Sure co-developing it with Brazil [….] would be good option for France but I doubt if the sentiment is reciprocated.
Brazil is no hurry to acquire a next generation aircraft let alone develop one.
Brazil is about to buy Rafale, operates a CATOBAR carrier with air wing, plans to build nuclear submarines in cooperation with France and has a National Defense Strategy that explicitly lays out a path to indigenous 5th gen via co-production and technology transfer with an as-yet-unspecified-partner.
EDIT: Pages 30-31
Brazil may not be in a rush, but nor is France.
What will India or Brazil can bring us ?
I know that SAAB can bring something.
Err, money? That’s the only reason cooperation is occurring at all…
One has to pick and choose the essential areas where money is required and what capabilities are advanced enough that they can sustain with simple but effective upgrades..
I agree, and that’s what’s not happening here. The “essential areas” where money needs to be spent is on long-range R&D so that one can field, for example, a world-class AAM when the time comes that such a thing is needed, i.e. in the post-2025 timeframe where the United States can count on neither numerical superiority in theatre nor an overwhelming technology gap in fielded assets.
What is non-essential is a significant proportion of the existing aircraft inventory and personnel and much of the existing basing and organisational infrastructure, i.e. the same places where most of that precious money is actually tied up. If cuts are to be made — as they should be — they should be made there. But we all know why that doesn’t happen: because the armed services are just like any other government bureaucracy, only largely shielded from external pressure from the legislature that other departments are subject to.
🙁
Have to agree with this sentiment. France would be much better served pairing with Brazil (and/or Turkey if they weren’t already tied up with Sweden). Less of a ‘who controls what’ pissing match, and those nations would be more committed to the program given that it would be part of their broader national transformation.
FEFA broke down for a reason. Whilst the incentive for France to compromise may have increased since then (i.e. can’t afford to go it alone) the reasons for not partnering with the UK (total incoherence in procurement and relation to national-strategic strategy, lack of commitment to Typhoon) have also been clearly and recently demonstrated.
What the UK should do … who knows? You have to have some kind of coherent national-strategic picture to even begin to answer the question.
It is about staying up to date with relevant technology, Upgrades give you the ability to add a lot of cutting edge technology into the existing design thereby keeping both the manufacturing base up n running as well as upping your standard missile to latest technology standard.There is no CONFLICT with china, and both US and China are developing their military to be better prepared , against a possible conflict .. The continuous upgrade of the Aim-120 platform that is combat proven , not only adds constant technology upgrade to the US armory but also saves money which can be spent elsewhere….And we dont loose out on developing new technology in the A2A missile arena..
Right, let’s cut R&D and thereby compromise future operational effectiveness viz. peer threats so that we can keep a few more strategically irrelevant ANG F-16s flying around for another five years. :rolleyes:
The priorities are so backwards here it’s laughable. And yeah, the PLAAF is laughing as they go ahead with PL-12D et al.
The AIM120 is a sound design, instead of going after a completely new design, an evolutionay upgrade path for the AMRAAM is a much safer and less expensive bet.
I’m sure China fully supports this assessment.
taking from pakistan defence forum
From that angle it looks like they stole an F-35. 😀
Does anyone know of a detailed (and citeable!) overview of the genesis of the MMRCA program? Would be much appreciated!
That doesn’t read like a delay to me. I mean, obviously FOC was going to come some time after IOC, yes?
It’ll be interesting to see what sort of AEW solutions India and China come up with in the long-term.
2) It seems extra ordinary that the mighty USAF and even the VVS in its prime, chose to have a much higher proportion of light figthers than heavies such as the F-15, and surely they were far better prepared to support their fleets than India presently is.
The leaning towards heavy fighters seems a result of working with rather limited choices/constraints available rather than some need to match some strategic security situation.
Look at the global trends: everyone is going heavy, or at least heavier than ever before. USAF/PLAAF/RuAF don’t even have modern light fighter programs; hell, the F-35 barely even qualifies as a ‘medium’ fighter!
JDRADM is dead, thankfully.
Why “thankfully”? :confused:
Thanks for these updates Mildave, been real useful. =)
Why do you think so? Oldest MKIs won’t be 30 years old until ~2030, and plenty of those built to date will only be around 2 decades old by that time; and given that the IAF still flies MiG-21s, I don’t think they will rush to retire MKIs when FGFA comes about, let alone HALF of the FGFA run.
Perhaps previous post was an exaggeration, but I maintain that it is a mistake to simply add planned FGFA numbers to MKI numbers and conclude that IAF is going to have heavies pouring out of its ears.
I also think it is a mistake to take the MiG-21 experience as barometer of how trends will play out decades down the line. At a certain point retaining aircraft in service becomes inefficient both in terms of cost and capability afforded by doing so. The US in its heyday retired platforms before service life was exhausted all the time.
Agree to the points on the Eastern front. But we are likely to have over 270 x Su-30MKI for the duty. Western front will hardly require heavy fighters in large numbers and the light-medium will do the job. And then there is 250 more PAK-FA/FGFA coming which is going to that make it a good 520 x Heavy MRCA in few decades.
At least the latter half of the FGFA run will be replacing the older MKIs (i.e. those built to date) not supplementing them. I doubt the total number of ‘heavies’ in the IAF will ever surpass 400.