Tiffy gonna walk away with the Japanese contract, you heard it here first. 😎
I for one am glad that Australia has evidently decided to stay out of this particular mess, the efforts of our glorious Foreign Minister (and former Prime Minister) to get us involved notwithstanding.
American jets, Russian jets, French jets … all made in China!
and conduct some RAN specific modification
Oh dear. :p
Someone should tell the local council & local newspaper. It’d be nice to see ’em demanding the name is kept.
Done. 🙂
My thoughts are rather shallow: MiG-23 is a great-looking design marred by Soviet build quality of the era. Not so much a fan of the -27 on account of the nose.
The plan is to have nearly as much MRCA as the Su 30s. A recent report suggested an order of 260 (eventually), in that case the Gripen makes the most sense.
The IAF’s budget by the time MMRCA order is complete will probably be double what it is today. They can afford it.
It is smaller and single engine so it is entirely logical that it is cheaper. (about 40% less than a rafale).
But you won’t have the figher power and the range nor the retained performance with heavier loads. As shown in the lybian conflict significant sustain figher power at long range is an important factor to be effective. If you put aside the ToT or early develomment issues the choice between a lighter and a heavier aircraft depends of your level of ambition and operational capability search. For point sky-policing or light attack missions the gripen would be very relevant. But for sutsain intensive campains where you need to destroy most of your ennemy infrastructure then heavier aircrafts are more capable.
Well that’s what Su-30s are for. 😎
I’ve always thought that Gripen NG’s prospects were largely a function of IAF/MoD’s confidence or lack thereof in the LCA program. Continued issues with Kaveri aside, they seem to be pushing ahead with it on all fronts which is why my thoughts have swung to Rafale/Typhoon, ultimately settling on the former on account of Rafale’s ready naval variant, the existing France-India defence relationship, and Rafale appearing to be the more mature platform with more reliable development prospects going forward.
I tip India to select Rafale, Brazil and Switzerland to select Gripen NG, Japan to select Typhoon and Korea to select F-15SE. Let’s see how many I get right. 😀
curious, i send defense specialised sources, and you send your own “maths”!
Gripen C is 68$m fly away as reported into the polish bid, i doubt Gripen NG can be cheaper as the tiny Saab traders screams out actually! as your assemption on Jobim “bias” or credibility, he is among the few of ex gov in brazil, this tells more about credibility support it has from political and military responsables!
and when he says that Rafale is at same price as Gripen, 6$b it means lower than SH and Rafale isn’t a demonstrator plane that production people even never ever saw it on the paper,with costs never seriously evaluated
By all accounts Gripen’s excellent value for money comes largely from its low operating costs rather than acquisition cost. I doubt that Rafale can compete in that regard.
Yep, the Largs Bay, offers greater cargo carrying capacity than the current RAN amphibious force, but not as much personnel or helicopter capacity.
I meant taking into account that Largs Bay is actually operational/seaworthy. 😉
What are the chances of Australia at some point taking over a 2nd Bay class? 2 LHD + 2 LPD isn’t too bad relative to 3 LHD.
Not very likely I think. As I mentioned earlier, the 2 LHD + Largs Bay arrangement will represent a quantum leap over existing capabilities. Hell, right now Largs Bay alone represents a quantum leap over existing capabilities! Also I imagine New Zealand’s recently acquired HMNZS Canterbury figures into the force structure planning picture in some fashion also.
I use the word intent because my understanding is that sea trials are still required. if thats not the case and we have bid for it…. and won…who else was bidding?
Canada and Chile were two other nations interested in it as I recall, maybe some others too; but who knows how it all actually went down. I take your point about the sea trials, just that it could’ve been read merely as Australia offering Britain $100m for the ship which isn’t really news as our interest in it has been known for some time now. The news is that the Brits have apparently agreed to sell it to us for that price.
It does seem rather cheap. What is that … an F-35? 😮
I guess crewing/operational costs predominate for these kinds of vessels.
maybe an alternative would be to build a third LHD in australia as an eventual replacement for the Largs Bay??? I believe it would be the largest warship ever built in Australia….
The two LHDs + Largs Bay will already represent a quantum leap over existing capabilities, given other funding pressures I think a third LHD is unlikely. I’d rather a fourth Hobart-class destroyer in any case. 😀
Confirmation in the news today that Australia is intent on buying the RFA Largs Bay for the price of A$100 million(around 65 million pounds)-apparently it should be worth 130 million pounds brand new
Just to clarify, The Australian claims that Australia has been successful in its bid for Largs Bay.
2- considering the ship is 5 years old, will it continue in service after Canberra and Adelaide are fully in service? And if so does this kill the possibility of a third LHD?
I should think ‘yes’ to both.
India has too much on its plate to handle Typhoon development alone, even if it wanted to. Japan is the only real hope for the continued evolution of the platform.