What are the prospects for a follow-on Su-34 order post-2015?

Between the Su-24M upgrade, the MiG-31BM upgrade incorporating ground attack capability, the Tu-22M3 upgrade and restart of Su-25 production I’m a bit unclear as to what the Su-34 is actually replacing here…

Its not harsh, its clear that on many issues the Air Force & HAL/ADA don’t see eye to eye. Air Chiefs while in service downplays it and praises HAL but once they retire the truth emerges, Krishnaswamy,F.H Major, Tyagi all same in that count.

We should Privatize it all with 49% foreign investment from friendly nations.

I’m not sure how you can look at global trends over the last few decades and conclude that privatization is the way to go. You want to end up in the situation the US has now with Lockheed Martin?

Well in light of recent events I think we can put any speculation regarding Rafale in UK service to rest. :rolleyes:

Glug, glug, glug, Europe.

^ Indeed. As to what the A400M would offer now over the C-130J/C-17 combination: numbers.

Instead of looking at operating four different transport platforms each at anaemic numbers, absolutely terrible in terms of logistics, we could operate three platforms each in greater numbers, with implications for training and maintenance costs, basing flexibility, resilience of capability in the face of combat losses, etc.

The only real loss would be the inability to lift the M1 Abrams. But then guess what else I think we could do without? :rolleyes:

I’m not going to defend the MRH-90 acquisition, though. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

your obviously not a part of the ADF are you?

Nope. Between the eyesight and the asthma and the long-term psychiatric issues it was kinda a lost cause.

and afghanistan is alot more than a cluster **** i can assure you…. as my dead warrior brothers will attest to

Sacrifices on the altar to America. You have my condolences.

And armed neutrality? REALLY???? that will help us protect this country…. not… :rolleyes:

It’s worked for Switzerland under far more perilous circumstances. And in any case it’s certainly preferable to actively endangering the nation as allowing American troops to be based here does.

But the funny thing is — and this is me with my realist hat on — we don’t actually need to be America’s BFF to derive the benefits — such as they are — of American hegemony. To put it bluntly, America’s commitment to regional stability is not contingent on our relationship with America, no more than America’s intervention in the Pacific in WW2 actually had anything to do with saving those poor Aussies and their cute Koalas.

The prospect of intreoperability bonuses with the US makes you wretch?

As a factor in decision-making, yes. I think Australia could do with a whole lot less ‘inter-operating’ with the United States in general. My vision for Australian national security – forever to remain unrealised – is one of armed neutrality. So the prospect of making acquisition decisions around the notion of playing a supporting role in Yet Another American Cluster**** ala Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan doesn’t thrill me, no.

Turns out Cameron was even more upset about the MMRCA loss than he was letting on.

It seems alot of the ‘indigenous’ indian programmes require significant levels of co-operation? :confused:

And? :confused: