I would think the most logical stop gap would be uprated Goshawks, of course, built in the UK. Armed with ASRAAMs would definitely fit “stop gap” role well and be far cheaper than getting Shornets. They could also be useful in the future for continued training and rotation, and would be a type that would have some limited permanent role (training).

Of course unlikely but the UK could look at the JF-17. According to the latest rumour (Pervez Shamim) they have been navalized for use in the PLAN aircraft carrier. Likely to see pics and info coming this way in a year or so (if the rumour is right).

:D:D:D:D:D

Thanks dude, can always really on you to provide a good laugh on a cold, drizzly morning. Armed T-45s and JF-17s in the RN…man, that was good.

Here is the profile of Air Cmde Khokar.very Impressive.
http://in.linkedin.com/pub/parvez-khokhar/2a/431/b3b

How come he flew for the Iraqis for two years in the Iraq-Iran war? I know Iraq and India had some common Socialist/Communist/Stalinist allegiances, but never knew it actually went beyond covert WMD/missile assistance.

How about a navy tanker based on the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye; remove radar and all associated electronics, reduce crew from 5 to 2 and use the extra internal space for additional internal fuel loads?

Why would India want to do a Saddam or a Khaddaffi. No Indian leader wants to take over Pakistan anyhow. Paks a basket case, economically speaking & any gains made from resources (say) would be outweighed by the drain of occupation (shades of the US in Iraq). Plus, adding so many more disenchanted radicalized Pakistanis to the Indian population would be pointless.

What India would want is to cause the Pakistani leadership and armed forces (who are the de facto rulers of Pakistan) enough pain that they decide further provocations (terror strikes etc) are not worth the damage to their infrastructure (civilian, military). In other words, Pakistan can keep muddling around as long as it does not hamper India via terrorism etc.

Thats the entire reason why the Indian Cold Start doctrine was adopted. Pivot Corps to mobilize and attack quickly to create enough of a problem for the Pak Army, yet not reach deep enough to threaten Pakistani statehood. If Pakistani decides to go Strangelove and start a nuclear conflict, then the Strike Corps advance through the Pivot Corps & take the fight to the next level.

Even so, the IAF is an even better option now. Faster, speedier and with stand off munitions more accurate. No Pakistani General can go around claiming he will use nukes to save Pakistan itself when all thats occurred are a dozen odd strikes on terrorist camps within Pakistan.

The problem with cold start and any punitive strikes on suspected terrorist camps is that it won’t really achieve anything, rather like the US cruise missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan in the late 90s. Heck, even look at Afghanistan, after 10 years, the Taliban are getting stronger?! And that has taken a full scale invasion and complete regime change, but very little has changed, so what makes you think something like Cold Start will work with Pakistan? At the threat of getting significantly OT, the problems with Pakistan are deeply embedded within the society itself, which no amount of ‘limited’ military actions can solve. Virtually the entire country can/is used as a terrorist training camp, most of the society is illiterate and, therefore, easy to manipulate and radicalise, there has never really been an effective civil government and the wider society seems to suffer from xenophobic paranoia, completely disjointed from wider global realities.

wrong, US send them peanut oil or something like that in stead.

I think over 50% of what the Pakistanis paid for the embargoed F-16s was repaid in cash, the remainder was repaid in soya bean, although the Pakistanis seem to have made more than the equivalent value in cash by selling it on the commodity markets at that time 😮 Not to mention that the Pakistanis were charged for the storage costs of the embargoed Vipers…talk about rubbing salt in the wounds. It doesn’t matter though, the Pakistanis seem to have enjoyed the experience, as they went back for more F-16 :confused:

I guess 2 large tankers for navy, co-operation on the aircraft carrier doesn’t count. :rolleyes:

It seems alot of the ‘indigenous’ indian programmes require significant levels of co-operation? :confused:

Because the losses they are complaining about are imaginary.

I’m not sure if that’s completely true. The bulk of the indian Rafales will be built in india and I don’t think there are significant orders from the French airforce/navy. Unless there are further orders, there may be some job losses from the French production line. However, even countries like Brazil are considering local production for significantly fewer numbers than the indian order. Any orders from the Middle Eastern gulf region are not expected to include local production, so I only see these regions keeping the French production line open.

Replacement aircraft tend to be better than the ones they replace, but are still replacing existing aircraft. Surely you must have come across this in your daily life no?

….
Get a better deal.

Indeed I have, but you’re missing the wider picture of significant ToT and the relative capability improvement compared to india’s neighbours. By the way, how much of a better deal is it by stringing it out this long?