Vnomadengines, fbw, ecm, radar, you name it… as of today, India is still lagging compared to historical aircraft manufacturers… they can try to catch up by research (decades of work and not even sure to ever catch up as others will move on), or buy this or that technology alone…
None of that can be ported to the Tejas or AMCA programs. And where domestic programs are found lagging or the technological base deemed insufficient, foreign consultancy has been sought and received; LCA – Dassault, Arjun tank – Krauss Maffei, INS Vikrant – Fincantieri.. and so on).
but then, the latest tech is usually classified and not available alone,
If its classified, its classified. There’s no ToT to take place.
or they do as with the MMRCA, ger the best fitgher available with the technology it uses. In the MMRCA they took the two best contenders, regarding what theýve been lookîng for, and picked the best proposal they got at the end. They are already associated to Russia’s best (pak-fa, MKI ), and now looking after european tech. as the US won’t sell their latest stuff anyway, it’s the best thing they could hope for, and the fastest way forward
That’s the point. If the objective is to get the best fighter available, the impending arrival of the PAK FA actually works as incentive not to buy the Rafale.
The US is selling its latest stuff (eg. P-8, AH-64E) and the F-35 (I assume that’s what the reference was to) is available should India decide to pursue it.
VnomadNot necessarily. While I agree that a deal between India & Russia is likely to be in a third currency (& I’m pretty sure Gorshkov was priced in dollars), weapons sales by the UK are often priced in pounds, & it’s not the only country able to sell in its own currency.
The transfers can be made out of a basket of international reserve currencies but the negotiating is almost always done in dollar amounts. The pound is a reserve currency but the Eurofighter’s bids tabled in India and UAE for example, would have been in dollars rather than pounds or euros.
VnomadIndia hasn’t ordered A330 yet. It is still debating its higher price. Any airforce that orders high price A330 will definitely see cuts everywhere else in capabilities. tanker is not some thing you want to put a lot of capital expenditure.
The A330 was found to be L1 i.e. cheaper, once life-cycle costs were factored in.
Vnomadconsidering that as of today the F-35 isn’t even cleared for combat, it is inferior to an F-4… the only thing we have now are promises by LM… when it becomes operational (in some 5-10 years maybe) then we may, eventually, have some possibility to draw a comparison… until then, it’s simply a hope, expectation, desire, hopsalot’s wet dream, or anything else you may imagine along that pattern… in reality, it is a thingy that is far from being able to shoot anything down for some time to come
Now we’ve entered a rhetorical arena.
It has over a dozen customers already signed on, with that figure likely to grow. Political pressure goes only so far in explaining that phenomenon. And it certainly wouldn’t apply to an aircraft that’s ‘inferior to an F-4’, particularly for countries serious about maintaining a credible defence, like Israel, Singapore, South Korea.
Vnomadthe problem is double:
1/ for what capacity?
2/ how do they get the technologies for which they made the MMRCA in the first place?
Which ‘technology’ are they getting through the MMRCA? And why wouldn’t it be available through consultancy?
unlike the USA that have a massive advantage over any adversary they’ll choose to face (as they won’t face anybody able to seriously fight back), and others who, most of the time can’t afford anything, including a real war even if they wanted to, India is facing a real threat at its borders. Which means, it does need a real capability and all technological advances it can get
If buying the more expensive aircraft was a better solution to enhancing its war fighting capability, this would imply that the IAF ought to be inducting only and only PAK FAs once the the Su-30 deliveries conclude.
Fact is even when NATO was gearing up to fight a near peer (USSR/Warpac), its workhorse was a cheap effective fighter i.e. the F-16 rather than heavier higher-end solutions like the F-14 and F-15.
VnomadYou may be getting your salary in USD or Euro or in Pounds or in equivalent amount of currency you choose. But there is a reality outside of your understanding which is Indian Republic as a Sovereign nation have its own currency – its called the Indian Rupee. This is the piece of paper on which India runs.
I am sure you have understood absolutely nothing…
That’s a very nice sentiment but we’re talking about a contract signed between two sovereign nations. Such contracts are negotiated in dollars (or euros) not in rupees or roubles. India and the USSR traded in national currencies, India and Russia don’t, and a currency swap agreement would probably not cover such a deal anyway.
VnomadIndeed so we have to fall back on opinion which appears to rank the Eurocanards above F-35 in A2A. Right? Wrong? It is unlikely we will ever know since it is unlikely that these aircraft will ever confront each other in anger, using everything at their disposal to win in the confrontation.
?? ‘opinion which appears to rank the Eurocanards above F-35 in A2A’?
I’m fairly certain that the F-35 is generally considered a better A2A platform especially considering the statements from customers, with relatively few holdouts on this point (eg. APA). Of course the size of the differential in combat is still a matter of debate.
VnomadThe report identified 11 (see table 2.1 in pdf).
TFX (F-111)
F-4
A-7
FX, VFX, ATE, JEP (F-15)
F-15N
ACF, NACF (YF-16/YF-17)
ATF, NATF, JIAWG (F-22)
ATA (A-12?)
A-X, A/F-X
F-117N, AF-117X
Only two of these were joint programs. The F-X was entirely a USAF project. The A-X never resulted in a developed product. And the JAST for all practical purposes was same as the JSF.
The TFX is the only legitimate example of a joint program and since only of the services actually inducted the aircraft cost extrapolations from it are clearly invalid.
VnomadI do not think that either have ever been in a combat theatre with enemy fighters still active in which case the opportunity to show their abilities against real opposition has not arisen.
Precisely. The F-35’s ‘unproven’ status is hardly an indictment of its effectiveness vis a vis the Eurocanards.
Vnomad1. Joint Aircraft Programs Have Not Historically Saved Overall Life Cycle Cost
•Historical joint aircraft programs on average experienced substantially higher cost growth in acquisition (research, development, test, evaluation, and procurement) than single-service programs. The maximum percentage theoretical savings in joint aircraft acquisition and operations and support compared with equivalent single-service programs are too small to offset this additional average cost growth that joint aircraft programs experience in the acquisition phase.
How many ‘joint programs’ have there been in the first place? Only prominent one that comes to mind is the T-6A. There were a few others like the F-4, A-7, AH-1 that were conceived by one service and thereafter adopted by others. But the use of the phrase ‘historically’ is rather rich.
VnomadI don’t think India can afford to reconsider the decision and start the whole process anew. Not that inking a ToT contract like that with EADS or Boeing would be any easier.
Actually given that its economy is in the doldrums and big change in the political environment merely months away, they can’t really afford to sign the contract either. And since most foreign transactions are being judged harshly, there’ll also be a fair amount of pressure to buy domestic as the HAL Tejas becomes operational.
VnomadI thought Kuwait was seriously considering F-18E.
They are but apparently the Rafale and even F-15SE are in the consideration for the Kuwaitis. Also given that they’re currently looking to upgrade their F-18s, the purchase of new aircraft might be deferred further, by which time the SH line will likely be mothballed. (link) Boeing could still deliver the aircraft but only at a substantially higher cost.
All in all, prospects for the SH are rather bleak. The EF consortium will continue to have the Rafale in its sights are the primary threat.
Vnomadyour question should go the other way: they are modern operational fighters, while the F-35 is still in development i.e. it has yet to prove that it is worth anything in air to air role (or any other role for that matter)
I’m sorry.. have the Eurofighter and Rafale proven their worth in air-to-air combat?
And if only ‘post-development’ aircraft were worth inducting then no new aircraft program would ever be sanctioned. For that matter, even the EF and Rafale aren’t at the end of their development cycle either.
VnomadAs for trying to stop Rafale being credible in international markets – well, isn’t it just as rational to try to stop F-18E in international markets? It’s potentially a bigger threat, having US backing. In a competition between F-18E, Rafale & Typhoon, the worst outcome for the UK is probably F-18E being bought. It reinforces US dominance, & weakens the credibility of all non-US contenders.
While I agree with your basic premise, I don’t see the F-18E/F as the larger threat to the EF. Its not a serious contender in any current market aside from Brazil, with the sole exception of Malaysia where a small order may materialize somewhere down the line.
The Rafale and Eurofighter on the other hand are head-to-head in UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait (and possibly Malaysia). The biggest advantage of the Eurofighter right now is that two GCC members already operate it and would probably like to share a common platform, while the Rafale is yet to clock its first export order. The folks at EF would likely much rather see the F-18E take the Brazilian contract, than have the case for the Rafale in the Middle East strengthened by a significant victory in South America. A Gripen win would of course be better still.
VnomadI have some comments:
1. NATO air forces do not and have never all operated the same fighter types. Has that prevented countries operating types that are not operated by the US from contributing in a useful manner?
Agree completely. But then you don’t need F-16s to contribute in a useful manner either. You can economize further by using a light fighter based on jet trainer like the TA-50. Or even contribute with helicopters or surveillance aircraft.
2. The primary responsibility of the government of an independent state is to assure the sovereignty of that state. F-35 should be unrivalled as a strike aircraft where enemy air defences are a serious threat but it is debatable as to whether it is as good as other fighters at taking on enemy fighters. I trust you recommend that countries consider buying Rafale or Typhoon if their primary need is defence of their airspace with the best aircraft available in that role.
The most likely task for the smaller European air forces is participating in expeditionary operations not fighting off hordes of enemy aircraft. That said, I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that the Rafale or Eurofighter is better in an air-to-air role.
They’re nimbler and faster but still field inferior avionics and the RCS penalty of a external payload cannot be wished away. More importantly the F-35 from most recent estimates will cost no more (if not a good deal less) than the two Eurocanards. Post 2020, it’ll almost certainly cost less.
3. F-35 will be far more expensive to operate than the (mostly) F-16 aircraft that many countries need to replace. Where countries need to replace F-16 with an affordable successor I trust you recommend that they should consider buying F-16 or Gripen.
I would invite a clarification on ‘affordability’. Options vary from zero fast jet aircraft, to a light fighter fleet (TA-50/Hawk 200/M-346), mid-rung fleet (Gripen/F-16) to a more top-end fleet (EF/Rafale/F-35). All valid options.
Sign In
