35 program and the urgent need to replace ageing fighter jets “is the only reason why the Committee is scaling back production and not recommending eliminating all funding for this program for fiscal year 2011.” (Emphasis added-Ed)
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter significantly reshaped the F-35 program — the largest and most expensive program to date — as a result of ballooning costs and development delays. The program manager overseeing the project was also replaced in the process.
I am sure the first paragraph about the importance of the F-35 replacing ageing fighter jets rings some bells with people here..
Some parallels somewhere maybe?
mattHaving land based missiles and submarines doing a nuclear role just shouts out “shoot me”
It does if your sub based weapons are short legged and you have not miniturised nuclear weapons.
Britain has been doing without strategic bombs (read free fall nuclear bombs) since the 90s.
An airwing is just pure sitting duck feeding fanboy ego, in Indias neighbourhood it is of little use apart from saying look i have a plane with canards for my bomb it does nothing else (well apart from build up costs).
Also remember one of the points of the air based weapons was to have some bombs constantly in the air now what aircraft in India can do that without needed massive logistics support? Also what aircracft in service in India has the capability to do that plus carry a missile big enough to have a 1000 km plus range? to make it worth while and really be a deterent and not just a detergent. Indian Navy has given up on the Tu-95’s (Tu-142) which could have carried a few long range cruise missiles when India has them. Not sure if can do the same on the P-8’s. Not sure if the US would give permission.
What i have always wondered is if the UK can get trident from the US why cant India buy into Russia’s Topol M. I mean with all the rules around the world how do the US and UK get away trading in nuclear weapons?
Also i cant understand why MTCR is quoted for Brahmos, the payload is too small to come under the MTCR controls.
Sign In
