FedaykinIndian Jag are cheap, less costly to operate and have relevant (and superior systems) than the 2Kd or even the Tornado. If we talk only about inducing more airframe to face pressure from Russia, the A2G aspect is dominant for Sweden with the Darin Jag well suited for the vast majority of it (use Jag for less demanding missions (expeditionary) and keep Grip as the bulk of your national defense + release old airframe from strategic stocks to augment the momentum of export, hence the available tech affordable with your national budget (ouch…).
Highly debatable, what Tornado or M2K? Those two types are in service with their respective air forces and appear to satisfy their needs, both those air forces are busy drawing them down to facilitate the induction of new types. Leasing Jaguar only hampers that exercise. Sweden has plenty of Gripen in storage and are also in the process of adopting a new type, inducting a totally Alien type on the form of Jaguar REALLY makes no sense.
People are really getting hung up about Russia, yes they are getting increasingly bold but I doubt the UK, France or Sweden are going to square off against them any time soon. It is mainly posturing.
FedaykinTo lease… I would have thought that this was an English verb…
Regarding Sweden, a Jag will still be relevant (flat country + expeditionary) with the twin seater performing advanced training task (LiF) in the waiting of the T-X.
Think about it: Indian latest airframe, Indian maintenance contractor, Indian logistic… Now, please, go back to your accountancy spreadsheet and have a look at how much you can spare with such package for an increase in budget acquisition… And better export offer.
I have talked before of integrated industry in length. This is somewhat the equivalent: Swap cost of ownership with acute training, coalition participation (hidden) and scale effect.
And I suggest you go and have a look at how manpower and resourcing works. Leasing still costs money and ties up those Flesh bags called humans to operate them. Even if you got the Indians to do all the logistics it would still tie up valuable resource to do it.
You also suggested swapping T1 Typhoon for Jaguar, what would the point be of that? RAF T1 Typhoon already have a ground attack capability and the type is in inventory.
Sorry this is a solution in search of a problem.
FedaykinPut simply it is a silly idea…
If I had a penny for every time a forum user states “Country X should buy Aircraft not in Inventory Y to solve nebulous problem Z”! :stupid:
It would take resources away from in inventory aircraft and new equipment programs to give very questionable benefits.
For the UK, France and Sweden buying second hand Jaguar would be in effect like buying a new aircraft. None of those countries have facilities to support the type or trained personnel. They would have to set those training and support streams up taking funding and people away from other programs.
FedaykinThat would be US FMS deals that are ‘working best’. Israel offers a rather limited range of products. The Europeans are… lets say better suited to doing business in the Middle East.
As for the Russians, surprisingly the deal-fixer in question i.e. Sudhir Choudhrie has apparently received payoffs from (state owned) Rosoboronexport, RAC MiG & NPO M. They’re doing pretty well in the Middle East now too.
Leaving the Americans sitting pretty with relatively clean hands. Though given that their industry is less reliant on exports, more competitive in general with arguably better regulatory oversight, its not entirely surprising.
Fair point, thanks.
US FMS deals whilst not being the cheapest are pretty much take it or leave when it comes to contract details.
FedaykinJust out of curiosity, which defence deal involved “80, 90 and even 100%”? – can’t remember but large offset has come up more than once
And how did the TASL, M&M, L&T, etc manage to tie up with foreign OEMs without the MoD’s blessing? – don’t understand the question
It is a general list of observations that is all
FedaykinStrangely, on many points, that reminds me the Rafale deal a lot… 😉
You can see elements of that in a great many Indian defence deals, at the moment it appears direct Government to Government deals are working best for India.
FedaykinIn my view it is a national disgrace that the Falklands veteran frigate HMS Plymouth that sat alongside that U-Boat went to the breaker’s yard only this year! She was the last (surface) warship in Britain that fought in the Falklands.
XM607 should really be saved…..but I doubt it will be.
Problem is preserving HMS Plymouth presents exactly the same problems that preserving Aircraft like XM607 does, in an ideal world the ship needs lifting out of the water or placing in a suitable dry dock. Following that the resources need to be found to keep the hull painted and maintained. Sadly beyond enthusiasts the public interest in spending money on that is always less than what is needed. Even maintaining the IWM owned HMS Belfast is a costly and ongoing struggle with many a subtle compromise to keep her from rotting away, she is lucky that they can afford a fulltime staff of nine technicians plus funding to get in experts for routine maintenance and repairs. At sometime she will need to be dry docked again, for her 71 and 82 dock periods there were yards in London that could do that. In 1999 they had to tow her to Portsmouth and they even looked at using European yards. HMS Plymouth could never of hoped for that kind of funding, a sad loss.
FedaykinI agree with swerve, Indian defence procurement is fundamentally overly bureaucratic leading to the need for local “Fixers” that end up being caught leading to the company forced to use them black-balled! I wrote this elsewhere but it neatly sums up the Indian defence procurement cycle…
1) India declares a contest for a new armament
2) Only companies that have not been black listed for corruption need apply (more on that later)
3) Companies that enter have to submit their weapon to years of testing by a vast and impenetrable bureaucracy
4) During that testing local companies/factories usually state owned will complain and lobby that they could produce a local solution for the Indian government and MOD
5) To get through the impenetrable bureaucracy said bidding companies are forced to employ local officials on a vastly inflated wage to help advise on how best to bid
6) Shortlisted companies will be require to offer significant offset with 80, 90 and even 100% being the required level
7) Local production as part of the deal will be required
8) Companies bidding will not be able to chose their local partners or set up new facilities to produce weapons system
9) Only old state run companies/factories with their own vast bureaucracies will be allowed by the Indian MOD to be local production partners
10) These will be the same companies/factories as those in point 4)
11) To win contract bidding companies must agree to the license production program to be managed by the Indian based companies/factories
12) Yet those bidding companies must also agree to 100% financial liability if the program overruns due to poor local management
13) Local companies/factories will continue to complain even when selected as the final partner and continue to offer local solutions
14) Once a bidding company has won the contract then local Indian companies/factories will drag their feet
15) It will then be revealed that the local advisers in point 5) that the bidding companies were forced to employ were paying bribes to MOD/factory/military officials
16) Contract is immediately cancelled with that company and all its sub divisions banned from bidding in the future
17) Indian government will go for local solution
18) That will go massively over budget and behind schedule
19) Indian MOD will look at new bidding process for off the shelf solution
20) Points 1) to 19) happen all over again
21) Eventually Indian PM will go with military to a common and trusted supplier like Russia or Israel and buy a solution off the shelf via a government to government deal thus bypassing the whole bureaucratic mess that is Indian defence procurement
22) Rince and repeat!
FedaykinPerhaps because it’s her first interview in 8 years – as mentioned in the first seconds of the video.
Here is her husband (the actual President of Syria) being interview by the BBC last year:
FedaykinBtw, apparently, the RFI (IF there was a RFI), mentioned sigle engine fighters. I guess it was intended to specify “light” fighter. Recent versions of F-16 are as big as Rafale or so, no?
Exactly, A Block 50/52+ F-16 or the Block 60 variant they were originally offered in the MMRCA is hardly a light fighter these days! That it participated in the MMRCA contest makes the idea of it being considered as a light fighter now is non-sensical. If they do go for the F-16 then it needs to be as close as possible to a Block 50/52+ but with the adition of an AESA and a refuelling probe.
To be honest a Gripen variant would make far more sense as it would at least have some engine commonality with Tejas, the Swedish will be more open to a different weapons fit as well. Logically Derby and Python 5 like the Tejas is getting.
Then again India already has a perfectly good single engine fighter in service the Mirage 2000, if India had been sensible all those years back they could of purchased the M2000 line and been churning out Dash 9 variants right now!
FedaykinFedaykin, it was more than just a “concept”, it was widely trained by the RAF sqn´s for quite some time. There´s a description of such a composite group (two Tornado´s and two Hawk´s) making life hell for the US Navy (Tomcat´s and Hornets) in one of the (excelent) video´s posted by robyoung.
Yes it was VERY MUCH A CONCEPT even if it was trained for some time, it was found to be ineffective and dropped. It doesn’t change the reason the Hawk T1A was procured which was to replace the Hunter in the RAF TWU, that they tried to find other uses is immaterial to that key point.
I have seen the video posted by robyoung, it is very interesting but also from a very biased point of view. The composite airgroup exercises had very narrow and artificial rules of engagement designed to get the aircraft into a dogfight. A great chest thumping RAF RA RA RA boys own adventure of a story but rather ignoring the reality of what a USN Carrier Battle Group can bring to bare in a real war. The composite fighter force vs an AEGIS destroyer screen plus the whole Carrier Air Wing and all its capabilities plus having your base knocked out by US cruise missiles….It was a good training opportunity for the RAF and USN but don’t assume it to be a validation of the composite fighter/trainer force concept without look at other variables.
FedaykinYes lots of pie in the Sky…
Pros: bigger CAAM farm than I was expecting
I like that they have addressed some of the issues which are not headline-grabbing (algae reduction and accommodation)
Removing the high up Sea Wolf tracker weight must bring all kinds of stability and fatigue advantages – Not particularly, there is also a fair amount of below deck guts that would have been left. New systems tend to add weight anyway so it is probably not that much of a change.
They look lower, longer and meaner with the change of radars (plural) up topCons:
All of my pie in the sky dreams have been popped
Still the orphaned Mk8 4.5″ – Not worth changing out for the remaining life of the type in the fleet.
Still no Spearfish – “Spearfish is a heavyweight submarine launched anti submarine torpedo. T23 has the far more appropriate light weight Stingray”
Still no VLA – Elaborate I have no idea what you mean.
I had hoped that the old SW tracker positions would be used for something exciting and warry – The point being? The ship is already pretty warry, adding exciting new stuff for the sake of it just adds cost
No mention of softkill – Type 23 is equipped with Soft Kill systems including Sea Gnat
No mention of anti-torpedo – Type 23 is equipped with a Torpedo decoy system from Ultra ElectronicsI wonder how much over-budget BAEs went on this contract?
FedaykinThe issue however is simply that we are all here biased China-fan-boys and as such soooooooo much unreliable. Even more there are reports that say it is 23m long, it is a dedicated striker like a F-111 and those must be correct.
Indeed, I ‘m again at the point of leaving the Kew-Forum, since – just look at this and the PAK-FA-thread – there are simply too many kids here, who not interested in facts, not interested in discussion and learning but simply on their own and bashing others opinion.
But hey … I’m biased !
Deino
I still shake my head over the F-111 nonsense that was purely based upon one extremely blurry long distance picture. Because at the angle the picture was taken the silhouette happened to look if you really squinted like an F-111. Of course old Dr Carlo Kopp is utterly obsessed with the F-111 he starts pumping out articles stating the J-20 must be the same size and have the same mission profile…which of course meant the Australian Airforce must keep the F-111 suitably upgraded and buy the F-22!
Once we got a proper look at it we all quickly realise the truth, well except Dr Kopp who stuck with the idea for a long time!
FedaykinI read that in a book written in the 80’s by the NATO air commander in chief in Europe. He would probably not have talked about it if it was a stupid idea. Equipping the hawks with sidewinders is extremely inexpensive, if they had been used using the proper tactics with control from other planes or ground radars they might have shot down a few aircraft.
Of course an aircraft powered by an F404 has 2-3 times more power and can carry a lot more. And the hawk is so small that it’s probably impossible to even fit a radar.
The Hawk T1A was procured to replace the Hunter within the RAF TWU pure and simple, the mixed fighter force concept was an idea that came up afterwards and was never seriously pursued but was merrily mentioned and reported by many sources. It sounded like a good idea and the concept lingered in many minds. I have an RAF year book from 1986 that makes much mention of the idea for example. Nevertheless it was found to be more of a hindrance than a benefit, the subsonic Hawk could not keep up with the Phantom and Tornado that were meant to provide target information. In the end the best they could do was stay over mainland UK waiting for custom, considering the Russians would use stand off missiles to attack UK bases it was not that useful. Against Russian frontal air in Europe it might have its merits but would you fancy going up against a Mig-29 in a Hawk?
Within NATO forces a similar mixed fighter force concept was put forward in the event of WW3, the difference being it involved supersonic fighters rather than trainers. The idea was NATO jets equipped with BVR missiles like Sparrrow and later AMRAAM would volley off those missiles at a distance and smaller fighters that at the time were only wired for Sidewinder like early block F16 would follow the volley of BVR missiles in and engage at close range.
FedaykinIn the 80’s the RAF had the intention of using its hawks with sidewinders to try and shoot down the russian deep strike aircraft. The idea of using trainers as close in fighters is not that farfetched. Basically you try to fight with everything you have.
I wish this myth would be put to bed once and for all!
I am utterly sick of reading it trotted out as fact when the truth is so different!
The RAF did not procure the Hawk T1A wired for the 30mm Aden cannon and AIM-9L Sidewinder with the intention to shoot down Russian deep strike aircraft!
The T1A was procured wired for cannon and Sidewinder to allow the replacement of the Hawker Hunter with the RAF tactical weapons unit, the RAF TWU was set up to provided weapons tactics training.
Once the RAF had procured 89 Hawk T1A some bright spark dreamt up the idea of a “Mixed Fighter Force” where the appropriately wired Hawk could be used as point defence fighters to support the Phantom and Tornado F.3 if WW3 started. It was only ever a concept and every trial to see if it was practical found it to be a flawed concept as the subsonic Hawk actually hindered the Supersonic Phantom and Tornado.
Nevertheless this myth gets trotted out as gospel truth every time the Hawk T1A gets mentioned!
Sign In
