TeerTEER
Mate, you keep missing my point. Also chill out on the insults and disrespect.
Twisted, with all due respect, you are the one piling on the insults and disrespect – beginning from post 13:33 where you began with “BS” and what not. Followed by more exclamations and angry comments.
Nor do you seem to be interested in acknowledging all the areas you are clearly wrong on eg the PPP, tax base comparisons, incorrect values ascribed to military eqpt etc.
As Swerve noted – if you do have a point, so far you have not been able to make it with any coherence whatsoever. All I get from your comments are scattershot remarks and insults and an inability to understand something written & repeated (for your benefit) 3-4 times over.
Perhaps its a language issue…I really dont know or care.
So yes, do “chill out”. You seem to need it far more than I.
TeerFrom the Rafale to Brazil thread.
http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/gripen-ng.jpg
Now thats a decent A2A/A2G mixed load out that Gripen is carrying.
Ya, but whats the range & how deep can it go into PRC w/that fit.
Plus, like I said, the Meteor is tres expensive. Dont’ get me wrong but this is a typical case of a PR loadout unlikely to be seen for deep strike, that thing would need a lot of gas w/that fit.
TeerDude, you’ll need meds at this rate unless you cool down.
Wherein you need to see how much the Indian Govt collects and from whom, eg to consider one component, what is the percentage of Indian population that pays tax. As the Indian salaried middle class increases for instance, this overall revenue component will rise commensurately, as tax collected at source.
So basically, you are comparing two tax systems, in one of which far less people as a proportion of the people pay taxes, and you have a lesser amount of money to begin with from that component, and if you divide it by the overall population & come to …what conclusion exactly, I dunno.
Besides which re: Denmark & Taxes: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/business/worldbusiness/05iht-labor.4.8603880.html
And second, whats this got to do with the portion of my quote you clipped?
“Huh! Jesus Christ” indeed.
I think it’ll be easier babelfishing statements to you in whichever language you want, ‘coz we sure ain’t getting through to you!
TeerNo not even T3A is fully defined by now. I expect a possible T3B to be similar to T3A with some spiral development enhancements (mostly software and possibly weapons) which will find their way in the aircraft anyway.
In otherwords, bar numbers (lesser), capability/airframe wise, the AF does not lose anything by cancelling a T3B?
Also, will all airframes in each AF be brought up to a common standard, avionics wise?
Since you are the Typhoon guru 🙂 could you post/point me to a list of whats going on in terms of capabilities yet to be added to the Typhoon or whats part of T3A, as we know it. Be glad to brush up if I have missed something.
TeerBTW, don’t you find it amazing that Denmarks government revenue is 25% percent larger versus India? ..is that telling you something or what :confused:
Wherein you need to see how much the Indian Govt collects and from whom, eg to consider one component, what is the percentage of Indian population that pays tax. As the Indian salaried middle class increases for instance, this overall revenue component will rise commensurately, as tax collected at source.
Furthermore, you may disagree with Swerve’s use of the PPP method, it just so happens you are disagreeing with every serious analyst out there who happens to use the same rationale for the same comparisons…
Swerve’s use of the H.L. Mencken quote was very appropriate vis a vis the statements you are making.
Teergain:
Right, and you think India could take a huge portion of its domestic expenditure & shift it externally? Without affecting Rupee’s value?My point is there is no way India could compete with UK in military expenditure. Simply b/c UK is so much more wealthier.
Dude, either its a language issue, because you simply dont understand anything what’s been written, or you are not attempting to.
Its not a question of wealthier, its a question of what a certain capability costs and what you can afford to pay for it. If the manpower costs are a huge portion of any budget & account for less people in the developed west, and the capex costs are lesser for the Indians because they buy Russian/local, then that’s how India is “competing” with xyz, get it? That’s whats been discussed about 10 times in the thread already.
And about India diverting funds, India already spends lesser than several of its peers on defence. In fact, if it cuts its local pork and votes programs – it can sustain a higher defence budget and more capability by moving that funding to local production. Its choosing not to and thats a GD topic not a mil one, because the reasons for that are political (votes) and social (developing nation with key needs).
Swerve already answered you here about the tax issue as well (as India’s governance and economic growth improves, its tax base will also increase likewise)..
I dont even know how many times one has to repeat the same thing before you get it..
Is that so? Then why the heck does one Tejas (3.5G) cost $30 million?
..and Arjun tank cost around $2 million each! (hardly “cheap”)
First that G bit is useless, who defines what a Gen is.
And seriously, you clearly are unable to understand what I wrote – thats some awesome mangling of what I said!!
I actually said that in some cases, even local programs are more expensive than buying Russian and modifying. Your claims actually support my point further, if they were true. But again, you are wrong & have not even understood the basics.
A T-90 kitted out with Indian C3I, French thermal imager comes in at $2.5M upfront. An Arjun comes in at $ 4 Million, get the point? Add the logistics costs, and thats where the Army is buying 1600 T-90s and much lesser Arjuns. The same way, a Leclerc would cost more than an Arjun, and so on.
A LCA @ 30 Million brand new, is still value for money compared to upgrading 20 year old Mirage 2000s at the same price. Get it? New airframe and the money is going to the local aerospace industry to sustain it, and keep it in place for the next program.
And a substantial portion of the “cheaper” goes back to the manpower costs associated both with R&D and manufacture which are cheaper in India, and allow the overall costs to be kept lower despite import content, eg engines.
That apart, even your cost estimates there are superficial at best, because right now, the LCA cost could rise further depending on what the IAF adds etc and what the definitive fit for the LCA MK2 is. Even so, the strategic aspects and operational aspects of “buy local” remain, and that is why the MOD will support the program.
Thats what I said.
All in all, you fail to understand the most straightforward of things, take statements and mangle them so as to be unrecognizable, and continue to posit wrong data in support of far-out claims…
Try to understand what others are saying before rushing to reply.
TeerIAF gets MoD’s nod to acquire a basic trainer
Gawd now we are buying basic trainers even..:mad:
I can live with it.
Given how full HAL’s orderbook is, I’d rather they concentrate on what they already have, which are the”
IJT
LCA
ALH-WSI
LCH
LUH
MRTA
FGFA
..and not to mention the Su-30MKI Phase4 (from local material), the MMRCA & the upgrades- namely the Jaguar Darin-3 and perhaps, the MiG-27 continued. Then theres the production of improved Lakshya variants, the NAL Saras and HALs UAV programs & plans ..and other prospective programs, MRH etc.
I mean, quite frankly, this is what happens when you underfund defence for decades, your planning is p*ss poor at MOD/IAF level (wasnt a proposal to replace the HPT first made a decade back) & things pile up to the maximum extent and you are left with far too much work and far too less time…
I’d rather what they have on the plate gets delivered with minimum cost and time overruns, than building some basic trainer for which we developed the capability a while ago, but if which we take up now, diverts resources from more important programs!!
TeerIndia can field more soldiers..but what about submarines,ships and fighterplanes? (i.e. non-PPP adjusted goods)
Do a comparison in cost with say Absalon Frigate vs Sovremennyy …or U212 SSK vs Kilo …or F-16 vs Sukhoi ..cost is roughly same.
India already addresses that aspect. Thats one of the key reasons India has its deals assemble/manufacture the bulk of the items locally (usually >80%), since the variable cost portion of the item attributed to manpower is slashed drastically.
Not only that, your cost comparison of Russian versus Western is clearly wrong. A full up Su-30 MKI – with all sorts of bells and whistles added later, comes in much much lesser than the cost of an EF2000. A T-90 at $ 2Mn is almost half the cost or even more of new build Leclercs.
This is the exact reason India prefers to buy cheaper platforms ie from Russia & upgrade them with selected equipment which still works out cheaper than buying a complete system from one OEM with all sorts of associated margins spread out over other systems (just take a look at the Mirage 2000 upgrade issue for instance).
Even domestic built systems cannot compete, cost wise, in several cases & are retained the need to indigenize for operational (eg easier upgrades) & strategic reasons.
Basically, in your attempt to score a few points, you missed the entire discussion from the first post onwards, which clearly mentions this very point. The thread BEGAN with this very point, about India’s approach of taking cheaper platforms and upgrading them, and in several cases using its EXISTING logistics base to reduce the logistics lifecycle cost further.
When India buys a T-90, its buying a T-72 derivative whose maintenance setup is already expansive.
Furthermore, you didnt get or even attempt to understand any of Swerves points, wherein he points out that Denmark cant just take a huge portion of its domestic expenditure & shift it external in the manner in which you are suggesting – read what he said again:
A simplistic comparison of tax revenues converted at exchange rates does not tell you how much country A can spend compared to country B. Almost all of that Danish expenditure is domestic. Trying to spend a much larger proportion of it abroad would cause a crash in the exchange rate, which would cut its value compared to Indian spending. You also have to compare foreign exchange holdings & earnings. Also, you should adjust the value of the domestic element of it (e.g. pay of soldiers) to take account of differences in local prices & wage rates (i.e. PPP = Purchasing Power Parity). A Dane with a rifle is not worth 50 Indians with rifles because he’s paid as much as all of them combined. Then, you should calculate the effect on the economy of withdrawing money from all the other sectors currently receiving state money, such as health, education, infrastructure, etc.
Even your basic premise about comparisons using tax revenues is flawed to begin with.
TeerBut what about the Lakshya engine? isnt that a turbo as well?
wasnt kidding
Yes, and its not sufficient for the kind of requirements we have, ie for a long range CM which is also compact and deployable by multiple platforms.
And it took a decade plus easily to develop, and we had to develop a lot of the components ourselves, since a lot of what we imported from suppliers in the UK & elsewhere just didnt meet the reliability/performance requirements. And this is for a test target/ drone.
Which is why I said there are some things we just cant bypass or purchase off the shelf. And if we do get some units, that doesnt mean we can make hundreds of munitions based on it.
Eg, the US lead in missile tech is in part thanks to the capabilities as embodied by this company:
http://www.williams-int.com/testimonials.html
It generally takes 2-3 generations of a particular system for things to stabilize and enough design capability to coalesce around building newer variants and so on and so forth.
Right now, we aren’t there. We just have a few designs in jet propulsion which will take the next decade to mature/develop new variants off, of. The private industry is merely at the subsystem/component supplier in this endeavour.
Similarly, even for UAV purposes, rotary engines and the like have been developed by VRDE & NAL, not the private sector. (Talking of overall design capability).
TeerInternational trade does not have to be conducted in PPP for the concept to be perfectly sound, eg the amount required per soldier in India versus in Denmark, because of a host of things which are cheaper in India. Ergo, India can field far more soldiers thanks to the lesser cost.
Same way GDP is a theoretical construct but derived from a range of actual economic data, and generally accepted as a valid way of representing the economic capabilities of a nation.
I think you are a bit confused about the subject in question. Read Swerves posts at 12:21 and 12:33 to understand what he is actually saying as compared to cherry-picking statements to “win the argument”.
TeerWell that should be the easiest technology of all, I helped a friend make a turbo jet in uni its realatively easy and your not really looking for anything more than say 2 hours of life so it does not have to be super survivable or anything.
So what else isnt there that would stop the private industry build UCAVs?
Matt, I sure hope you are kidding right?
Besides which I am talking of a TF not a TJ.
Take a look at the weight a proper CM is & the turbofan thrust required & for long range, a competitive SFC. There are currently only a handful of countries that make TFs for long range missiles of the required capabilities & hoard the tech closely. Even turbojets of lesser capability are monitored under the MTCR.
And there are some other technologies as well where we lack, but unless somebody from a lab comes out and says it openly, why bother going there..
TeerMaybe Old Russkie friend could help there.they have quite sm materiel and warheads in storage…then maybe sm nice detailed plan of Ss-20 pioneer Irbm and hw’s that song?China in your hands…. 🙂
Russia is a signatory to the MTCR.
TeerGripen NG will be able to do a 1500 km mission with 4 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders and one drop tank; Add one more drop tank and the range increases even more…
In a2a NG should have more than enough both speed and range.
For a2g, it really depends how much you want to carry and how far. For shorter range, it can carry a quite decent bomb load. For longer range and big loads, you should use either several NGs or the MKI.
My point is we need a fighter which is able to do both ie A2A and A2G, ie a mixed role with sufficient payload (because its carrying both types) and at range. Thats the problem here. For every mission, if India needs to allocate a mix of Su-30MKIs and NGs, the NG is simply not good enough. And the more NGs allocated to a mission, the greater the wear and tear, and issues in an intense conflict with number of available airframes.
And it should be non sanctionable and come with a potent weapons fit. Now see the problem here with the NG, for a decent off the shelf MRAAM, we only have the AMRAAM – which is American. The NGs in display have been shown with the Derby, which is far less ranged. And the Meteor is too expensive to buy and deploy in bulk.
The same goes for A2G. Also, the basic NG itself is full of US kit. The problem here is that if India is ok with this, it might as well take the Viper or F/A-18E/F then, one of which is likely to be cheaper & is more proven, mature etc. and the other more capable, as an allround striker than the NG.
Which is why I prefer the Rafale and Typhoon. They offer more capability (albeit at much greater cost) and are relatively sanction free..
And that begs the question: If you want something with much more punch than Gripen NG why don’t you just go for more MKI? Seems to make more sense than introducing yet another platform into your air force…
Like I said – its cost. Two pilots, and a heavy fighter with substantial logistics added to it. India needs a “medium” which can do most of what a heavy can. The problem is the NG approaches the lower end of the medium spectrum (weight, capability) whereas what I am talking about is a medium which punches close to the MKI in certain areas or can even replace it in missions.
For peacetime, the NG will be brilliant – high optempo, low costs etc. But at wartime, given the amount of pressure on the IAF in a two front war case, we need every bit of operational advantage possible.
That apart, the NG is similar to the LCA MK2 in terms of some technologies, capabilities from the MIC point of view. I’d rather SAAB & ADA work on the next gen MCA (bigger, more capable) than buy the NG.
TeerToans list seems fairly indicative. Its pretty sad that EADS, Eurofughter Gmbh have to slog for exports and its not added to the overall kitty but just replace those not picked up by the original partners. Having said that it’ll be till 2012, as Wilde says before we get to know if such is the case.
Scorpion82, any idea on whats in Tranche 3 B thats not in Tranche3A, and how they differ?
Thanks
TeerWhat Redgriffin said are his comments – and I’l let him explain what he means / defend those comments if he chooses to do so.
My point is not about which avionics are better and which aircraft India usualy sends — My point is that – just because PAF’s participating aircraft are outclassed by others in the exercise does automaticaly = PAF will learn nothing & no point in PAF participating (which is what Ankush was alluding to) especialy when so little is known about what exactly the PAF is doing in the exercise. Usualy PAF F-16’s participate in such exercises, I am guessing that the Mirages are there because the role in this exercise is more relevant / usefull to them.
I think you meant, does not automatically…not “does automatically”…and I agree with you.
Rest fair enough, but what Ankush meant vs Redgriffins comment, if seen in context is clear as well. RedG implied that PAF sent aircraft because they had advanced avionics and which even your statement above points out the flaw in the theory…thats its not avionics alone which matter, but the purpose of the exercise, which determine what is sent and where.
I mean, the Rose equipped Mirages or whatever could still have a useful training value from a variety of factors and on that, we are in agreement.
Though one thing on which I agree with Ankush is that there has to be some technological parity in A2A for trainings, we can see this if we follow comments about US exercises, Russian detachment to South Africa etc, I mean if one side has overwhelming advantage, the training value for the other side diminishes. Same way when the French Rafales met non Upg Indian SHars BVR was useless for India because they were getting knocked down repeatedly.
Not to say this is what went on in UAE, but just saying is all..
Sign In
