RiiAnyone can see that Putin doesn’t want to invade Ukraine: massive costs, few benefits, and probably unnecessary to secure Russia’s core strategic interests. The real mystery is precisely why the west is intent on changing that calculus by imposing an increasing proportion of the costs that Russia would have to bear in an invasion on Russia anyway, whilst simultaneously making it more difficult for Russia to secure its core strategic interests without invading.
Exactly where the tipping point is that makes the gains from invading Ukraine outweigh the costs and risks, probably nobody outside the Kremlin knows. But one thing is certain: the west has been consistently pushing Russia in that direction for months now (years if you go back to funding the overthrow of Yanukovych).
RiiWhat I find most astonishing about all this is the non-zero chance of major conflict between NATO and Russia emerging out of the Ukrainian crisis. It is IN-*******-CREDIBLE to think that conflict is more plausible today than at most points during the Cold War. And the responsibility for that must be laid clearly at the feet of the generation of western politicians and bureaucrats who haven’t the slightest inkling of strategic thought.
George Kennan warned the world twenty years ago that expanding NATO eastward was a disastrous miscalculation that would eventually lead to conflict with Russia (which he also correctly predicted we would blame on Russian aggression). Today, we have heavyweights like Lech Walesa warning of the dire consequences of sending arms and supplies to Ukraine as many western politicians are now advocating. Meanwhile, the reality-TV-show circus of blunderers in the form of Obama, Cameron, et al. seem intent on spiralling this situation well and truly out of control. Until now the damage these people (and their predecessors) have wrought has been limited by their selection of targets: Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. (no consolation to the citizens of those nations) But this is something altogether different.
Unless some grown-ups take control of this situation fast and begin negotiating for Ukraine to serve as a neutral buffer state, I fear the very worst out of all this. And of course, under almost all conceivable scenarios it is Ukraine’s people who will suffer the most from the totally inept bumbling of the west, as they have to date.
RiiWhat is the consensus on what is going to happen with China’s 500+ remaining J-7s (and Q-5s, J-8s…) At current production rates China can’t hope to replace more than a fraction of existing airframes, so will we see —
a.) significant increase in production rates
b.) aircraft retired without replacement and units disbanded
c.) units transition to other capability types e.g. airlift, unmanned systems
d.) some combination of the above
RiiResponding to Deino over in KF-X thread:
Anyway a certain counterweight from India and Korea against China wouldn’t be far from bad. … as such I really don’t understand why both do not cooperate
Honestly I suspect that virtually any alternative pathway for AMCA would be preferable to the current one, i.e. wandering along in a desultory fashion while —
a) Tejas can still be taken so much further, i.e. Tejas Mk. 3 incorporating RCS shaping and materials advancements, analogues to F-35 EODAS and helmet system, TVC, etc. generating valuable capability for IAF and increasing lessons learned for industry
b) domestic development objectives can be better and more cost-effectively pursued via IUSAV and future developments/derivatives (in addition to Tejas)
c) critical issues such as ongoing lack of an ENGINE(!!!!1) and (apparent) lack of any consideration for carrier compatibility despite IN’s long-term need for such an aircraft are ignored
d) potential cost- and risk-reducing partnerships with France, Russia, Japan, S. Korea, Brazil, etc. are ignored
If things go ahead as they are now, I expect AMCA will be a repeat of the LCA story — only much more expensive, and far less excusable.
RiiEDIT: Moved AMCA post to IAF thread.
RiiBy the way with all these “5th generation ducklings” which are just incubated anywhere (Turkey, Indi, Korea, …) or are hatchling from the eggs (China, Japan) … it will be interesting to see how or these can proceed …
Need more belligerence from China to boost regional military spending! 😉
Re: Turkey & TF-X, I still think the Turkey-Sweden-Brazil axis is one to watch.
RiiWhat damages the credibility of posters is that if it is a news source posting something positive about India Air Farce we are led to believe it is gospel and accurate news. if it is a negative story you rush to discredit the source.
If it suits you to think this way, go ahead. But it is not posters like TR1, BlackArcher, myself, etc. who’ve had their credibility on IAF matters discredited by their posting habits, I assure you.
RiiIn reality the EJ200 doesn’t have many future orders left whereas F414 is set for a decade more.
I think a more prominent consideration would be which engine is likely to receive further investment without S. Korea having to fund that itself. None of the candidates are particularly promising in that respect, with EJ200 probably having the most limited prospects vs. US Navy still highly invested in Super Hornet, and French reliance on M88 (is M88/Snecma even in the picture for KF-X??) coupled with possibility of external funding via UAE.
Future joint creation of a successor engine in ~2035-2040 timeframe should also be part of the calculus. Although there is no need to link one project to the other, it is worth noting that US is unlikely to need a successor to F414, relying exclusively on large engines going forward.
But for one F414EPE you could just have F100-PW-229EEP with change to spare.
Where are you getting these engine prices from? It would seem strange for F100 — a significantly larger engine — to be cheaper than F414 (which, even if not reaching the volumes of F100/110 families, is hardly a low-volume project like M88) unless it is simply not up to the same standard of technology. Given the timescale of the project, and the importance of SFC for lifecycle cost, lower acquisition cost for inferior technology and higher lifecycle cost would likely be an unacceptable trade-off.
RiiEven reading a Daily Mail article (I haven’t) is to give the publication too much credit.
Riieurojet is nice, but flakey. look at the eurofighter program and promises all around about its potential but implementation taking forever.
best korea stick to american
The proposed developments for EJ200 (EJ220/230) are in the same place as F414 EPE and M88-9t: “give us the money and we will make it happen.”
RiiHas any thought been given to integration of child-of-IUSAV/Aura within IAF squadron structures in service of meeting overall combat strength requirements? I raise this not only because integration and coordination of unmanned systems with existing force structures is an interesting (and seemingly unaddressed) topic in itself, but also in relation to concerns that IAF force structure will be too heavy going forward (~20 sq. of MKI/FGFA). In addition to LCA Mk. II, IUSAV/Aura seems the major possibility in terms of bolstering the ‘light/affordable’ component of IAF squadron strength in the 2025+ environment.
RiiSerious in that there are no more An-124s to be bought, so one can’t consider it. You have to look at what’s still on the market. That means Il-76 & derivatives (cargo box limited – narrow & low), A400M, C-2, & a few white tail C-17s which will have to be bought soon or not at all. Which I think is what Spitfire meant.
With the demise of An-124 pathway, Russia will need a replacement at some point. JV with India is a possibility, although obviously this would have to be conditioned on successful execution of Il-214/MTA program. OTS purchase is also possible, and perhaps more likely. In any case, PD-30 engine for such an aircraft is already under development for joint Sino-Russian widebody.
RiiRiiI suspect they wanted the planes to be able to take off from the carrier.
RiiOh there’s no question that across all aspects of the respective incidents, from the circumstances and nature of the engagement to the subsequent government response, the United States’ behavior makes Russia look like a model international citizen. Russia both agreed to an international investigation and issued a front-page apology to the Netherlands shortly after the incident and they didn’t even shoot the bloody plane down. Where was the US apology to Iran in the days following IA655?
Let us recall that the United States lied both to its own citizens and the world about virtually every material aspect of what happened and then, even after said lies had been exposed, expressed no remorse (“I will never apologise for the United States, I don’t care what the facts are” — former Vice President, Presidential Candidate, and later President of the United States George H. W. Bush) and gave the military personnel responsible a medal, before buying off UN involvement. In contrast, even Australia’s Prime Minister has been forced to concede that Putin has said “all the right things”.
All in all, it’s pretty much the standard American response whenever one of the atrocities they routinely commit around the world comes to light: deny it, lie about it, reject international involvement, reward the people responsible.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, but they do make listening to the mindless bleating from certain nations very trying.
Sign In
