He is a wannabie at least.
Like Stalin? :diablo:
Actually I am often impressed by the breadth of JSR‘s ‘sphere of engagement’, however one-sided its application. It’s like watching one of those fight scenes where everything that isn’t nailed down becomes a weapon to be hurled across the room — knives, plates, chairs, supercomputers… :p
I think Typhoon has the least chance of the candidates listed.
Gripen = cheap and cheerful, lease option
Rafale = beat Typhoon in India on cost, bearing in mind “where India leads, Malaysia follows”.
Super Hornet = American backing, diplomatic-strategic choice
Typhoon = ???
Yes, another intriguing possibility. It would seem to be incompatible with the notion of a ‘hybrid’ EPE/EDE configuration too. In any case, I’m sure we will find out eventually.
Wasn’t there something a while back about SAAB being interested in a hybrid of the EPE/EDE configurations offering ‘only’ an additional 10% thrust over the baseline F414, i.e. ~24,000lb?
All true but what will France do for a second Carrier??? Maybe go back to the CVF at some point?
I think we’ll see a joint French-Brazilian carrier program in the 2020s.
Watch for a possible deal related to targetting pods also.
I don’t see the wisdom in Russia courting Israel over Iran. Israel is (1) already beholden to the United States and (2) strategically insignificant, whereas Iran is one of the few countries able to oppose the American axis of power in the Middle East, esp. what with Syria now falling to bits.
The Russians won’t sell them any engines.
What’s up with that? Why isn’t Russia pushing gear at Iran?
Nope, far from it.
http://defense-update.com/20130104_kaveri_tender.html
The real question is just how much of the development time and money invested over the decades thus far will be evident in this foreign-assisted ‘Son of Kaveri’ 15 years from now.
My guess is that Snecma was pushing for something like 0% of existing design work to be retained and any deviation from that from other prospective bidders will be solely to salve India’s ego at the expense of time, cost, and performance.
Regardless of where AMCA is at relative to KF-X right now, I’d put money on the Koreans reaching IOC first.
Another issue is the politics. A multinational fighter project works the best when there is a lead country to pull the project forward. Having a bunch of nations with “equal” stakes drags the project down in politics.
+1 to this as well.
A lot of nonsense in that article, but I think this takes the cake:
Dean Cheng, a China specialist at the Heritage Foundation, said that another reason the Tu-22M3 would be of little interest to China is that the JH-7 fighter-bomber has characteristics and payload comparable to the Tu-22M3
The Americans view India as a potential ally in the Asian theater against a rising China and would do everything to stop India’s speedy collapse apart from directly involving in the conflict.
For the moment, sure. Give it another thirty years, though, and America will be looking around for allies to contain a rising India. Playing China and India off against one another is an obvious move.
It’s the same in Europe. In NATO the United States has allies that are useful, but non-threatening. They can be pushed around, or ignored. The one thing the United States does not want is the emergence of a united Europe (or South America, come to that) able to threaten American hegemony. America subsidises the defence of the European continent precisely to ensure that it remains weak and fragmented, much as Britain did before it.
Why would America want Pakistan to stay out of it? Only reason I can think of is if India would be defeated too quickly under the combined onslaught.
Remember, we’re talking about the two greatest threats to America’s global primacy. There’s plenty of ‘national security’-type folk who’d love to see India and China tear each other to bits, the more comprehensively the better.
NATO wouldn’t get involved against an adversary that could seriously threaten it. Sending a few unfortunate souls off to bum****istan to placate the United States as it pays for your defence is one thing, actually putting the state on the line is quite another.
Fair point to an extent and i agree with the sentiment. Only problem being is there are generally people who are happy to take advantage of a nation with no or reduced military capability.
You could cut US military expenditure by at least one-third (and probably more) without compromising national security. F-35B and -C would be on the chopping block, -A would survive at reduced numbers.
Nobodies hoping the USA is going to slash defence budgets
Anyone concerned for the health of the nation and the welfare of its citizens is hoping for significant reductions in military expenditure.
Needless to say, this excludes virtually the entire governmental and political apparatus. C’est la vie.