Actually MIG and SAAB really need this contract. The Swedish government has pledge upgrade of their older Gripens to NG standard, but without either Brazil or India new built NGs may never come.

Same with MIG without the 35 it may die a slow death unless and untill it moves on from the Fulcrum platform. The saving grace will be IN and RuN orders as discussed in its thread.

It would be a big boost to EADS and Dassault as well.

Only the American firms may consider it a non-issue.

You are missing the point. Yes, SAAB and MIG (and Dassault) really need the contract, but they will survive without it. This is not the make or break for aviation firms that you and other posters are making it out to be.

Gripen can still contend in Brazil and probably has more orders from Thailand up soon.

MIG – They will sell to a host of third world countries

Dassault – I would say Brazil and UAE looking pretty strong

Take it easy on the self importance.

Dassault, EADs, LMTAS, Boeing, MIG and SAAB will all survive irrespective of the result….

You really don’t know what you are talking about.

1. The Harrier upgrade was minimal, involved changing radars and missiles. Just to have some capability before INS Vikramaditya arrives.

2. The Jaguars are not really old, the production only stopped 2-3 years ago. Many of these have a lot of airframe life left in them and being twin engined they are more survivable. This is the reason why the Jaguar fleet are getting extensive upgrades, avionics, missiles and even engines.

Your language is charming,however it does not hide the fact you have just contridicted yourself. Essentially what you are doing is using any arguement to try and support your point, when this is revealed you need to resort to such postings.

Let us run through this again.

First you state it is not worth upgrading old planes due to airframe fatigue

When I point out this is exactly what is being done to 25 year old Jaguars and Harriers how is this different to the upgrade programme for the MIG-21?

In fact I would go so far as to say the Harrier upgrade programme has done very little to boost the INs fleet air defence.

According to a recent audit report hardly any of these planes are servicable.

Probably true when it comes to the number of warheads. But Delivery Systems ? Really ?

Would not surprise me giving the help China have given.

India lags behind Pakistan in nuclear armoury: US expert

NEW DELHI: The nuclear information director of Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Hans M Kristensen, has sought to settle the debate on India and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal by declaring that Pakistan doesn’t only have more warheads and fissile material but also better delivery systems for such weapons.

Referring to a report in TOI last week, he said that India might again be discovering that Pakistan has a few more nuclear weapons than India. “As far as I can gauge, apart from nuclear testing where India started first, Pakistan has always been a little ahead in warheads, fissile material and delivery systems,” said Kristensen in his latest write-up for FAS.

The TOI report was based on a study carried out by Kristensen and Robert Norris which said that, apart from Pakistan having more nuclear warheads, it had fissile material for 90 more warheads. India, it said, had fissile material for 60-105 warheads.

Kristensen, however, went on to say that neither country can claim any nuclear moral high ground. “Both are increasing their nuclear arsenals, both are producing more fissile material for nuclear weapons, and both are diversifying the means to deliver nuclear weapons and extending their range,” he said. As per his latest estimate, while India has 60-80 warheads, Pakistan has 70-90.

“The two countries are now at a warhead level about equal to that of Israel (80 warheads). But whereas it took Israel 40 years to reach that level, India and Pakistan have done so in only 12 years. And they’re apparently not done,” he added.

Kristensen is also co-author of the `Nuclear Notebook’ column in the `Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’, which claims to be the most accurate source of information on nuclear weapons and weapon facilities available to the public, and the `World Nuclear Forces’ overview in the SIPRI Yearbook.

According to Kristensen, Indian and Pakistani security will probably be served better by trying soon to define just how big a nuclear force is sufficient for minimum deterrence so that “prudent planning” doesn’t take them to a new and more dangerous level.

“Although neither government wants to say so publicly, India and Pakistan are in effect in a nuclear arms race. It might not be of the intensity of the Cold War arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States, but it is a race nonetheless for capability and systems,” he said

Read more: India lags behind Pakistan in nuclear armoury: US expert – India – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-lags-behind-Pakistan-in-nuclear-armoury-US-expert/articleshow/6271845.cms#ixzz0w0RDHTwv

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-lags-behind-Pakistan-in-nuclear-armoury-US-expert/articleshow/6271845.cms

I think you are simplifying things a bit and not giving the full picture.

We did Herrick with our current C-130s and C-17s

In the future we may well have

14 A330 Tanker/Transports
8 C-17s
22 A400s

That is not bad at all. The reason I mentioned it affecting the PARAs is that they will still have to train for parachuting and British doctrine still maintains having at least 2 trained and ready Parachute battalions (granted much of their recent roles have been air mobile with choppers)