VnomadI’m wondering whether it’s better that the deal be scuppered after all.
Aside from the level of TOT I can’t really see how joining the F-35 program would have been too different.
Whatever level of access India gets to the PAK-FA, it will remain far in excess of what the UK as the sole JSF Level I partner is going to receive. Unlike the British, Turks, or Israelis, HAL will be able to independently modify/upgrade its aircraft without having to approach the Russians for permission. And finally, the 50% investment made at this stage will also translate into 50% by value workshare for all export orders flowing to India.
The BrahMos program is a good example of how India could benefit from such a venture. They started with what was basically the Russian Oniks/Yakhont, and extensively upgraded the guidance and software, modifying it for land attack and developing the soon-to-enter-service air launched variant. Consequently for the development of the hypersonic BrahMos-2, the DRDO has been very much an equal partner from the get go, with laboratory testing currently taking place at Bangalore IIRC.
I’m not sure how feasible it is, but I’d like to see the FGFA extensively modified as well. Particularly with tech sourced from western Europe. A radar having a Russian back-end with T/R modules shared with the Rafale, ESM components sourced from Europe and the Meteor integrated for internal carriage, would yield an impressive result.
To be fair though, I doubt if the aircraft is being developed to feature a very high degree of modularity. In which case, I may as well add the SDB, Paveway, AASM, Harpoon and the yet to be ordered ARM and LRSOW, to what amounts to a wishlist.
VnomadNo. I’m worried that once Dassault gets their hands tied in joint-this and joint-that, our treacherous government will, as a cost saving/rationalisation measure force them to buy parts of the future aircrafts from Europe, and the french industry’s capability to make a war plane from A to Z will slowly disappear, making us dependent on our so-called allies.
IMO France should be partnering with India, Brazil and Russia.
What is the alternative? Fact is aside from the US and China, no country has both the technical and financial resources to develop a new aircraft from A to Z. The factors that drove the FEFA and Eurofighter (which the UK had the ability to develop unilaterally) have become even more stark today. And treacherous or not, that’s not the French govt’s fault.
Sure co-developing it with Brazil, Russia or India would be good option for France but I doubt if the sentiment is reciprocated.
Brazil is no hurry to acquire a next generation aircraft let alone develop one.
India has a similar agreement with Russia because it was either that or the purchasing the F-35, with all its technical locks. The AMCA is intended to develop the country’s aerospace sector as much as its intended to deliver a fifth generation aircraft. I don’t see India being satisfied with an arrangement where France develops A-Z of the aircraft.
Russia already has a fifth generation aircraft in development and stealth bomber in the pipeline. Even if they agreed to collaborate on an aircraft program, given their considerable technical and scientific prowess, how are you any better off with them than you were with the UK? Instead of French politicians giving something away to the Anglo-Saxon world, they’ll end up giving it away to the Slavic world.
Personally, I think Cameron and Sarkozy had the right idea. The UK and France have more in common with each other than they do with any other country. The UK felt its interests and global stature would be better served as the US’ sidekick while France felt a similar result could be had by a leading role along with Germany within a united Europe.
Generally the world finds American actions and decisions easier to swallow, if there’s a ‘coalition’ involved, so Britain became a useful entity to have around but ignore in crunch time. No surprise that the UK feels let down. Germany on the other hand appears to have no interest in the world outside of the Eurozone. They’re willing to play along with the Eurocorps/EUFOR/EUBG farce but have no long term commitment to such programs. Leaving France feeling let down.
A Franco-British agreement makes perfect sense. Both countries are fast being eclipsed by new actors on the stage, but would still like to continue being great powers with the ability to independently exercise clout overseas, as illustrated by their insistence on maintaining a nuclear arsenal in the post-Cold War world. Their military requirements are very similar, just like their militaries. Remaining on the cutting edge of military technology has been straining their budgets for a while and collaborating on future R&D is possibly the best compromise they can make between maintaining sovereign capabilities and cost effectiveness.
Vnomadmmalaya are you trying to compare a dassault representative & a biased journo.
I never really understood this line of thought. A journalist can certainly be biased. He wouldn’t be first one. Yet there is at least some incentive to temper those views since his readership may be just as well informed and may thus look unfavorably upon overt favoritism. But how can a company representative ever be expected to have a neutral point of view? A Coca-Cola rep will tell you its far more refreshing than Pepsi, and he too will be willing to put his entire ‘credibility’ (as our friend Eagle1 puts is) at stake.
VnomadQuick question –
http://files.air-attack.com/MIL/eurofighter/ef_paveway.jpg
What are the pylon type rails on the wing, behind the middle bombs. I’ve always seen them, just never paid attention. And if they are pylons, can be they be used at the same time as the (near) adjoining ones – maybe with smaller 250lb bombs or SDBs or pods?
VnomadAt best during transformational phase they would just start practising with basic manoeuvres vs instructors that would carefully know the limit and that would be very progressive. Nothing like a full face to face vs a high end jet fighter. That would be suicidal with less than 100H on the type and probably less than 10H practicing BFM.
If I recall correctly the South Korean F-15Ks that participated in Red Flag 2008 had less than 100 hours on them and proportional pilot training on the type. And this for an exercise that is arguably the most sophisticated of its kind in the world, with the most experienced pilots in the USAF simulating the adversary. Suicidal?
Vnomadthe students in question are just learning how to fly and land the typhoon and the rafale.
Before being posted to a EF/Rafale squadron all rookies would have spent hours and hours on basic trainers, AJTs and simulators. Mastering takeoffs and landing will hardly be a challenge (carrier landings being the exception).
They are not yet ready for this kind of demanding dogfights. As simple as that.
Not necessarily. I’m not personally familiar with the RAF’s training manual. That said, while training will no doubt continue after transferring to operational squadrons, there’s no infallible argument against including ACM in the syllabus at OCUs. The IAF for example has its rookies engaging in both basic familiarization as well as advanced training at the same (home) squadron, and its worked fine for them. Doing it the other way is fine too.
As far the demands of these kind of dogfights go – its only amongst us that comparing fighters, pilots and air forces is a passion and national pride comes into play. After all, no eyebrows would be raised if the students at the OCU were to pop over to RAF Leuchars in Scotland for a day of training with the EF squadron there. Operationally this is not very different.
VnomadBrazil FX2: Rafale
Indian Helo: CH-47
Indian Transport: C-27
Indian SARS: Shin meiwa US-2
Malaysian MMRCA: Typhoon
Swiss AF: Gripen
Korean FX: F-35
The first Su-35 export customer will be : None – no export
VnomadAccording to Dassault (fox 3 on libya) and the french air force (Air & Cosmos and others) it was indeed SPECTRA who allowed the rafale to operate the first day of war with enough confidence.
Question is how do you define ‘enough confidence’. Today the US prefers to demolish air defences from a distance with cruise missile barrages. But 25 years back it was ready to take the same class of air defences as those in Libya, head on. I doubt if one can take that to mean it lost confidence in its ‘Wild Weasel’ units in subsequent years.
VnomadGood idea.
So is it practical begging for candy on an Aviation forum ?
Is it practical hoping someone is going to help you steal candy if you aren’t gonna share the loot ?While tools of war like fighters are an extension of politics and so will be mentioned from time to time, you’ve been constantly begging for 8 pages now,
and counting…
No one’s forcing you to listen.
VnomadI fail to see what good it will do to the people living on the Falklands. They are happy being British.
A solution does not preclude that from continuing.
From a legal standpoint the issue was settled when Argentina lost the war.
Err.. no it didn’t. While my knowledge of international law isn’t noteworthy I’m fairly certain that’s not the case.
What good have the Falklands issue done for Argentina? Nothing, the sooner they give up on the issue the better for them it will be.
For that matter what has avoiding negotiations after 1982 gained Britain? Its not served its relations with the South and Central America well. Its military presence in the region will eventually bringing it to loggerheads with an assertive Brazil is opposed to any foreign power having a continued strategic footprint in the region.
VnomadSo when is Argentina entering a dialogue over Tierra del Fuego? 😎
Already did. In 1984, after the formerly British backed abusive military junta lost power.
Why should Britain enter a dialogue? It has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Argentina wants dialogue as it has something to gain and nothing to lose. You must really think we are all rather stupid… And of course when you say “dialogue” that is actually code for “give in to Argentina’s demands for shared sovereignty leading rapidly to a handover of the islands to Argentina”
Again.. why does Britain have diplomatic delegations in South America if it plans to ignore their opinion.
Unless one is viewing it from the rather extreme right end of the spectrum, negotiations are negotiations, nothing more nothing less. They don’t need to have winners and losers.
In any case, let’s not drift from reality to fantasy. The reality is the islands are British, and unless Argentina is going to invade them, that is not going to change, no matter how much you beg us for dialogue on an internet forum
You’re not making the decisions in the British govt., so I have nothing to beg you for.
As far as reality goes, the UK can afford to ignore all of South America only to a point.
Vnomad[QUOTE=Pterosaur;1878023]The difference is that the people of Northen Ireland is divided on the issue, the people of the Falklands are not.
The majority of the population was in favour of continued existence as a part of the UK. It was pragmatism not principle, that brought the British govt. and all parties to the negotiating table with the UK and Ireland making constitutional amendments and supporting the formation of the N/S Ministerial Council. Everyone recognized that an honorable solution to the dispute would leave everyone better off in the long term.
They cant, because international laws prevents Argentina to get hold of the Falklands with a military solution unless the British attacks Argentina first.
My point was winning a war fair and square cannot a definitive end to the dispute.
Get over it would help Argentina since it can invest its time and energy on more creative things.
That isn’t a valid argument. I could say the same about plenty of issues – Russia, Libya, Afghanistan, Scotland etc. The UK for example should stop victimizing Iran. Point is, you have be practical as well.
VnomadI think he was referring to You when he said “get over it”
I’ll let him clarify that.
In international politics the stance is, as you pointed out,
either, “gimme/do what i want or suffer the consequences”
while the other side will inevitably answer
“just bring it on and i’ll pay you back seven-fold”
That’s how you solve disputes at high school. Countries prefer to engage in dialogue.
VnomadUhh… I dont. These islands have been part of the United Kingdom for some 200 yrs by now. Why the heck should the Brits give them away to anyone?
Surely there’s some middle ground between ‘give them away’ and ‘get the Argies to concede their stand’. Northern Ireland has been a part of United Kingdom, for what … 700 years, but an acceptable honorable solution to the Troubles was achieved nonetheless.
The Brits have fought over this land and won square and fare. What amazes me more though is how the Argentinians still bother to bitch about it. What do they need these wind-torn rocks for anyway?
The unfortunate implication of that is that it’ll be the Argentinians’/South Americans’, if and only if they can fight for it and win it square and fair.
Im sure Argentina is a very nice country with wonderful ppl and all, but Im all for the UK in this case. Get over it….
‘Get over it’ is not a pragmatic stand to take an international dispute. And pragmatism is what keeps the govts of former colonies from keeping grudges even while some of their citizens (like Quadbike for example) feel there is a score to be settled. Pragmatism keeps wars from happening and diplomats in business.
VnomadBecause it’s the same “we want what you have and we will threaten your way of life until we get it” attitude that the Argentinians are projecting today.
That’s simple rhetoric and nothing else. Argentinian claims to the land aren’t recent. The only difference is Britain has decided its victory in the 1982 war was an end to the dispute. Everyone else seems to disagree.
‘We’ve gassed your pets, kindly take the hint’. Now that’s a ‘threaten your way of life’ attitude. 😀
What has Argentina officially said?
Please enter a dialogue.
The same applies to Tierra del Fuego, or is that “a different story”.
Well as far the Falklands sure they’re similarities.
For example the same British backed unelected abusive military Argentinian junta was involved in both conflicts. The Chileans had the privilege of getting their own British backed unelected abusive military junta headed by Pinochet. Though only their dictator got to enjoy tea with Margaret Thatcher.
I can’t see the similarities with the Chagos Islands though.
As far as the Chagos Islands goes, they should be paid handsomely for what has happened to them.
Who’s to say £650 isn’t a handsome payment. They can forget about going home though. Only the Americans get to live there, party there, damage the environment of the ‘marine reserve’, and illegally torture kidnapped terror suspects at their base curiously named – Camp Justice.
Sign In
