The endless “intellectual property” butthurt is amusing not least of all because it originates chiefly from that nation which, of all nations of present and historical significance, has contributed by far the least to the human song, indeed which does not even have a language to call its own. Even its greatest achievements — the space program and the atomic bomb — were built on the backs of intellect and intellectual endeavour lifted wholesale from Europe.

Of course there are other reasons to scorn such sentiments: the very notion of ‘intellectual property’ being intellectually, morally and historically bankrupt, and the history of human progress being synonymous with the propagation of ideas, from Chinese gunpower to Arabian Christianity. The very least that one can note is that concerns over who invented what become entirely academic (in the most scornful sense of the word) in the face of the purpose for which these items are intended, i.e. war.

Money. France planned to build two, but politicians took the money away. Brazilian politicians never provided the money for more than one. For many years, they didn’t provide money for any fixed-wing aircraft for the Brazilian navy carrier, leading it to be given as a nickname the name of a TV soap character who suffered from erectile dysfunction. 😀 And so on . . .

I wouldn’t underrate the Brazilian achievement. Sao Paulo and her air wing may not count for much, but it maintains Brazilian carrier operations expertise in general — and CATOBAR expertise in particular — that can be built upon in future and which is decidely lacking in certain other nations… :rolleyes:

Hope that the deal for the heavy lift helicopter goes to the Chinook rather than the Mi-26T.

Why?

If BVR missiles would produce an “abysmal failure,” why does Russia, China, Israel, France, the US, India, and for that matter -everyone else- go to such great lengths to design and field these weapons?

[….]

You are operating in a completely different reality than that shared by every military on earth.

In 1914 every military in Europe shared the “cult of the offensive” that was the product of lessons learned from Prussia in the 19th century — and look where it got them. “Accepted military wisdom” came face to face with “reality”.

History tells us that militaries adapt only when they are forced to recognise that the status quo is no longer tenable. It is not a coincidence that the US Army is the most adaptive of the three American services: it is the most adaptive because it has been forced to adapt through regular exposure to significant challenges*. The Navy is the most conservative of the American armed services because it hasn’t had to do anything since 1945.

Current American airpower thinking raises multiple red flags in this respect: a long period of unchallenged superiority breeding complacency, coupled with doctrine (stealth and BVR) divorced from experience. The recent emergence of the American idea that kinematic performance no longer matters is a case in point: it is post-hoc, a product of the entirely unimpressive kinematic performance of the Super Hornet and F-35. The doctrine did not inform the platform (unimpressive kinematic performance being an unintended consequence of various other features of the programs in question) but rather the platform dictated the doctrine. The establishment is eating its own bull****, in what must be described as a “late phase” of degeneracy.

The tests you point to indicate merely that certain facets of the military establishment are not entirely blind to the dangers here. It does not demonstrate that current American airpower doctrine can actually survive peer conflict scenarios. Indeed, I suspect that the kinds of folks who arranged for these tests would be the first to tell you that they need more, more varied and more realistic testing.

The sole bright point here is one that you’ve already identified — that other nations are (to a greater or lesser degree) following America’s lead, predicated on the theory that the world’s most powerful nation must know what it is doing (a dubious proposition at best). We can see this most obviously with the push in India to emulate American defence-industrial practices, entirely ignoring the possibility that American military prowess arises not because of this system but in spite of it. Any flaws in American-led doctrine, as with Prussian-led doctrine in 1914, will thus be exploitable by both sides: If America’s carriers turn out to be floating graveyards, well, soon there’ll be plenty of other carriers around for America to sink in exchange too.

* Of course all adaptation is relative to a niche. Whether it is actually a good and/or desireable idea to adapt the US military to the kinds of warfare it has most recently experienced is another discussion entirely.

I hear that the F-35 accelerates like a Saturn V.

So this is an unreasonable thread?

It’s a blatant ‘hay guys look at my site’ thread, so yeah…

Is the UK in more of a hurry than India/Brasil Rii?

No, but then that wasn’t asserted as one of the issues with France partnering with the UK.

All cynicism and bitterness and nationalist posturing aside, I think one can readily acknowledge that the risk in such a joint venture is mostly if not entirely on the French side: they don’t have evolved F-35, X-47, NGAD, etc. to turn to if things start to look too difficult/expensive in a future election cycle. As such, one can expect the French to take a fairly hard line re: design/workshare so as to insulate their industry (and therefore strategic autonomy) from vagaries across the channel, and this hard line will itself likely bring about the collapse of any negotiations, just as occurred with FEFA.

The commitment issue is a structural/strategic one, not simply a matter of political mudslinging or snide comments about Typhoon vs. F-35. Brazil would be a better partner for France than the UK because Brazil would be committed to the project in a way that the UK would not and cannot be.

I think it’s great that Indonesia and Australia are conducting exercises together. Long may friendly relations and all the hugs and kisses that go with them endure. Doesn’t change the fact that the Indonesia’s rise represents a significant shift in Australia’s regional security environment. Don’t confuse prudence with alarmism.

But anyway, the Indonesians expressed plans to acquire up to 180 Flankers in total within next decade or so. The missiles on their shopping list are R-27, R-73, R-77, Kh-29 and Kh-31 plus KAB-500L series bombs. Wonder how much of that will they be really able to afford.

Matter of domestic politics really. In any case Indonesia should be focussed on establishing strong fundamentals (i.e. personnel, infrastructure & logistics, industry, etc.) for the future rather than maximising the number of shiny toys flying around in the present.