Vnomadreread your claims. you made claim that Indian defence budget is not cut in past and all money is expensed. I show you just last year example of big cut. Wait until Feb-March you will start hearing about actual spending for this year.
Go back and read the posts again. :rolleyes: I made no such claim; I said and I quote ‘there was no cut during the year’. And there has been no cut during the year. Its just you and your parallel universe. And again, don’t use military budgets and military expenditure interchangeably. They don’t mean the same thing.
when salaries and benefits are high. similar size defence budget you cannot afford procurement i showed you all the other reasons for lack of defence budget increase. I havent even went into Worldcup/Olympics etc.
I never asked you any reason for the ‘lack of defence budget increase’. It was just you rambling away.
Its a heavier engine than F404 and it is only used for demo aircraft. there is no reliable data of heavy strike weopons and heavier wet stations at this point.
Pray tell, how much ‘heavier’ is it?
Vnomadwhy not admit is 2012-13 budget that is cut. we havent gotten into 2013-14. (we will call it 2013 budget as 9 months of 2013-14 are in 2013)
‘We will’ do no such thing. This is the financial year 2013-14 which will end on March 31, 2014. The budget 2013-14 including the defence outlay, which has been referred to on the thread, was presented in February, this year. FY 12-13 ended on 31 Mar 2013. Please stop making asinine statements.
we already went through. High salaries, pensions along with Euro Centeric industrail approach is the cause of lack of procurement. They werent in Soviet block. you have to admit that atleast Embarer can certifiy a regional passenger plane.
Yes we went through this. I brought it up. Swerve answered. And you just kept on going. Talking about civilian infrastructure, Embraer, Eurocentric industry… simply spouting out whatever thought pops into your head.
Extra hard points, greater fuel capacity, heavier engine all contribute to increase weight. who are the customers and what they care about such things as TWR and range. It is short range GCI control plane and should be treated as such. There is no 5 wet points in Gripen.
Heavier engine huh? Typical.
VnomadI already gave you the link of cuts for 2012 budget. It is very obvious substiantional cut was done last year. You can see from delay in signing BAE artellery, Chinooks, Apache, A330MRT etc. and further orders of C-130/C-17 still in limbo. I dont see signatures. Now it is your turn to disapprove it.
Don’t start fibbing away to explain your goof-up. It was the 2013 budget that was under discussion.
Most people also understand that if you spend more on infrastructure there is less money left for defence procurement & R&D in overall budget.
Except that ‘less money’ for defence was never under discussion. The question raised was about how the existing defence budget was being utilized. But then again, you’re on a perpetual tangent so one can scarcely blame you.
how is putting F414 engine, increasing fuel capacity to 3.3t and increasing payload. moderate development?. Even the non AESA, No canards, limited fuel and payload capacity, lower g, lower stop speed 45% by weight LCA is approaching 7 tons. show me some heavy load out of Gripen.
Its got extra hardpoints and greater fuel capacity. The greater payload on the other hand is by and large a function of the higher thrust.
As for ‘how can it be’ – Saab thinks they can do (having build a prototype), its customers think it’ll be done, no professionals have raised objections and the majority of the forum has little doubt. So honestly, your protestations, doubts and rants are just tiresome.
VnomadI can’t imagine IN would be willing to fork out the cash to reopen the Su-33 production line to procure what would inevitably be only a small number of Su-33s… Not to mention the additional development costs for such a “AEW” Su-33. And that’s assuming IN is willing to forgo the already rare real estate on the relatively small vikramditya and vikrant, for what would be a less than optimal AEW solution (better than Ka-31 probably, but still hardly top quality).
Not today certainly. But at the time of the then-Gorshkov negotiation, IIRC it was the MiG-29K that was defunct while the Su-33 was flying in service. I’m not totally convinced that it would have been prohibitively expensive to develop a Su-33MKI for an order of say 35-40 aircraft, using systems already fielded on the Su-30.
Real estate is more limited on the Vik carriers but operated in slightly lower numbers the trade-off would still have been worth it given its exceptional persistence and long sensor range.
With regard to the Brahmos, given that the Su-30MKI can carry only one, any more would have been unfeasible for the Su-33. However, it could still have carried additional payload (including lighter anti-ship missiles) on other hard-points. Mix it up.
(I shudder to imagine if PLAN had purchased Su-33s from Russia, meaning the only supersonic AShM at their disposal would be the 4.5 ton moskit… eurgh)
Why would purchasing the Su-33 prevent PLAN from integrating the YJ-12.
VnomadDon’t expect to see F-35Bs relying on a buddy aircraft to lase targets for them as French Rafale required on their first deployment to Afghanistan or British Typhoons required recently in Libya.
Just to add to EEL’s post, the buddy lasing in Libya was due to lack RAF pilots with air to ground currency. They did eventually start self designating targets. (AW link)
VnomadI still wonder why they would take the worst performer (FA18E/F) in all categories (incl boring stuff like range, speed etc) while being the most expensive kit in the competition. At least Rafale can offer a range advantage over the Gripen E, so the higher costs may not be an issue there, but Super Hornet… Does it offer any advantage over the Rafale?
Is it? Have they submitted some estimate to the govt? I’d have thought it would have been a lot cheaper than the Rafale particularly over its entire lifecycle (including upgrade costs)
VnomadAnd Taranis or a derivative would certainly fit the bill if the UK Government ever decides to cancel the F-35B.
It’ll perform part of what the F-35 does (albeit with a greater operating range), sometime in mid-to-distant future (i.e. post 2025).
VnomadWhat would be the source of P-3 airframes? In fact, are there ANY surplus P-3 airframes available at all?
There will soon be ~12 surplus Atlantique 2s, with 25 years of service life potential remaining. Upgrading them to the latest avionics standards (new mission system, radar, radios, flight deck, acoustic processors etc.) will cost under €50 million per aircraft.
Would France even be willing to um… annoy the PRC with a sale to Vietnam (in light of Taiwan’s Mirage saga)?
VnomadI guess I would still be surprised if the sale went through. Presumably there are some Vietnam vets amongst the decision makers in Washington who would find it odd, the sale of U.S. weapons to Vietnam.
True. Then again given how soon relations normalised with Japan and Germany post WWII (albeit under different circumstances), I don’t think there’d be much political/institutional opposition to such a sale.
A bigger issue is probably the media. Such a sale is likely to be higher profile than aircraft’s capability actually merits, and will ratchet up talk about an ongoing ‘containment’ of China.
VnomadThat’s a question worth addressing.
Good points throughout. Even crew proficiency is not a perennial issue. The PLAN will learn whatever it needs to, by trial-and-error if need be. Ten years from now, there are unlikely to be any particular proficiency concerns and the next carrier should be operationalized much quicker.
A Bars equipped twin-seat Su-33 derivative would certainly have been a more potent option (even in smaller numbers) for the Indian Navy (while also conferring a high degree of commonality with the bulk of the IAF fleet). Could perhaps even have been modified to carry the Brahmos. It would be worth reading the analyses of IN officers involved in the Vik acquisition.
VnomadYou cannot exceed expenditure what is in budget. so if some thing is not spend it is returned.
This was cut during the year. so there is no gurantee what is announced in begining will be spent in the end.
Either talk about military budget or talk about military expenditure. Don’t use them interchangeably because they’re not.
Also, they was no cut during the year, don’t invent stuff.
Thats i am pointing out that is not just greater salaries in Brazil but greater infrastructure by Brazil that reduce money available for military procurement. India government infrastructure spending is no where near to Brazil.
Most people understand that infrastructure spending does not come under the defence budget. I’m not surprised that you can’t tell the difference.
You dont have slightest idea about Gripen NG operating costs. It may end up as 8 ton empty weight fighter with underpowered engine and only 3.3ton internal fuel. it will be exceedingly short range for Brazil requirments. forget about any power supply for heavy EW pods. This thing is only sutiable for GCI control interception.
You mean you haven’t the slightest idea about the Gripen NG’s operating costs. Most other people realize that the NG development consists of only moderate modification to the very reliable C/D air-frame. As for being under-powered the F414 provides 25% more thrust than the RM12, the excess power being more sufficient to manage the ‘heavy EW pods’.
VnomadWhat happens if the UK cancels the F-35B order outright? With no replacement being designed between now and say 2020 where would that leave the UK air defense? That by the way is the worst case scenario.
Two very large Helicopter carriers and our Tornado GR4 replacement plans up the wazoo is what it would leave us. Typhoon would pick up some slack with T1 staying on longer, the curious issue for me is the 138 procurement number.
There are more than sufficient EFs in service to cater to ‘UK air defence’. Also, since the Eurofighter’s production line is still going strong; the RAF could acquire more T3s to replace its Tornados, while operationalizing CFTs on the EF.
On the downside, for starters, the industrial losses caused by exiting the JSF program will be heavy.
Assuming (reasonably) that the UK isn’t ready to let go of its (currently non-existent) carrier strike capability, it would require an expensive adaptation of the HMS QE/PW for EMALS, not to mention the purchase of additional carrier capable aircraft – Rafale, (possibly ex-RAAF/USN) or Super Hornets or a genuine effort to navalize the Eurofighter (jury’s still out).
Also, while the Taranis/Taranis-derivative would eventually pick up some of the slack in the strike department, the RAF/RN would most certainly be left with a SEAD capability far inferior to most of its peers.
Vnomadi said it many times before turn radius of aircraft isnot only affected by wing loading it not that simple , if your logic was true then the B-17 , DC-3 , B-36 ,Avro Vulcan must all turn alot tighter than Eurofighter , su-30 , f-16 or f-22 . but no , they dont
While pulling the same number of Gs, the Avro Vulcan will have smaller turning radius than the Eurofighter or F-16.
VnomadVNomad, a small airframe is a less adaptable one. This is why Saab stretched the C/D into the E/F. Think abt Br territory. Imagine that you hve to deal with a Peru crisis that fiel alrdy Long range russian fighters (this is only a wild assumption – don’t take it as it is!). What will you do with your close border stationed Grips and 707? Rename them Condors? Or do you think that a fighter hve to be an happy meal for the opposing forces?
I really like the Grip (brillant tailored and affordable!!!!!!!). But Grip is short legged. What ever the Bae hysterics are putting frwd.
You’re assuming that the aircraft purchase will be capped at 36 units and therefore operate out of one airbase (maybe two), in which case there would have been some merit to opting for platform with a longer range. The low costs associated with the Gripen however, give the Brazilians the luxury of significantly expanding the fleet, enabling a much wider distribution of assets.
A brief look at the FAB’s current fleet shows they need replacements (rather than supplements) and the need them in strength.
VnomadThe point i am making is that India procurement and salary budget is combined. so if some thing not spent during the year on procurement. it reduces the actual budget.
Expenditure is not the same the budget. Unspent capital does not reduce the budget. Also funds surrendered back by the MoD are apparently well under $500 million annually.
These are just examples. on average salaries in Brazil are lot higher than India.
Really? You think so? :rolleyes:
The issue is greater than just higher salaries; Brazil’s per capita income is about three to four times that of India on a PPP basis, however its military manpower is also a fifth of Indian equivalent. A better comparison is with South Korea, which with a budget broadly in the same range, fields a far more potent military (minus a carrier).
I am not sure Gripen and Rafale will be in production at rate that will make it cheap. as by that time France and Sweden will be buy very less. USN still has to support several hundred superhornet fleet. so overall spares will be cheaper for F-18E.
There’s little doubt that the Gripen’s cost over its entire life-cycle is lot lot cheaper than the F-18E & Rafale, to say nothing of the Su-35.
Sign In
