This is the trouble when people pin thier hopes on a weapon to make the much needed difference in combat and it fails to arrive on time you’re left caught short and in an unpleasent situation if you have to face a half decent enemy.

I don’t think that’s much of a trouble. Priorities seem to have been shifted exactly because no half decent enemy is expected.

I don’t see any truly symmetrical warfare coming up in the next five years.

It’d be funny as hell if they succeeded in getting their government to pass on the F-35 – and ended up stuck with Super Hornets.

Yeah, it’d be funny as hell if they were stuck with Super Hornets, while not getting into a war in the next 30 years where the F-35 would be of any greater use, and saved assloads of money this way. 😮

AERO INDIA: Eurojet offering thrust-vectoring EJ200 for LCA

Interesting. The case would be much more convincing though if there already was a Typhoon flying with it. Really looking forward to a twin-TVC-nozzled Typhoon prototype though.

Ok I understand. I will take the Viper over the Super Hornet as it would be cheaper to operate (single engine) and should do nearly as well in the strike role. 🙂

If the tender was just about a solid but highly competitive work horse with tested technology and extensive weapons integration, then I’d take the F-16 as well. If it wasn’t for Pakistan operating the type, it would be my expected favorite for the win. Second in that category would be the MiG-35 for me, especially considering how existing infrastructure, tools and training could be used there.

But, with the desire for ToT and seeing as how the contest seems also driven by an Indian need for global economic integration, exchange and acknowledgment, I would expect the SH or Typhoon to win. While Rafale and Gripen offer considerable capabilities, France and Sweden are just too small as economic and geopolitical entities on their own.

So, my two bets are the Typhoon and the Superhornet. Among those, I would currently expect the Typhoon to win the race. 🙂

That’s what that thing between your ears is for. :rolleyes:

In all fairness, he did articulate his points in relative manner:

“I suppose”
“it still should have”
“I still believe”
“I cannot remember”
“there is a good reason to doubt”

I think that’s an adequate way to make your points. He didn’t claim ontological truths, but presented his personal take, which already then included the possibility of being mistaken or changing opinion if the information changes.

Then, I reasoned that the “better” contenders (viz. Rafale, Typhoon and F-18 SH) too would be totally redundant additions in the IAF.

I think one would have to strongly differentiate between technology and capability then. While all contenders seem to not exceed the MKI in terms of capability, they bring other technology to the table. And these technologies seem to have more of their development path ahead of them, instead of behind them, like one could argue for some MKI solutions, where capability seems to come with brute force. What Rafale, Typhoon and F-18 deliver seems to scale well (or at least better) into the future. MKI technology, not so much.

I really do think that the MMRCA tender is as much about procuring defense capabilities as it is about acquiring future-oriented defense technology and knowledge.

Oh, missed that one. My pathetic German humor.

Yeah, we can be pretty thick at times…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZ8EkK3eWY

😀

Or is it you who does not get the point?
Those two aircraft you mentioned were/are not there to perfom fighter like missions that will lead them into direct conflict with enemy fighters so the HOJ thinking is useless in this context. Now if the Prowler for example was meant to fight enemy fighter jets then yes you’d have a point but as it is you do not have a valid point.

No, you still missed it. My point was about HOJ as a capability and its specific requirements that some people like to forget or ignore. The EA platforms were just a broad hint.