21Ankush80 Blackhawks were available for roughly the same price. Yes i agree with logistics issue, but as long as we rely on the same supplier the impetus will be on him to push up the cost further and further. We have to make a switch once and even out our military hardware sources. It may cost a bit more that one time but it will even out then.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/india-to-buy-80-mi17-1v-helicopters-02755/
80 Blackhawks available for $1.2 billion with spares, support, training ? no way ! Turkey paid $1.1 billion for 95 Blackhawks way back in 1992..in 2008, that price would’ve been much higher for 80 Blackhawks, with the cost of infrasturcture and training support that would be required for an all-new item in the IAF.
besides, it appears that you’re ok with US arm-twisting policies in the name of diversification of suppliers..if India should diversify, it should stick to tried and tested UK and French suppliers, with whom India has had little problems over decades.
21AnkushThe Mi 17 deal is another instance where the Russians squeezed our balls to get what they wanted. Mig 35 should really not stand a chance. We should also diversify our inventory with European and American types.
how is that ? how much would a similar number of American helis like the Blackhawk or Agusta Westland E-101s have cost India ? the Russians jacked up their prices, but it still would’ve been a couple of billion $ cheaper than equivalent US or French medium role transports..look at the 50 Cougar EC-725s that the Brazilians are getting for more than $2 billion..
India already operates the Mi-17, so getting the Mi-17V is not a logistical issue, and training and support personnel are already in place. if anything, going by the superb track-record of the Mi-8s and Mi-17s in IAF service, it was the best possible medium haul chopper deal.
21AnkushI feel very sad that F16IN seems to be the front runner as some posters seem to indicate.
However, given Indian politicos myopic view, lethargy and endless rampant corruption in Indian defense establishment, I would not be surprised if India picks the worst overall turkey of the lot:
1. F-16 is still an old frame despite new avionics – you can only do so much with it, and future upgrades would be limited compared to newer gen fighters. And argument that this could lead to F-35 purchase, or ease its induction in future is so futile. Seriously, if India decides to buy F-35 in future, I do not think that having bought F-16 first would be a prerequisite. Weapon integration can be done at that time as required.
2. If India is going to invest so much money, why not get latest production technologies for EF2000, Rafale, or SH instead of F16? However, I have to say I am not sure how much this will help India’s defense establishment. India does not seem to be like China, which takes every opportunity to learn and transfer into resident expertise. India has lost a lot of good opportunities – its really sick (example – Establishing HDW submarine production in India decades ago – most of it was lost).
3. Some poster claimed that MRCA will be in Indian service only till 2040 – NO, it could be in service way beyond 2040. Go look at current MiG 21, 23, 27 life times and upgrades to keep them going, that should give you an idea how Indian MoD operates.
4. Lastly – Don’t buy anything American for defense unless there are no other options – risky. People in the US do not trust Uncle Sam totally, I wonder why India is. Geopolitics change all the time, and if India happens to be on the other side of American wishes, bye bye for your defense support. Or India can kiss independent foreign policy a good bye. If India lets itself pressurized by the US to make its decisions, then shame on it; it does not deserve to choose its own destiny.
I really hope India does not choose F16 or F-18.
Then again, I am not impressed by the brains and motives behind the people who make these decisions.
I agree with what you’re saying about not trusting the US with a fighter that will form the backbone of the IAF for the next 30-35 years..but its this particular Congress government that is shamelessly pro-USA without giving even the slightest consideration to history or how it will affect India’s ability to follow its own course..of how we’ve been stung in the past, and that unless India always does what the US asks of it, it will not be considered an “ally”..the kind of badmouthing the French recieved when they refused to support the Iraq invastion was symptomatic of that..
21Ankush21AnkushLike I’ve said before start a new program like the MCA and jointly develope it with the help of say Boeing or maybe a major European Military Aerospace Company. (EADS, Dassault, SAAB, etc.)
the IAF has approached ADA to start work on the MCA
Flight International
India reveals plan to develop indigenous medium fighter
By Radhakrishna RaoThe Indian air force has approached the Bangalore-based Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which designed and developed India’s fourth-generation Tejas light combat aircraft, to prepare a detailed project report on the development of 20t medium combat aircraft (MCA) with stealth features.
To help phase out the air force’s Dassault Mirage 2000 and Hindustan Aeronautics-built Sepecat Jaguar strike aircraft by around 2015, the proposed twin-engined MCA would also augment the service’s Sukhoi Su-30MKIs and its planned future fleet of at least 126 medium multirole combat aircraft.
Strategic analysts in India believe the air force’s involvement augurs well for speeding up the project, as the service only had a peripheral role in developing the delayed Tejas, which is expected to be inducted into service from 2010. The new aircraft is also expected to use radar asorbent materials developed in India to reduce its radar cross-section.
The MCA is expected to be powered by a higher-thrust version of the Gas Turbine Research Establishment Kaveri engine to potentially be developed in co-operation with Snecma. The air force has formed a committee to analyse the French company’s offer of assistance, and will study issues such as cost, manufacturing details and technology transfer for the design, which could take five or six years to gain certification.
21AnkushÄhhhmm … which “new auxillary”?? … If You mean those in front of the tail I always thought they were for additional avionics, the APU … :confused:
I don’t think that they started with tests right before an engine has been chosen.
Deino
no Deino, there are some small auxillary intakes that are similar to those you see on the Jaguar, they’re placed on the side of the main intakes..but that alone won’t be sufficient for a new engine that requires more airflow. eventually theyll need to do a re-design of sorts of the intake.
21AnkushHas (the member) MiG-23MLD been banned? Else I would have expected him to be all over this thread by now. :confused:
Dont know mouch about MiG-23, but the Indians seem to be pretty sattisfied with their MiG-27s, and it performed well over Kargil in 1999 as far as I know..the MiG-21 which unfairly
the MiG-23 had the poorest attrition record versus the flying hours in the IAF..the MiG-21 which was given the nickname “flying coffin” and “Widow Maker” by our sensationalist press, actually had a much better attrition vs. flying hours record, primarily because while there were about 150 odd MiG-23s in service, there were more than 300 MiG-21s of various variants, including FLs that were used to train newbie pilots.
its primarily because of that and the lack of spares support for it that the IAF started pulling the MiG-23s out of service starting 2006 itself..the first to go were the MiG-23BNs and the last to go were the MiG-23MFs of the No.223 Warlords squadron who were left with a secondary role of target towing role, apart from their primary air-interceptor role.
but the MiG-27s are almost a decade younger compared to the MiG-23BNs and overall have had a much better safety record.
21Ankushok i understand ur opnion but what do you suggest.
I was looking at AMX Fighter attack program. I was thinking, what if LCA can be developed into a dedicated ground attack fighter replacing older Mig-27s, Mig-23BNs and ground attack Mig-21s. It wouldn’t need such a powerful engine or even radar for BVR Engagements.
It can be quickly sent into production and would also keep up IAF force levels. Since IAF in past had half ground attack and half air superiority birds, there would be a need for dedicated ground strike fighters.
but a delta wing without canards be good for ground strike?
looking at wiki, there is almost no difference between specs of GE F-404 and F-414. So what kind of modifications would be needed or is it just plug the F-414 and its all fine.
it isn’t as simple as plug-and-play to change the F-404 to F-414..the Gripen required some modifications to accomodate the newer engine, which also does weigh more. so, it can be done, but it will take a little time to do. but first of all, they should decide which one to use.
21AnkushI hope this deal paves way to greater co-operation between the two nations militarily and strategically.
by this “cooperation”, you mean that when America is next attacked by terrorists, Indian soldiers should also be involved in the reactive action, whereas when India is next attacked by Pakistani backed jehadis, the US will ask India to sit tight and display patience and restraint, while it arms them further with free military goods in return for their “cooperation”..
like Spitfire said in the above post, I too want India to be independent, and the last thing I’d want is for it to toe the American line, which is pretty much what “cooperation” means.
21AnkushRafale cannot hold its own against the teen series fighters even and has lost almost all competitions it has entered.
If the IAF can get 30 additional planes at the same cost, i think they would take it. 🙂
now your American side is showing..the Rafale will out-do any USAF or USN teen series fighter with its mix of Spectra, OSF, MICA, RBE2, high T/W ratio and superior agility and sensor fusion..the Mirage-2000 itself used to be more than a handful for the F-16 in European exercises, leave alone the Rafale..
21AnkushI’m looking for that article that mentioned the numbers of SH vs Rafale “kills” during the exercise, but as of now I could only find this
AFM, 2008/11, Page 34 – 39:
Quote:
“French Rafale on the Teddy” ~ The special report of Rafale M F2’s performance during the JTFEX exercise, 2008.1. In Page 37, a photo shows a Rafale M of 12F flew with an F/A-18F from the Blacklions Squadron, the first frontline squadron of Superhornet Block II.
2. Rafale M F2 met with F/A-18E/F in several 1 v 1 BFM and 2 v 2 AA missions during the exercise. However, both sides didn’t show their real and complete fighting capability to each other ~ US pilots didn’t show the true capability of JHMCS + AIM-9X to French pilots, while 12F was also shy about showing the real capabilities of RBE2 radar, Spectra EWS, and FSO optronic systems.
3. A USN pilot’s (Lt Mike Tremel, pilot of VFA-31 “Tomcatters”) comments for Rafale M:
“A highly maneuverable fighter with an incredible capacity to point its nose in every direction in the sky.”
“The French pilots seem to be happy to its flight performance and its modern cockpit design”.
When asked if he would like to swap his Super hornet to a Rafale –> “No, I love my Super Bug way too much….”
4. A French pilot’s (pilot of 12F) comments for F/A-18E:
“A great bombing aircraft, but not a fighter for dogfighting.”
“Its acceleration capability in the high angle of incidence is not good.”
“Rafale is definitely the more nimble one.”
“However, F/A-18E has already equipped the JHMCS + AIM-9X, a combination of decisive edge in close-range encounters ~ Although the tactics to counter it have existed now.”
21AnkushThe IAF originally wanted the Mirage 2000-5 and what growth potential did it have ? The F 16 is comparable to the Mirage 2000 in many respects and will be suitable for the Job.
And Exactly what do you mean by growth potential ? The Rafales growth Potential essentially includes AESA radars, HMS etc, all of which the F 16/18 already has. Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are all 4th Gen aircraft, so no matter how much they grow they will not have stealth and other fifth gen features.
As for the avionics and equipment, with a large order I am sure the F 16 still has a lot of growth potential. If it indeed wins the MRCA order, chances are that India will have more F 16s than the French have their Rafales.
yes, but that was because it was planning on replacing the MiG-23s and MiG-25s in service starting in the early 2000s, not in the 2010s..the plan for the MRCA was mooted in 1999 or thereabouts.
the Mirage-2000-5, when updated with AESA RBE2 would be a match for any F-16 variant, but would no longer stand much of a chance when it would be competing with newer generation Typhoon and Rafale fighters with their high T/W ratios, sensor fusion and some measure of stealth. recent exercises seem to validate that, with Rafales scoring highly against even SHs, leave alone F-16s, albeit of a lower block than F-16IN.
their structures are built using older manufacturing principles, heck even the Tejas has a more modern airframe, so there is little to gain from a manufacturing ToT, as compared to the newer practices and machines for the Typhoon and Rafale. The principle of sensor fusion that is so integral to 4+ generation fighters is missing from almost all 3rd generation fighters that are updated with MFDs and HMS alone.
and another point would be that whereas India would pay for its F-16INs, Pakistan would get upgrades to the same level (RANGR or SABR type AESAs)for free or through discounted military aid packages, because it is bound to strive to achieve “parity” in this sphere as well..after all, F-16s are so tightly tied to Pakistan’s pride, they’d view it as an affront to see the IAF equipped with better F-16s. I’d rather that the IAF simply looked ahead, 30 years to look at whether the F-16IN would be potentially worth having as the bulk IAF fighter.
21AnkushThe F-16IN lacks much future growth potential. its internal volume cannot grow and it already had used up the volume created by the enlarged dorsal fairing. the Japanese have basically said that the reason for not pursuing the F-2 as a F-X fighter was due to limited internal volume, and the F-2 itself is an enlarged F-16 !
21AnkushGripen supporters can heave a sigh of relief..probably the most trusted among defence correspondents in India, Vishnu Som had this to say on BR forums about the Gripen NG’s removal from the MRCA competition.
Hi … the Gripen NG is very much in the competition and has, by no means, been removed on any grounds. I have checked with reliable sources. Thanks
Vishnu Som
Associate Editor
NDTV
So, it turns out Huma Siddique got it wrong..this is getting intriguing !
Sign In
