A lot of India’s acquisitions are pretty over the top as well. They have operated aircraft carriers for a long time, which IMO are a total waste of money for such a poor country. The proposed Tu-22M lease is another idiotic idea – 3-4 expensive bombers that will need Russian maintennance and who’s capabilities in such small numbers are doubtful. Nuclear weapons are just sheer madness and a total waste of money. Countries such as Ethiopia and Peru buy foreign built hardware which means that the few dollars they do have go to foreign countries for weapons.

The Su-30MKI sale has domestic benefits in terms of licence production (just as the JF-17 has benefits for Pakistan). It means training people to a high standard, and the acquisition of new skills. There are also opportunities for entrepreneurs to establish new companies to support such developments. It also mean further developing high tech industries and maybe even potential export sales (in particular the JF-17). But the acquisition of F-16’s or M2000’s mainly benefits the countries of origin.

In effect domestic arms manufacturing can spur local industrial development. This is much like the Royal Navy helped facilitate British industrial development (though it wasn’t the only or even the most important factor). The US military-industrial relationship has helped that country’s economy develop. Be it ICBM’s which led to commercial satelites or the military computer networks that led to the internet. US military R&D is basically a form of subsidised civilian R&D. For example, military research into aviation has benefitted civilian aviation immensly.

Furthermore there is the issue of what is the appropriate level of defence. Countries that are run by military men or nationalists tend to spend nearly every penny on military hardware as opposed to civilian spending. Often it is on foreign built equipment. IMO Pakistan and India fall into the category of spending too much on defence. India can have her locally produced Su-30MKI’s, but then scrap the MiG-21, MiG-27 etc. Pakistan can have her JF-17’s but don’t waste money on F-16’s that just serve to keep Lockheed Martin puttering along.

Sure only the wealthy nations have the right to defend themselves … The rest of the world should be left at the mercy of these nations to defend them in times of need and war and witness another rawanda. Remember, in complex geo-polictical conditions these countries co-exist in require strong defence along with strong economy. Please do read up on past and present political and economical makeup of the countries mentioned and then post your intellectual comments.

Yes, that is why many Third World countries spend billions on weapons that they cannot afford to maintain and that eventually end up rusting away. And what is the purpose of security when you are starving, disease ridden, illiterate and under threat of corrupt officials, oppressive landlords and various criminal gangs that run many of the poor areas around the world (e.g. the favelas in Brazil).

The truth is that expensive military aircraft serve to enlarge the egos (and wallets) of various nationalist fruitcakes who do not understand the reality of their people’s living standards .

Pakistan, Brazil, Ethiopia and all the other countries I’ve mentioned acquire pointless military capabilities that have no bearing on the pathetic living conditions of their people.

No-one on this planet can convince me that Pakistan acquiring F-16’s or Brazil acquiring aircraft carriers is a good thing. It is in fact irresponsible and an insult to the people that these so-called leaders pretend they are defending.

I love it when third world countries spend their valuable dollars on pointless weapon systems.

It’s a case of “hey we need to protect our starving, disease ridden, illiterate people from horrible invaders with the latest in weapons.”

This is not just a stab at Pakistan but at countries such as Ethiopia, Angola, Zimbabwe, North Korea, India, Libya, Egypt etc. Even middle class countries such as Brazil and Thailand spend their money on useless junk such as aircraft carriers. The list of countries that do this is endless.

These countries are run by total f@$ing morons that deserve a bullet to the head.

The funny thing is that the West is setting up some sort of debt relief for third world countries. What usually happens after these sort of debt reduction schemes is that the countries get back into debt by spending their money on useless $hit such as weapons or lining the pockets of their w@nker leaders.

If Pakistan’s glorious leader, General Musharraf had any common sense, he would spend the billions he’s spending on pointless weapons on improving the country’s infrastructure and trying to create a sustainable economy that helps the common man prosper. After he’s got his people out of poverty, then maybe he can be allowed to buy some useless toys such as FI16’s or F-22’s or whatever.

*RANT OFF*

The RAF should go for the all Eurofighter force. Get a few JSF for the carriers, or scrap the carriers all together. Britainm should realise it’s a regional power and not the globe encompassing empire it was up to the 1940’s.

As for the JSF, didn’t Norway already get screwed over in terms of participation.

Me thinks countries such as Norway or Australia would be better of not contributing to the JSF as it locks them into a product that may be a total flop, too expensive or totally inappropriate to their defence needs. Modern defence contracts are meant to be based on tenders and competition and not getting set into one particular product.

Maybe the Brazillian A-4’s are useless against a NATO airforce equipped with state of the art fighters and extensive C3 networks. But against a Latin American opponent even the A-4 is extremely potent. The number of 4th generation aircraft such as the F-16 or Mirage 2000 in Latin America is extremely small, and even then it is doubtful that many of them are operational (specifically Venezuelan F-16’s and Peruvians M2000’s and MiG-29’s). Most Latin American air arms rely on armed porp trainers such as the PC-7 or Tucano or 1960’s and 70’s jets such as the F-5 or Mirage III/5 series. Most of these airforces lack any form of AWACS or integrated air defence networks.

So the carrier based A-4’s are quite a potent asset as they allow the Brazillians to launch strikes and conduct anti-shipping ops with much greater range than land based strikers as well as away from areas where the main battle is raging (in essence flanking the enemy).

(BY the way I am not suggesting that there will be a war between Brazil and any of her neighbours in the near future).

I thnk that the UH-1Y and the AH-1Z are to a degree, simply the Marines trying to stay relevant in aircraft design (same applies for the V-22 white elephant).

The bad thing for Gripen is that even if the machines win export orders and are being sold like cakes, this does not lead to greater number of airframes being built. With each export order coming the Swedish air force automatically reduce their initial order, so the number of aircraft built stays constant..

Does this include the South African buy of 28 aircraft?