VnomadMainly because Dutch budget cap probably assumed old Lockheed Martin promises of “as cheap to buy and operate as an F-16” were true as opposed to the total BS we know they are now.
The UAEAF is set to purchase 25 F-16E/Fs for $4-5 billion. That’s $160-200 million each. With the flyaway cost probably around $100 million per unit, probably more given that it already operates 80 aircraft of the type.
Of course the F-16C/D is cheaper at about $50 million flyaway (ballpark extrapolating from the sales to Pakistan, Iraq and Oman; 2006-2013). Adjust it for inflation and it wouldn’t turn out to be significantly cheaper than an F-35 ordered in 2020 for around $100 million flyaway (it was originally expected to gain IOC in 2012).
VnomadThat is pretty poor logic. Irkut has the production capability to order so many airframes.
It is a well known “secret” that another 48 Su-35 will be ordered after 2015.
So the RUAF will operate more SU-35s than Su-30SM.
I wasn’t implying that the Su-30SM was superior to the Su-35. Point was, if the Russian Air Force, despite the availability of the newer Su-35, found the Su-30SM offering good enough value to induct it in strength, its an easy decision for an IAF that already operates 180 aircraft of the type.
VnomadIsn’t Russia using Su-30SMs primarily for training purposes replacing old Su-27UBs?
The current Su-35 contract runs through 2015 and is almost certain to be extended to deliver another 50 units by 2020.
Is it? Being a two seater its certainly eligible but 60 aircraft is far too many. I’d have thought the cost and simplicity of tacking on extra orders to Irkut’s book would have been the driving factor.
The Su-35 production could be renewed yes, but unless the Su-35 has received any export orders in the interim, it would more efficient to augment Su-30SM orders (if required) and concentrate on the PAK-FA, a superior aircraft even in an immature state.
VnomadThe Russian Air Force has ordered 60 Su-30SMs with the Russian Navy looking another 12 or more.
The first contract between the Defense Ministry and Irkut Corporation for 30 Su-30SMs was signed in March last year. The Russian Air Force received the first two Su-30SM aircraft in November. In mid-December, a new contract was signed for an additional 30 jets by 2016.
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130704/182061486.html
Su-35 orders stand at 48 units.
I think that says it all, at least as far as India is concerned.
VnomadJASDF is politically and thus operationally restricted to defensive operations only. The vast majority of its combat fleet is the superb but air defence only F-15C/D. I’m not sure if the F-4EJ has any serious ground attack capability (unlike say Turkish, Israeli or former Israeli F-4s). That leave the F-2 which as far as I am aware is multirole but was procured in limited numbers and mainly as an anti-shipping platform using ASM-1 and ASM-2.
However the defensive nature of the force makes it less versatile than most NATO forces that are truly swing role even if they operate less airframes.
.
.
.
Furthermore none of these two or RSAF have any combat experience whatsoever, unlike many Western NATO squadrons that have seen anywhere up to 20 years of continuous combat ops over Balkans, Middle East or Afghanistan.
Replied to here.
VnomadUmm, @thobbes is aussie
Ahh… like Rii.
Given that he was comparing the US military to China on one thread, Russia on another, India on yet another, you can see why… 🙂
VnomadHey I merely stated the truth – large chunks of IAF are obsolete MiG-21M/bis, unupgraded Jaguar as well as short range, obsolete MiG-27. IAF is deficient in strategic transport (being somewhat rectified with acquisition of American C-17), tankers and AWACS (which means reliance on GCI). It’s chained to India due to need to deter China and Pakistan (regardless of what net nerds like to say). It has atrociously inefficient procurement processes which hinder modernisation which in turn hinders capability.
I doubt anyone disputes that the USAF is in a completely different league compared to the IAF. The debate arose because of what appears to be an off-the-cuff assertion by you placing non-US NATO forces in the same supposedly ‘world class’ category ahead of the ROKAF, JASDF and RSAF, in addition to the IAF. An assertion that is not supported by facts.
Merely repeating the comparisons to the US military don’t change the nature of the straw man.
VnomadAnd bare in mind, mighty India and China are still in the top 20 of foreign aid receipients on the planet because these countries prefer to spend money on military toys than looking after poorer elements of their socieities (and in India, extreme poverty is what the vast majority of the people live in).
India borders two countries with whom its fought wars and has territorial disputes with. Yes the money invested in defence should ideally be invested in more productive venues.
The United States of America on the other hand is flanked by the two largest oceans in the world and is bordered by two benign neighbours.
Its spends around 20% of its federal budget equaling about 5% of the GDP on defense. The equivalent figures for India are 12% and 2% respectively (central budget, GDP).
Do you honestly think the latter merits a lecture from the former?
VnomadWhat if the USAF/RoKAF assets could strike from hight altitude? I don’t know for sure, but a GPS-guided munition could be deployed above the cloud layer (FL300). This would not keep them out of the range of SAM’s but certainly the AAA and MANPADS. Just a thought…
Precisely. High altitude SAM coverage in the country is limited as well as obsolete. The US military doesn’t face any substantial armoured threats in the foreseeable future save for North Korea. As a matter of fact only four countries currently field sizeable tank forces – US, Russia, China and India (the Europeans having massively downsized their armour). As for North Korea between the CBU-97 SFW and SDB employed from mid to high altitudes, they’re more than covered. As a matter of fact, the only aircraft can they have some hope of countering (with massed AAA) is the low and slow A-10.
The A-10 has a venerable record, but tank busting isn’t high on anybody’s list of priorities. The B-1B may be a sub-optimal tool but will still provide strike options in a Pacific war, particularly a large scale one.
VnomadActually note the parameters I included – they’re not about numbers or types of aircraft (e.g. long range bombers).
Tier 1 includes “capable of long range combat deployments”.
Something that say Belgium or Netherlands has done repeatedly but Japan, South Korea and Singapore never have.
Expeditionary warfare is complicated and the Western NATO partners have extensive experience in it.
As for India being at the same level as Thailand and Egypt – India does not have a world class airforce. A big chunk of it’s force is obsolescent (MiG-21 and MiG-27 and to some degree Jaguar and Sea Harrier). Something like a MiG-21 or MiG-27 generally has poor readiness at best simply due to poor servicability of these types (e.g. very low MTBO). Even MiG-29 is a poor performer here.
Secondly India’s ability to make “long range combat deployments” is limited due to its own massive defence needs, small numbers of force multipliers etc.
Your debate with Teer has gone off on multiple tangents. To bring it back to your original contention –
1. With regard to the composition of the forces –
Yes the IAF does field a substantial number of third generation aircraft. Unfortunately the fact you’ve conveniently overlooked is that the IAF fields more fourth generation platforms than any non-US NATO air force including the AdA and the RAF.
Unless you want to make the absurd assertion that merely retiring older platforms (and reducing its overall combat potential) will make the IAF a ‘world class’ air force, fact remains it can field as many modern platforms as any European force. And I think there’s enough evidence to prove that the IAF’s training regime more than meets NATO standards.
2. Long Range Expeditionary Operations –
The IAF fields a slightly lower number of AEW&C and tanker aircraft than major NATO airforces; RAF and AdA but again that’s changing as we speak with the A-330MRTT, additional Phalcons and ERJ-145 on their way. Of course you’re including the air forces of Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Norway, Iceland along with UK and France, among those who’s expeditionary capabilities exceed the IAF’s. There is little in the way of facts to suggest that the IAF is in any way hampered if charged with carrying out an expeditionary operation. The numerous foreign exercises it participates in are not PR ops, it takes home lessons from each one of them and its contingents wherever deployed arrive fit-to-fight albeit minus munitions.
Like before its absurd to suggest that the smaller NATO forces like the Netherlands, Portugal or Denmark field ‘world class’ airforces, two tiers above the IAF, because their aircraft are equipped with the Link-16 and enjoy logistical commonality with the USAF.
VnomadOne could probably assign several tiers to air force capability:
1st Tier
– capable of long range combat deployments
– use modern tactics and systems
– excellent readiness.
– advanced training, C3, logistics
– examples: USA, Israel, UK, France and most Western NATO.2nd Tier
– capable of reasonable defence of sovereign territory including strike capability against neighbouring countries.
– excellent readiness
– use relatively modern tactics and systems
– reasonable to excellent readiness.
– relatively advanced training, C3, logistics
– examples: Japan, South Korea, Singapore.3rd tier
– capable of reasonable defence of sovereign territory including strike capability against neighbouring countries.
– poor to medium readiness
– poor to medium training, C3 logistics.
– examples: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and dare I say India.4th tier
– no real capability of defence of sovereign territory.
– zero to medium readiness
– training is a mixed bag but often poor
– examples: most East European (including virtually all NATO members except Poland), Latin American, African and some South East Asian Air forces.Obviously some countries might have a mixed bag of capabilities or not meet all of the criteria.
This is just silly. The US of course is entitled to a tier of its own, but the remainder of classification is almost arbitrary. ‘Most Western NATO’ airforces ahead of Singapore, Japan and South Korea? India at par with Thailand and Egypt?
I’m afraid you’re going by your gut rather than facts here.
VnomadIn WW2 Japan started off with 6 aircraft carriers, the US started off with 3 aircraft carriers. Japan thought it had absolute numerical advantage. Guess what? 1 year later, the US built over 10 more aircraft carriers, and Japan was guaranteed to lose the war. China’s heavy industry is HUGE and I mean HUGE. China can build hundreds of J-10B jets, J-20 jets, J-31 jets in a week. Underestimate China not, if you win to want. :eagerness:
🙂
Do you recall what prompted Japan to enter open conflict with the US? (Hint: Its what those aircraft run on.)
80% of its crude was sourced from the US which had imposed sanctions on it (starting with aviation gasoline) in response to the genocide in China as well as the signing of the Tripartite Pact and revised Anti-Comintern Pact. The objective behind the preemptive strike on the fleet at Pearl Harbour was to have the USN out of action during the invasion of the oil-rich Dutch East Indies.
As it happens, 80% of China’s crude transits the natural chokepoint at the Malacca Strait. The USN (and to a somewhat lower extent the Indian Navy) can enforce a crippling blockade with minimal effort. Given the waters are relatively shallow even undersea actions against blocking forces will be severely hampered.
Underestimate geography not, if you win to want.
VnomadKeep dreaming. :rolleyes:
You may not like it, driven as you are by a strident opposition to the US, but it doesn’t change the fact that with the FGFA numbers cut drastically, its rising cost (esp. with the level of development required by the IAF) and bogging down of Rafale negotiations, interest in the F-35 has been escalating. The Indian Navy for one has already expressed formal interest in acquiring it. Unless there’s a breakthrough on the Rafale front (unlikely given the state of the economy), the F-35’s prospects will continue to get stronger.
VnomadThe problem is: Will the French and / or Indian governments like to pay the price to make such Rafale MLU become the reality in time? 😀
That’s one of the reasons why the F-35’s starting to receive a fair bit of interest in India as an alternative to the Rafale. The Rafale and Eurofighter aircraft may or may not reach their full potential, but its quite certain that the F-35’s upgrade program will be very well funded and unit costs will be reasonably low.
VnomadWith the mess that is Indian defense procurement, the IAF would probably look to buy the rafale, even if contract takes a couple of years to sign, for they know how many years they have spent to get to this goal, and new program will take at least as long. Given the delays and challenges in getting contracts signed, TOT’s figured out, the IN may actually hold the rafale to be a less risky proposition given that the TOT deals would be in place, production lines already operating inside india, and capability known and fully evaluated based on which they can seek upgrades. This is something that a potential F-35C/B in 2025 time frame would have to overcome – Lower risk.
On the contrary, there’s a different reality dominating right now, namely the state of the economy. The govt would like nothing better than to put off a major defence purchase of this scale for at least a couple of years if not more, especially given that voices calling for the deal to be scrapped have gotten a lot louder. Meanwhile the F-35, PAK-FA and the Tejas Mk2 approach closer. As much as the IAF would like a bird in hand, its in the MoD’s court right now and they’re more than willing to take their time, if not draw it out.
Sign In
