thobbesI think F-7PG will survive in PAF post 2020. There is simply no way Pakistan will be getting 300+ fighters to replace F-7s and Mirage III/Vs between now and 2020.
thobbesSU-35 seems like a good choice for Indian pure air superiority fighter, especially since its a single seater (cheaper to operate, to train aircrews etc etc).
thobbeshow is it the f-35s fault that the Dutch have a budget cap?
Mainly because Dutch budget cap probably assumed old Lockheed Martin promises of “as cheap to buy and operate as an F-16” were true as opposed to the total BS we know they are now.
thobbesI agree with article that funding F-35 by cutting capabilities (either fewer fighter numbers or infantry batallions or naval support ships ala Karel Doorman) is daft.
In the end Netherlands will have under 40 F-35s which is barely useful for NATO ops and lacking in key ground and naval units that have proven so valuable in recent conflicts, peace keeping operations and humanitarian disaster relief.
Denmark is even worse – I’ve seen future RDAF figures quoted as 18-22 aircraft. At that stage you are a nearly pure air policing force and might as well buy JAS-39.
thobbesThanks for updates. MiG-21 and -23 variants can get very confusing.
thobbesThere’s also all the UAVs that have been introduced in service.
From memory F/A-18s have a specific recce pod. That means you no longer need a dedicated recce bird. The F/A-18s may be Navy but remember USAF EF-111s were replaced by USMC/USN EA-6B Prowlers.
F-16s can carry a variety of recce pods but I’m not sure if USAF ever brought any.
thobbes:dev2:
no combat experience ? JASDF has long genetic soul of Imperial Japanese Army and Navy air force..and ROKAF continue live on the edge of war with the North..That was more woryh experience than bombing goat herder in Afghanistan or Serbs vilage guard..:dev2::very_drunk:
I’m sure there’s many Imperial Japanese types in service with JSDF – Japanese warrior soul is such that even 90 years olds are better soilders than Western soy latte drinking soldiers.
Shame Imperial Japanese Army was pretty poor and it’s only advantage was fanaticism. E.g. Japanese lessons from Khalkin Gol debacle was not better training, better logisitics, better junior commanders, better intel or better equipment. No their main lesson was that spiritiual factors and morale need more emphasising. Because as we all know, some Japanese equipped with nothing but spirit performed better than Soviet tank divisions in 1939.
As for South Korea, for a country “living on the edge of war,” they somehow let a North Korean submarine sink one of their corvettes. Hardly a state of readiness now is it?
I love how people denigrate the West. There’s little a thing call jealousy and it appears to be pop it’s head up all the time.
thobbesFor instance, in the 80s NATO were mostly emphasising the Aim-7. It had the potential to be quite a potent approach, but had an indifferent track record. The Soviets on the other hand were looking at the Archer and HMS on the Fulcrum. Less potential in paper – but most likely far more effective in the inevitable furballs over Western Europe.
Your average Soviet fighter in 1980-88 was still a MiG-21 or MiG-23 or Su-17/-20/-22 and not a MiG-29/Su-27. It was even more so the case with Warpac.
Your also ignoring AIM-9. Most NATO jets including USAF F-16A/Bs didn’t even carry AIM-7.
NATO certainly expected furballs – hence large scale adoption of F-16A/B, Mirage 2000 as well as AIM-9L. NATO also had the advantage in terms of AWACS whereas most Soviet fighters were still GCI.
Where Soviets had issues with Command and Coordination and especially with ground forces. Soviet model preferred large set pieces with little emphasis on flexible operations as well as lower emphasis on elements smaller than a regiment. Command hierarchies were extremely rigid.
This was of course all based on successful Soviet operations in WWII as well as Soviet ideological drivers and political requirements.
thobbesOh sorry my bad.
Those are demanding requirements indeed!
thobbesDidn’t F-14 spend most of it’s first 20 years as a pure air superiority/fleet defence fighter? It may not have been a superb dog fighter with AIM-54s but it was meant to be blowing Tu-22M Backfires out of the sky and not generally tangling with MiGs. Though it generally did smack down MiGs and Mirages in most encounters and certainly gave good A2A service for USN.
It wasn’t until 1990s that they started carrying Air to Ground munitions.
As for F-16, I thought they introduced multi-role capability very early on. I remember reading about USAFE F-16A units training for tactical nuclear attack as well as conventional ground attack in early 1980s.
Lobbing tac nukes onto Soviet armoured formations is the ultimate in ground pounding!
thobbesWell MiG-35 will cost even more to operate so whatever commonalities exist better make up for it big time,
Rafale is destined to have longer lasting engines, with less demand on maintenance, while consuming less fuel.
From an operational standpoint, that translate to better availability and sortie rate.
Very true.
I have asked the question before but no-one seems to know or want to answer: Have the Russians and Chinese reached Western levels of engine and airframe life as well Mean Time Between Overhauls?
ed: on a 2nd thought, MiG-35 cost significantly less in purchase cost, so money wise it does work out
It all depends on how you fund it, especially if loans are involved!
I think to a degree Rafale’s contract signing will depend on Indian economy as well as those elections.
Not only is rupee down but consumer spending is down as well and energy prices are up. All three impact a government’s ability to spend lots of Dollars/Euros on imported weapons.
This may be short term but it could delay Rafale contract signing even further. And the more you delay contract signing, the more you run the risk of Rafale being superfluous or eating into funding earmarked for other future projects such as FGFA.
One thing i find awkward tho, is that the largest a/c is meant as the primary A2A platform,
while the smaller one is intended for strike :rolleyes:
The US used F-15A-D and F-14s as air superiority fighters and F/A-18 and F-16 as strike fighters so it doesn’t surprise me. Or in the past USN F-4Bs v A-4s.
Now the A-4 there was a superb little combat bird!
thobbesInteresting editorial on whether India needs Rafale or not:
http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/09/03/with_the_mig-29_on_steroids_who_needs_the_rafale_29025.html
There’s a few factual mistakes in it, but the basic premises are sound:
1. Does India need Rafale with continued induction of Su-30MKI as well as Tejas and FGFA in development?
2. Would India be better off buying a cheaper 4.5th Generation jet ala MiG-35? Remember Indian Navy is currently inducting 46 MiG-29K carrier borne jets.
A MiG-35 purchase would allow compatibilities with MiG-29SMT and MiG-29Ks whilst reducing number of different types in service.
Not saying not buying the Rafale is the answer. But it’s an interesting concept nonetheless.
Then there’s the issue of cost, especially as Rupee seems to be struggling on international markets.
thobbesGiven choice of F-16, F/A-18 and Mirage 2000, I don’t think you can really go wrong with any of them.
All are high performance and very versatile jets with good manufacturer support including timely upgrades. Operating costs are different but that’s not important in many instances where F/A-18s have been purchased.
EDIT: Also any news as to progress on F-18 replacement? I’ve heard formal process is meant to commence in 2015 with potential service entry date being 2025.
thobbesAs stated most UNSC Resolutions are not interventionist.
The bigger issue is say China has another Tianamen Square type incident.
If this goes to UN say for censure (i.e. UNSC resolution to tell China it’s bad), then the Western states and its affiliates already have the vast majority of the votes – USA, France, Japan, UK. Germany probably would vote in line with Western states as protection of human rights is inline with German values. Russia would probably vote with China.
Brazil and India would be the outliers but I can see them sooner voting pro-Western than pro-China.
Similar things could apply in other areas where countries generally have solid stances, e.g. Israel. I could see UNSC supporting censure-type resolutions of Israel even when Israel might not be in the wrong because anti-Israeli type resolutions are a great way of sucking up to oil rich Arabs and because anti-Semitism is still rife across the world.
It’s why most anti-Israeli resolutions are usually passed through non-binding General Assembly.
Hence the 6/8 rule is not something any of the powers would want. They would lose too much control.
I think they prefer to keep the veto power at the expense of the UNSC’s viability as an international arbitrator.
thobbesInteresting enough FAEs that don’t detonate have same impact as chemical weapons as the fluid is highly toxic. And when they do detonate they rupture your lungs or incinerate you.
The Syrians have been using FAEs for months now so why haven’t the US wanted to attack them over that?
The answer is USA has a good stock of FAEs and used them in Afghanistan. The Russians also loved using them in Chechnya.
I’m sure the local Indians are amazed at my lack of pro-US nationalism in this post.
Sign In
