Yes, but India has bought US weapons & equipment pretty much off the shelf, & they’ve been entirely US-made. That would not have been true of any hypothetical F-18E/F deal. It would have been susceptible to exactly the sort of problems which have plagued the Rafale contract.

Exactly so. This is not to underestimate the progress in Indian-US relations or the ‘confidence building’ effects of e.g. C-130J, but MMRCA is a very different beast.

Many in the Washington community saw the loss of MMRCA as a severe blow to India-US relations; they had expected to secure the MMRCA contract as a quid pro quo for what they perceived as extraordinary efforts on their behalf to normalise relations with India and with respect to international nuclear regulatory frameworks, culminating in the 2005 agreement under the Bush administration. The loss of MMRCA led many to speculate that the ‘India outreach program’ had failed. Of course this is nonsense, as continued progress with P-8I, etc. have demonstrated, but what the sentiment revealed was just how unrealistic American expectations of the relationship were in the first place. The Americans saw themselves as magnanimously bringing manna from heaven, whereas India perceived it merely as realpolitik, and their nation finally being accorded the respect it had always deserved.

India is not ignorant of the role the United States would have it play in counter-balancing China. Going forward there will be many areas of shared interest and cooperation between India and the United States — including with respect to China — and this cooperation, conducted between equals, will be of benefit to both nations. But India will never become a pliable American client state; the character of US relations with India will likely more closely resemble those with France than e.g. Australia. MMRCA was a sharp corrective to those in the Washington establishment who thought that India was but a diplomatic mission away from falling under the American umbrella, but it is clear that some still harbour illusions in this respect.

2 more Su-30MK2s delivered to Indonesia.

[URL=”http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/05/17/two-more-sukhoi-fighter-j…“]Two more Sukhoi fighter jets arrive[/URL]

Up to 14 now … that’s like an actual squadron. 😮

We’re less than a decade away from self-driving cars as a technical and commercially scalable reality — the legal issues are likely to take longer to sort out — and these tasks are rather more challenging than most UCAV scenarios.

The relatively anemic progress being made in military aerospace field is largely down to ossified institutional practice. Of course it doesn’t matter so much just now, but in the long run… well, let’s just hope China is as bad or worse at this as the west.

History doesn’t offer much comfort on this score, being full of occasions where one side emerged victorious because it grasped thr potential of new technology more clearly and used it more effectively than others. The success of the German Blitzkrieg against materially superior French forces in WW2, enabled by broad radio communications, is an obvious example.

To a certain extent those who dismiss China’s progress and achievements are making a sensible argument. But then, given the assumption of western superiority, how will we know when China has achieved parity in a particular field e.g. ESM/ECM. The answer is that only one kind of proof is likely to be accepted: the proof of blood.

I find it strange that one camp find the ‘Bang for the bucks’ SH good enough for today and future threats.
While the other camp only see the ‘Astronomical expensive’ F-22 as the only solution to the RAAF.

It is both — and neither. The fallacy is in trying to field one platform across 40 years. The solution back in mid-2000s would’ve been to order 48(+12) Rafales or Typhoons, retire F-111, and reduce active Hornet numbers to 48 with aim of load balancing and life extending the fleet at least until UCAVs arrive in mid-2020s and, if possible, not retiring last of the Hornets until new advanced combat aircraft are available for purchase — maybe even fully mature F-35!

Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock — an adaptive strategy for a challenging era.

Yes, Defence costs money and if we want to do the good stuff we have to back off on the dole payments to put it into ships, planes and APCs.

Expenditure on unemployment assistance is modest and almost certain to decline in the long-run as the proportion of working age Australians decreases. In contrast, expenditure on health, age-related pensions, and aged care already greatly exceeds unemployment assistance and will balloon in future. If we are generous and assume that only 50% of health expenditure goes towards retirees, we can calculate that by 2050 ‘old people’ will cost the nation in excess of 10% of GDP, in stark contrast to the sub-1% figure likely for future unemployment spending. Of course this is not to suggest that old people contribute nothing to Australia, but certainly they contribute far less than does the working age Australian, for whom unemployment assistance is an investment in future productivity. And in this respect numerous studies have already concluded that the current Newstart Allowance is too meagre and is encouraging a cycle of poverty.

In absolute terms, old people are the problem. In relative terms, the greatest issues are declining taxation receipts (as percentage of GDP) and ridiculous middle-class welfare schemes. Only in the bizarre fantasy world that is talkback radio are ‘dole bludgers’ a serious problem to be reckoned with.

I see — I didn’t know about the Il-38s based at INS Hansa! So the P-8s will augment the Tu-142s rather than replace them?

And it’s not just a GFC thing – GFC cannot be blamed for Argentina flying ancient Mirage III/Vs, Eastern European/Middle Eastern countries flying MiG-21s etc. This is a long term trend that started with Cold War collapse which dried up need for fighters as well as subsidised acquisition of fighters.

It is more than that — it is the continuation of a trend which began with the industrial revolution of the instruments of military power requiring greater and greater resources to maintain, leading to a concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands. The citizen increasingly becomes the plaything of the state, as smaller states do of larger ones.

Are either the first or (rumoured) second batch of P-8Is to replace the Tu-142s currently stationed at INS Rajali? Will all P-8s operate from there?